Bundle 2

Tommer said"I have seen what i think may be goat moth larvae, which make holes similar to yours...." Never seen goat moth caterpillars in "gregarious" burrowing...ie, alot of holes together. It was my first thoght. I guess it's hard to know quitye what sequence of events has occurred here. There is obviously quite a bit of debis associated... Goat moth.So called for it's smell. Cossus cossus. Goat Moth Cossus cossus - UKMoths

Those authority issues are mine...you get your own mate! ( wot no smiley? )

Thanks for the reply. I think perhaps an aspect I seem to be isolating is thus: Reading the PDF posted re:Richmond Park ( Natural England ) I note that designation is not for the habitat per se. David pointed out that RP is also SAC (Richmond Park - Special Area of Conservation - SAC - Habitats Directive ) Designation appears to be for deadwood fauna. Without wishing to undermine the effectiveness with which said designation manages to ensure the retention of vets/ancient trees coupled with sustainable management, Is it not of concern that the process fails to recognise the habitat by default? This is quite illogical? The loss of habitat ensures a lack of biodiversity. The existence of habitat without the presence of qualifying species only lacks a passing of time before there will exist, qualifying criteria. Assuming we get to it in sufficient time but also, we are united in a common, recognizable goal.

Nevermind the rant. We are all human. If it did nt get to you once in while, you'd likely be a bit strange! How do you see the best way of proceeding Sean? With respect the drawing up of legislation/protection/recognition. I recall some short while ago the New Zealand govt declaring tree legislation was cumbersome and expensive; that it was not practical and expedient and thwarted development.The removal of any system that requires some assessment of an asset, effectively fails to ascribe a value....Obvious I hear you say. And so it is. We have legislation here as I n sure you are well aware. We manage to whinge and moan about it's idiosyncrasies as only pommes could! I think there are parrallels between the situation in Aus and the UK. Biodiversity and ecologically, we are not similar.Land bridge and migration of species is quite utterly incomparable. In terms of the pressure to relinquish property for development however, I believe we are seeing many of the same things. Good old credit crunch! In some ways though, this will only work against us. I know only too well that the development of the urban environment in Melbourne fir instance, tends to follow a slightly different format.There are similar difficulties however. Lack of investment in the infrastructures design leads to an unsustainable end product. Relying heavily on services that contradict desireable goals re : carbon emissions/green technology/International discussion and agreement. Im quite sure you will have thought about this. From your comments ( I am not seeking to hoist you with your petard Hoist with your own petard ) it is not sufficient to eek away at odd bits of legislation for this and that, as & when. Tim

Quite so. Here are some other links you may find helpful in the interim...? Welcome to Wild About Britain | Wild About Britain Fungi and a few slime moulds Fungi Photo Gallery by larose forest photos at pbase.com http://www.mycolog.com/fifthtoc.html

Lijnk 4's a goodun'. Designated SAC ....reason-Deadwood fauna! There is increasingly a case for further protection? Or do we feel that coming at it sideways will suffice? The end result is the same. Excuse me Sean...derailing. I will stop right now!

Thanks Dave! ( Edit: links 3 & 4 not working for me....)

I think Tony even contributed to this thread's derailment...! How's that for double standards?

Its interesting to think that the deadwood fauna and grass is what makes this site a designated SSSI. Arguably, not about the trees, well, only indirectly.

I think this is what I took from the Lynn Body presentation a while back. Ill get this wrong now if I try and recall her remark but she seemed to show a wry expression of resignation in this regard. Classic is the relative bad press the Armillaria gets. In the woodland setting, a benign recycler, rarely needing to compete. In the manicured garden where "hygiene" is rife, it seems it is quite capable of entering it's prey and demise can be swiftly dealt!

You gotta not miss any biggies on the inspection. Dont waffle, only include whats relevant (ie-those observations giving rise to recommendations) and keep it real. You could try using a scoring system with bullet point headers. re: Structural . Physiological. Age class. Remember to annotate the scale on the sheet. You need only do this once at the bottom as it applies to all inspections but the examiner needs to understand what you intend by each value. Quick & simple. Food for thought eh?

I would say monitor the development of the bracket(s) and keep us posted with some images. Perhaps we will know more as the story unfolds? Tim

Armillaria has gotten a bad reputation, especially in gardens it seems. As a rule of thumb, folk over tend the garden and this "hygenic" approach seems to have given rise to the prominence of armillaria. A reputation that may not be a balanced view.

Kind of hard to see.The brackets look to have a crusted and cracking top surface....Is that about right? If so, I would say probably White Trunk rot (aka Phellinus igniarius) Looks typical at the base to me. Typical strategy, emerging higher up the stem. It moves quite quick. Intense white rot of the stem. Often no signs from the canopy. (til later stages) All the same, perhaps a second opinion would be helpful...? edit...I m really not convinced it is Phellinus now I look again at those images mate! Sorry!

Hi mIles.. Not liking the look of that ....The brown areas look necrotic. Vascular function, well, no vascular function I would say. Sunburn it is! next stop, post the invites for bacterial/fungal party.... Its not certain to end in death of the plant I would say. I was looking at some beech in a woodland over the w/e. Some were 3/4 ringbarked from deer browsing; historical. The woundwood has never been allowed to seal the damage....The crowns were all well despite the sandy, free draining breckland soils and recent dry conditions . You should try some measure to reduce the heats' effects mate. If the tree is otherwise well established and vital, I would be hopeful that it should prevail. Welcome to the forum mate!

Endangered is not the same as "Protected" though is it? A surprising reticence by DEFRA or Natural England (or whichever body) The deseases found in colonies of honeybees that are managed, some are notifiable. American Foul Brood amongst them. I found some interesting links here.... https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/beebase/index.cfm

Im not sure you will succeed in taking me with you there Tony. I do not think it is sensible to suggest we need Phd's to be taken seriously. For the same reasons I think, I have reservations about some of your remarks re: education & changes to the national recognition and scoring framework. Sorry mate. Perhaps I read more than you intended into the remark above? Not all of us would achieve this level. What happens to the industry whilst , as students, we spend disproportionate time and money on gaining quals? I am not a big fan of the trend in this country for ascribing certification for everything we do, say, and so on, let alone the certs for auditing the audit trail...!. Nanny state gone mad...HSE gone mad...there's no end to it! It becomes a victim of it's own design as confusion is perpetuated , not diminished. That said, I fully accept and recognize the need for an accessible an universal qualifications structure as well as the quals themselves. Just as I do, the advantages that experience and wisdom bring to the party. As always, simplicity and balance are key imo. Chin up Andrew. Its probably time the developed world woke up to the reality that our material standard of living is not sustainable anyway, and tried harder to connect with the rest of the ( it could be said ) starving populations on the planet. If we are smart ( educated) civilised and hold social values of health and well being whilst managing to extend some empathy to our fellow man, we will indeed be rich.

Thanks for taking the time to post. You'll get no argument from me. As tree care professionals, we will inescapably involve ourselves, and our clients, in this process. To varying degrees, depending on the nature of the work and the capacity in which we are engaged. You have neatly summed up some of the discussion to your own "idealistic" assertion. ( I do not disagree I hasten to add! ) "...ne of the challenges that I am facing with my attempt to re-enter the UK Arb profession after 20 years........ a conditioned consulting arborist in Queensland I cannot match my current business package (equivalent to UK £49,500 a year) with salary packages in Britain..." ( my edit! ) This you say is indicative of the way we value trees....again; no argument. Are we though to work as tree care professionals, or teachers to the rest of society..the public? Other sector industry...? or both? And will we be recompensed for this additional burden? ( Not very likely frankly) I can see no other way forward. Tree valuation/perception must change. Someone else has posted this earlier ( perhaps Andrew?) It is repeated over and over on threads Im sure. Forum discussion is only weakly populated by the educated/consultant/approved individual working in arboriculture anyway ( Ill wager the majority are contractual skilled labour )....What does that tell you about attitudes in this country? I was only suggesting that consultant arbs should "consult" Engineers should "engineer" etc etc...Its not rocket science. It is the only practical solution to the industry's difficulties. Without the professional recognition, we cannot hope to be engaged with other sector industry on an equal footing. I for one will not be "baying" for recognition! So Cassian , how does it feel to come back to the uk for double the work load, half the money and an industry in which your efforts are thwarted or ignored or regarded with some suspicion and disbelief?

It puts me in mind of the saying.."buy a dog and bark yourself"....

This has strayed somewhat from VTA has n't it...! There are no systems ,as far as I know, which set out how to be a good consultant. This is at the root of so much of the discussion around qualifications imo. Sorry, back on topic!

Sorry mate...it was a bit of a "how long is a piece of string? " Glad you found it informative. Have you an update on the tree in question? I relish the opportunity to feel important and knowledgeable ...it doesnt happen very often eh!

Quite an interesting thread guys.....! Some useful links and reading lists. I approve! I note with interest, the comments about simplification. I thought I saw a degree of confusion in the comments. I have revised this view and indeed, Claus maybe guilty of oversimplifying. I certainly dont think that in a scenario where the numbers and values cannot be ascertained with any certainty, they should be extrapolated upon any further in an attempt to extend credence to the scholarly nature and pseudo reliability (robustness)of said analysis. Robustness is the issue with the data from the T/R ratio isnt it...I mean basically, too small a sample distribution? This flaw is hereditary when comparing other sample distributions against it. Why would you if you know its' flawed? I mean, what's to be gained? It was precisely because of the impossibilty of attaching real values to the equations that I was (personally) happy to see Claus at the latest UK seminar, quite deliberately making this important point and consciously moving to strike! The thread has highlighted some important points for me. When we talk about "how much we value trees.." I am conscious we are engaged in a two way street. We value trees as a professional, require expensive(relatively) assessment techniques, we succeed in being very "right-on" but not for the customer (the public perception of trees) Ownership and maintenance along with modern techniques and practices become onerous! Ignore your gut feelings about the apparent contradictions of drilling samples from a stressed tree because you have its longevity, welfare as the central issue and you compromise the treecare issues . Ive a feeling Marcus contradicted your empiric assessment of inspection steps Andrew but cant find the thread to confirm whether this was a significant alteration or not. Good thread and appreciate the contributions. Nice one!

Marcus...I will of course hold you to that! You are most welcome Mr Arb culture , sir!

Mmmmm...Its a weird mix of vague and yet prescriptive and formulaic.....Quite the trick!

I think this one is my favourite... "93.6.2.1.1 All recommendations other than removal of the tree should contain an advisory that all potential structure and stability concerns associated with any tree cannot be eliminated.... " this.. " Scheduling inspections shall be the responsibility of the tree owner...." The same as it is here I suppose ( owners/occupiers liability Act etc..) but what do they know. What are they supposed to know. At level 2. Its a toughey but I guessthe arbs are trying to avoid appearing like they either know something the rest of us dont, or they are simply giving themselves a right to print money.....(?)