monkeybusiness

A very fair point, and I take on board what you say about the chances of regrowth. Does this mean you never poison stumps if root plates overlap? How do the forestry boys seem to get away with it then? I am fully aware of how Glyphosate translocates, and how Beech grafts in general. Have I been unlucky, or plain stupid?!? With regards tree health, all 3 were excellent before I wrecked everything, no signs of fungus or stress etc. As for quantities, it was a 20% mixture sprayed into a chainsaw-scored (maybe 5mm deep) groove around the cambium around the complete circumference of the tree, but only a quick spray, not to run off. Prob 50-100ml total, ie 10-20ml glyphosate per tree (which to be fair makes it sound like a lot when you work it out...). I have to say it's a bit of a disaster, and I will give serious thought to stump poisoning in the future. As an aside, the manufacturers' expert told me that Glyphos (the actual brand I used) has an extremely short life in soil, and used correctly it is possible to spray off a stubble field and then re-seed 6 HOURS later!

The tree has serious dieback affecting whole branches at various locations throughout the crown - other branches are unaffected. There is also a beech hedge that runs behind the 3 trees (almost touching, but not quite!!!) and this has 2 newly dead trees in it as well. It is good dry land with no water courses etc. I was hoping the dieback is because of wind scorch or increased light, and with a bit of luck time will tell, but I am worried! We poisoned because the 2 trees were approx 50cm dbh and vigourous with plenty of growing left in them, and the owner wishes to replant shrubs around but not bother with stump grinding. Belt and braces, but perhaps a step too far in this case. Interesting comments regarding the Ash, I'm not sure I'd be that brave!!! Certainly not with someone elses tree... Cheers for the comments, much appreciated.

Hello Not sure if this should be in tree health or not - if so, sorry in advance. I removed 2 green beech trees either side of a copper beech for a customer (all three are early mature 60-70 foot trees) a month ago, and poisoned the 2 stumps with a 20% Glyphosate mixture via cambium scoring and direct application. The trees were all growing within close proximity of each other (within 5 metres) so are well within each other's root plate area. The retained copper beech now seems to be suffering the effects of Glyphosate poisoning. Is it possible there are sub soil root grafts and the poison has translocated from the stumps into the retained tree, and if so, has anybody experienced this before? I have spoken to the Glyphos manufacturer's technical guy and he has never heard of this, and also went on to say that this type of stump treatment is commony used in forestry where this would be a massive problem if it is the case. I'm at a bit of a loss to come up with other factors - it looks exactly like a herbicide poisoning - and I am facing a potentially very angry customer. Any insight/advice/past experience would be most welcome!!! Cheers Dan

Just bought Husky oil from Corwen Forestry for £24.50 + VAT for 25 litres delivered, but had to buy 10.

Thanks for your comments regarding these boots everybody. Mesterh, you have said nothing that offends pal! I acknowledge that I was totally at fault for chainsawing my foot in the first place, it was a proper schoolboy error... I also recognise that the importer has given a very full and detailed account of the safety factors contained within chainsaw boots, and his reply carries a good deal of interesting information. Obviously, PPE is there as a last line of defence, and its purpose is to offer SOME protection (it is blatantly impossible to guarantee defence against a chainsaw under all circumstances). The thing that surprised me in this instance was the fact that I sawed straight through a boot in what I consider to be a particularly exposed area, and the boot didn't offer any protection over and above what would be found in a normal pair of (considerably cheaper) workboots. Before contacting the importer, I spoke to two well known retailers of these boots, both of whom told me that the boots SHOULD contain blocking material and go some way towards slowing the saw and protecting the foot (as it happens they are both wrong, but if the retailers don't know, how are we expected to?). Colleagues of mine (many with a good deal more experience than me) who have seen the boot are surprised by the damage and lack of protection in this particular area. The main reason for me showing these emails to the forum is to try and make as many people as possible aware of the limitations of the ppe we are forced to wear. I hold my hands up and admit I don't tend to read the instructions that come with ppe. I also don't remember being taught about the limitations when partaking in my NPTC training, though that could simply be a mental block on my part. This equipment is designed only as a worst case scenario final defence - please don't rely on it because it doesn't always work!!!

cont... --- ? Thank you for your swift reply. I have to say that I'm surprised that this is the case with the protection offered by chainsaw boots in general, and I'm sure that there are many people in the industry who are unaware of the boots' limitations under these circumstances. I expected a chainsaw boot (and a range topping premium boot such as yours in particular) to offer at least SOME protection to the side of the foot. I would suggest that the side of one's foot is extremely vulnerable, especially when you take into account the amount of protection operators are expected to wear around their lower legs. I wonder if you would mind if I were to forward this chain of emails and photos on to colleagues and forums, to help to highlight the shortcomings of the PPE that all operators are expected to wear? I appreciate that there is no substitute for safe, correct working practices, and if operators do everything by the book then their chance of accident should theoretically fall to zero. However, it would appear (from talking with colleagues and also a couple of your distributors) that there is a misguided belief among the people at the sharp end within the industry that chainsaw boots should help to protect ANY part of your foot (obviously there are limitations to levels of protection regarding chain speed etc) in the event of those rare accidents. Perhaps there needs to be more information available to end users and retailers explaining the parameters set by the CE standard, and what the chainsaw protection actually means when applied to various garments for sale. It would obviously need a brave manufacturer/importer to take the lead in this, as they would actually be highlighting potential shortfalls within their own products, but it may go some way to increasing safety, which is the sole reason people wear this equipment in the first place. It may even force manufacturers to increase safety levels within their products over and above the required minimum through increased research and development, in order to stay ahead of their competitors. If you could let me know your thoughts on opening this up to a wider audience I would be grateful. My inclination is to let other people read your comments regarding what the CE standard requires, as I think it is very important that people are made aware of what a chainsaw boot can (and more importantly, can't) do. However, I understand that your email was addressed to me, and I feel it is only fair to ask your permission before sharing your input with others. Best wishes Dan Hinde --- Good morning Dan Thanks for your mail I would welcome the opportunity to open this to a greater audience for discussion. However, I would prefer that there was no photo’s or reference to the ? brand as this could be misleading and some people may think that the issue is related to ? and not to chain saw boots in general. I totally agree with you that there is a great lack of knowledge in the industry about all chain saw protective products. I will make a statement to you, which I have made on many occasions which is that I have never met an instructor, assessor, teacher or lecturer who has any knowledge about chain saw protection, its function or maintenance, nor have I ever met a dealer who conveys this information to customers. In my opinion this is a vital issue and something I believe should be part of every curriculum and training course in our industry. I have had endless discussions about this over the past 10 years but have never found anyone and in particular the HSE who is remotely interested in broadening debate on this issue. Personally I do not believe that there are “shortcomings in chainsaw PPE but rather in the CE standard and that is the problem. Manufacturers can only work within the parameters laid down within the particular CE standard. As long as this is done and the product is tested and certified by an approved notified body then the manufacturer has done everything which is required of him. Again, in my opinion this actually stifles progress as it becomes economical suicide for a manufacturer to provide more than the requirements as this would increase costs over competitors. An interesting point to make is that for many years HSE and others were pushing for class 2 trousers. Four years ago we were the first in the world to achieve that standard yet to this day they have never become a seller because firstly they cost more than class 1 trousers And secondly the HSE refuse to endorse them as there is only 1 manufacturer who can make them. Despite the fact that probably every saw used in a tree runs at well over 20m/sec and class 2 trousers are tested to 24m/sec no-one is really interested. I could go on and on about this, just give me an orange box but the unfortunate thing is nobody listens. Anyway back to the issue. All CE standards are freely available and have been since they were issued but no-one reads them (except us) we have tried for many years to educate retailers on all these issues as well as many others but unfortunately they don’t convey information at the point of sale. You mention that it would take a brave importer or manufacturer to take the lead on this, yet it is something we have attempted on many occasions but unfortunately on deaf ears. Our commitment has always been to the user first and that is why we have become know for our innovations. We were the first to achieve class 1 protection with 6 layers of protective material, we were the first to introduce flexible outers, we were the first with class 2 we were the first to achieve class 1 with 5 layers we were the first to develop flex in the blocking materials etc etc etc but none of this improves the wearers knowledge of what he has and how it will protect him today, tomorrow and in the future. We continually highlight shortfalls in our own as well as our competitors products, not that this is a fault of any one of them and in most cases at the moment there is no technical solution but we believe that everyone using a saw should be aware of PPE’s benefits and shortcomings. The aim is not to force manufacturers to change it should be to lobby the CE committee to review the standard and to work with manufacturers to understand technical progress and what can and can not be achieved. I think you may have realised now that you have struck a cord with something I am very passionate about. I really feel there is a serious issue in our industry with many people prepared to spout off on subjects they have no knowledge of and to make statements based on gossip, hearsay and opinion rather than fact. I really don’t know the next step forward. Anyway, as I said I welcome any way to open this to a fair debate about the issues rather than particular brands. I am not a big fan of forums as they are so open to abuse for personal or commercial reasons but I am not afraid of them either. If you would like to contact me to discuss any part of this issue further I would welcome the opportunity, but please after the AA show as we are all working flat out for this at the moment. Maybe you will be there and we can have a brief chat

Hello I'm a new member of Arbtalk, but have visited the site many times in the past. However, I finally think that I have something that should be thrown open to a wider audience, hence this post! I have been a working arborist for 7 years, have attained the cert arb, I run my own business, and hold CS30, 31(a,b), 36, 39, 40, 41, AE1, AE2b, as well as Chipper, MEWP, Pesticides etc. I insure the business with Trust, and have sub-contracted directly on power line clearance work in the past. I have also had a random HSE audit 3 years ago, that was a bit scary at the time but actually put my mind at rest that I run the company in a safe manner as dictated by those that know best... As a result, I feel that I have a fairly good working knowledge of arb equipment and ppe etc. I had an accident a couple of months ago where I was very fortunate not to be badly injured, and I feel that the outcome and response from the importers of my boots (I will omit all names etc for now as requested by the importer, but the boots in question are regarded as some of the best available, certainly they are amongst the most expensive) should be seen by as many people as possible. I apologise for the long winded post - the following are copies of emails that went back and forth between myself and the importer (I'll have to split it into 2 because it is too long for one post)- --- ? Following our telephone conversation on Tuesday, please see the attached photos of my damaged boot. I have included some pictures of both boots, so you can see what little use they have had. This is my 4th (or possibly 5th) pair of these boots, and I have generally been very pleased with them up until now. As I'm sure you are aware, once they get worn the sole becomes very smooth, and they rip at the back above the heal. This pair are in excellent condition, having had very little use, and are (or were at least!) still waterproof. The reason I have got in touch is that whilst de-limbing a tree a couple of weeks ago, I was a little complacent and caught my left boot with the chainsaw (Stihl MS361 with 20' bar) on the side of the boot, just behind the toe cap. The saw was not at full revs or under power, and I stopped it as soon as I realised my mistake, but by then the chain had cut through the boot, through my sock, and just nicked the skin at the bottom of my little toe. There was no evidence of any blocking material in the chain, and the boot appeared to do absolutely nothing to slow the saw down. I am unable to make it to the trade fair next week in order to speak with the ? representative, but I am more than happy to chat with someone on the phone, or meet up if there is ever anyone up in the North West, to show them the boots. I have discussed this with a number of my colleagues in the local area, and we are all interested to hear the views of you and your experts on this. The majority of us wear your boots everyday, as most people seem to agree that they are a good quality, comfortable, well made product. However, if they don't fulfill their role in stopping a chainsaw (which no one would ever be likely to find out until something like this happened, and thank God the consequences weren't more serious!) then they don't suddenly seem so appealing! I haven't mentioned this accident on any of the arboricultural forums yet, as I feel it is only fair to give you guys a chance to investigate your products and ascertain whether this is a one off, or if there is a more serious underlying problem with the boots in general. However, I do feel that if there is a problem then something needs to be said sooner rather than later, to help reduce the chances of any nasty accidents. Obviously, the best thing would be for people to not try and saw their toes off, but unfortunately accidents do happen! If you need to speak to me, please call me on 07970188050. Best wishes Dan Hinde --- Hello Thanks for the photographs; we can now see the damage to your boots. The area of protection on a pair of chainsaw boots is laid down by the CE standard and not by the manufacturer. All manufacturers work to the same standard. The area which must be covered by protection is the metatarsal area which is the top of the foot. Consequently there is no protection at the sides where the saw hit your boots. This is the same on all brands of chain saw boots. I hope this answers your query. If we can be of any further assistance in this matter please do not hesitate to contact us Regards