Bundle 2

No problem ...my "turn of phrase" was perhaps not very helpful. PTI is alright.

Spot on Tony...worst case scenario, mitigate and move on....(repeat as necessary)

Without knowing the specific details of the arrangements you may have made in this direction, i would say you are best off acquiring the reading list . In this regard you are most likely to get a satisfactory ( as in comprehensive ) answer from Treelife. IIRC, a reading list is published in the back of the "workbook" designed for the course. ( designed in turn by D,Dowson of the aforementioned Treelife.)Hope this helps!

I ve done PTI and it aint s**t with respect depth of knowledge of decay technology......

No thermal imaging thread ia complete without the contributions of this man...click on the link! Homepage Catena & Thermography "Treethermography" since 1984

Sorry to post a bit random but heres a link to decay detection technology...Sorry if it is posted elsewhere already! Homepage Catena & Thermography "Treethermography" since 1984

Other threads discuss 1/10,000 It starts here... 1:10,000 And can be followed on from here... UKTC Archive :: tree-care.info

Mmmmm...thats just it,,,0.9 is not the same thing as 9/10. We are talking about probability remember! "im sure there are many trees in which QTRA is not appropriate to be used on " i dont know about that mate. It can certainly be used in all situations but it will only ever give you a quantified assessment (ie a probabalistic calculation) If you want a health report or a VTA based appraisal of the mechanics of a trees structure, then you are using the wrong tool! Simple!

You do not need to understand the maths to any great extent.You can still use the system. I see delegates getting their knickers in a twist about how it all works and getting completely the wrong end of the stick..( as incidently I think you have by posting the little brainteaser you did...) and jumping to conclusions because the numbers seem to work out that way or something....Mike actually made a pretty good fist of baby stepping folk through the various sticking points. Its easy for some of us to throw our hands in the air declaring the whole arb world is thick but that simply isnt the case...People can be taught to see a system as the queries are answered and most are on board with it by the end...including the most sceptical! I really dont want to end up in the QTRA frontline as some diehards have before me...My advice is if you think its full of s**T, you need to go get your mind right and do the training! Im done here guys...

This is SO TRUE..... (Allen Carrs's "Easy Way To Stop Smoking"-worked for me!)

Oh dear Drew. (I keep a small spyglass in my kit...just to get a better look at the TIP) Rotten luck; ...Take it easy mate.

You may think that you are not deconstructing but I would take issue with this in light of the above comment....?Just saying you arnt doesnt make it not so if you can follow my meaning... Hama:"I think there are a lot of variables in the target calculator, too many realisticaly" My advice is to not go there mate...Until you grasp the underlying mathematics you will continue to misrepresent the QTRA method. It is only my opinion. For me it is head & shoulders above any other system out there, and as you know there are a few. They remain muddled and confused and utterly without a tangible explanation to all but arboriculturalists. Whilst we owe a debt of gratitude to the work of Matheny & Clark for example, development of a system that is both usable and "good 4 the industry" is desirable. This is what I believe the QTRA system is able to deliver. I am not trying to persuade your goodself to invest in this before PTI . I think though that you will benefit considerably from attending the whole "licensing" process. It is a bit like walking up the mountain. Everytime you think the summit is upon you. it infact gives way to another climb. So it is with the system. There is alot more to the method than you may think. It can be used in ways that only serve to consolidate your appreciation of the "neat" system and principles that you come back to over and again. Reassuringly sensible in a sea of otherwise white noise frankly. Thats enough waxing lyrical for anyone I think!

I am LANTRA Pro Tree Insp'...QTRA licensed user and VTA trained. I dont see any value in deconstruction that seeks to separate one thing from another. More that each contributes an element of tree related issues that without the others, is somehow less effective. I would consider myself at a stage that is perhaps the minimum necessary to work in a consultative capacity. I have also trained in BS5837, TPO legislation ..... Quals' are a bit a load of BS tbh. You can hold them and not be any good. You can be perhaps completely without formal academic qualifications, and be a very knowledgeable and effective arborists...one does not necessarily follow the other.

Euclypts can be maintained in bonsai stature with ease and take well to being kept in check...Being evergreen they dont look too bad if done from an early stage... Having said that...they would need to be kept in check judging by their proximity to the building. Wrong choice of species for this location IMO and having said that, they put in 2 trees right next to each other! Bonsai and hope for the best or remove and replant. If you chose the dig 'em up route it would be a plan to root prune around them in season 1, and dig them up proper in season 2. This perpetuates a proliferation of fibrous rooting mass ( feeder roots) and will increase the success rate of transplanting them . (PS. I cant quite make it out but if the garden boundary is a wall with foundations then it only serves to strengthen the case for removal...)

A> I would take issue with such a statement of certainty.... B>Red oaks can, and commonly do, live to be considerably older than 70 years....Its somewhat subjective as a tree is the product of its environment, past & present. The wood is lousy however! C>Maybe...maybe not! Its a bit late in the day to do much about isnt it?

This is what Andy Summerly has to say about it in relation to the fungi rec' & response course...(Treelife ) Its hard to disagree with what little is said here...I hope it helps! "Collybia fusipes • Sometimes confused with Armillaria • Decays roots and rarely extends above ground level • Specific type of decay remains unknown • Logically leads to loss of vigour and ultimately tree failure" Gets cited in Strouts & Winter (pgs 220-221)and again with some id detail pg228....

One imagines that we are talking about Collybia fusipes? Collybia fusipes - Google Search This artice conserns the relationship with pedunculate oak..... http://rparticle.web-p.cisti.nrc.ca/rparticle/AbstractTemplateServlet?calyLang=eng&journal=cjfr&volume=31&year=2001&issue=5&msno=x01-007 There was a whole thread about this started by Phenom about a year ago...have a search?

At the end of the day you gotta get some money out of your clients or you go bust.....You probably did the right thing. Bad luck mate!

I dont seem to have a "sent" folder so cannot check if a message I sent as PM was a figment of my imagination or not....

This taken from Canadian Forest Service "Accounts from Europe report beech bark disease, caused by the fungus Nectria galligena Bres., has been killing beech trees (Fagus spp.) since before 1849. Until 1914, the beech scale insect Cryptococcus fagisuga (Lind.) was thought to be the causal agent of the damage. It was then learned that the Nectria fungus actually infected the trees through the feeding wounds of the insect and resulted in the damage. In North America beech bark disease has been attributed to N.coccinea (Pres.:Fr.)Fr. var. faginata Lohman, Watson & Ayers, although the native species of N. galligena (Bres.) is also known to be a causal agent of beech bark disease. " Beech bark disease (<em>nectria coccinea</em> var.<em> faginata</em>) in Ontario - Canadian Forest Service This is the conidial form (asexual) of the "Quaternaria spp " which is known to host by beech (Strouts & Winter pg 102 ) Libertella faginea - Wild About Britain I think if you'd told us that Bulgaria inquinans was hosted on this beech, we might have made the ID..but that would spoil the fun!.Here's an image from good ol Rogers mushrooms which I believe shows the conidial stage of Bulgaria inquinans...as was said, macroscopically similar? I hope this helps..... Tim.

PM sent....

What you saying man? The trees so bad as to give ya the willies like....? Insurers are another story altogether...Leaving that can of worms, there is ,(safe to say ) a recent history of "non-intervention" management with respect the tree stock eh? (Sorry if Im being a bit slow on the uptake....!)

Good thread!

It would be a convoluted post so Ive e-mailed Nod....Watch this space I will.

Proactive managament & Tree Strategy: "They're gonna fell loads of trees... possibly" No well, I d far rather see a strategy in place than not.. The media is an arse, no doubt...but then we all know that. "No wonder LPAs don't bother" Its no reason for a tree manager to throw his hands in the air eh?