Andy Clark

Yes Marcus, and at £2.50 - £3.00 per tree, it's also one of the many commercially viable methods of tree hazard evaluation that practitioners are able to "sell" to their clients. You or Andrew have still yet to argue or prove the case for TI as being an equally commercially viable alternative.

Actually, i'd like to correct the both of you......... VTA is a recognised system and methodology of tree failure evaluation, first pioneered by Klaus Matthek et al. You both might want to stop misquoting and using it as a generic term for tree hazard assessment/evaluation.

But Andrew, it's not about what it offers "US" as Arborists, it's about what "we" can sell to "our" clients! I've said twice now, that yes, I agree on the possible scientific benefits and i'm certainly not disputing anything towards that end..... But a practitioner needs to be able to "sell" it to customers...... and in this economic and industry climate, there's bob hope of that happening. Simples!

I'm sorry...... who are you??

Marcus, That's all very good, but I can't help but respectfully say it sounds somewhat "Idealistic". I'm certainly not doubting the science behind TI, moreso the questioning the necessity for it from the customer perspective. I certainly and agreeably concur that there is a vast potential from the research perspective, but as a commercial application........ ?? Highly dubious. As some have already put, this NEEDS to be a service that can be "sold" to the end user. As such, it has to provide a either a comparative product at a comparative cost, or be such a level of necessity that can dictate its own value thereby making it commercially viable from the practitioner perspective. Whilst legislation and market forces dictate that easier and cheaper systems of Tree Hazard Assessment are an acceptable means of ticking the "liability box", I really struggle to see why the end customer is going to be willing to pay for a product that just enforces what in 9 out of 10 cases can already be assessed by an expedient and well read Arborist, and will be deemed "good enough" by the resounding industry voice.

Blimey, SPOILT! Seriously though peeps, I can HIGHLY recommend this opportunity to whomever is interested. An extremely picturesque country estate, in an absolutely gorgeous part of the world. I'm very jealous, and I wish it was closer to home.

What's up Mr Quenby, you getting soft in your old age?? Or scared of getting clouted in the chops again, by an errant butt?? lol

I'd second that! We already have VTA, QTRA, THREATS, Matheny and Clarke, Lonsdale, etc...... the list goes on. Surely it is best to just keep TI as a standalone application, rather than diluting the whole "Tree Hazard Evaluation" realm even further? Is it going to provide more cost effective and therefore viable? Doubtfull, in this financial climate. Although I can see that it would certainly depend on apportioned value of tree and/or target area. But until such time as the Uk industry and people like the NTSG etc formulate and agree on a unified approach to THA, the only driving forces will be things like Chapman vs Barking and Dagenham, Poll vs Bartholomew, HSE SIM 01/2007/05 etc....... ie, paper trail mitigation, based on the cheapest possible available option. I think it's fair to envisage that the cheaper methods of Tree Hazard Assessment would be exhausted first, and I'd bet a pound to a penny that most of them would have already stipulated the tree to be felled in the first instance. Sorry Marcus/Andrew, but I really can't help but feel that you're trying to sell a non-product for which there is no market........ .... and because of that, "I'm Out".

Haha.... i win! 6

Been doing some leg-work today on another subject, but as part of it I came across a few figures that might put things into a better perspective............ The Woodland Trust - 194,000 members ISA (worldwide) - 20,000+ members (UK & i chapter = 500ish) The Tree Council - No figures on membership. 8,000 volunteer tree wardens The Royal Forestry Society - 4,000+ members Arbtalk - 3,977 members Arboricultural Assoc. - 2,000 members Institute of Chartered Foresters - 1,000+ members UKTC Forum - 500+ members AFAG Webcommunity - 277 members AIE Forum - 247 members National Association of Tree Officers - 64 member LAs London Tree Officers Assoc. - 33 London Boroughs. 62 Associate members The list can go on, depending how far diverse into other "related" areas, but it gives an idea as to the bigger picture.

Ironically enough folks, i think the course of this tread has now kinda highlighted Tony's original points in his opening post. I mean, 10 pages and 95ish posts later, and STILL no one can agree or give a definitive answer to the problem/solution. Tony writes 'Do we have a overinflated sense of our own importance as part of the wider picture?'........... In hindsight, I think the answer is unfortunately now fairly evident.

Andy, i've sent you a PM..... please get in touch. Cheers

I still climb in a Willans T22 (although nowadays it's the wide back-pad version), with 2 Krabs, 2 prussiks, and a double spliced end rope. I've got a Grillon and another two krabs, although i only use em for topping conifers or shuffling round fruit trees. Oh, and in 18 years on the tools, i can count on one hand the number of times i've used spikes. Boots are the Haix Aqua ones, trousers are Stihl Hi-flex, and helmet's a Petzl Vertex with Husky visor and muffs. Looks are one thing, but practicality's even more important.

Andy, don't get me wrong........ I hold Merrist wood in the highest regard! I took the NCH Arb there myself back in 94/95, and Jack Kenyon is probably one of the most knowledgeable lecturers that the industry has. As for your age (you mention 40+), just remember that there's more than one way to skin a cat...... ie, you don't have to be a groundie or even a climber to get into Arb. There's always Surveying/Contract management etc, and with things like Adult Learning Grants, you may find you'll be eligable to take a more dedicated academic qual. that might serve you better in the long run. Just don't go thinking that the course will be a "quick fix". It won't be!

As an ex lecturer that has taught this course (albeit at a different college), the best advice I could give you is........ Don't do it! I'm guessing that the course you're talking of, is the C&G Phase II? If so, the course isn't really geared up for "newbies" (no offence meant). It was developed yeeeeeeeeers ago, for people that had shed loads of experience but no academic Arb qual. If you really want to get the best out of the course, do a year or so on the tools first, THEN go to college and do the course. Sorry if that goes against the grain, but honesty's always the better policy.

Hear hear, Mr Collins. Although the hallowed pages of Arbalk do tend to get somewhat "heated" at times, it's wise to remember that we're all in the same boat. Congrats to Steve for the resounding success that Arbtalk has become...... not far short of the 5,000 mark!!!, and many thanks to all the mods and those behind the scenes that make the forum what it is. "Gawd bless ya!".

Alls good mate.... no offence taken. I like your bit about the perception of best practice....... the stories I could tell you about the upper workings of the industry, would make your toes curl! All is most definitely, not as it seems.

And following on from that brief synopsis, perhaps now's a good time to add my personal views to this thread........ I've been in this industry near on 20 years. I did a two year aprenticeship as a groundsman, before going to what WAS seen as the leading Uk Arb college (Merrist wood) and taking what WAS one of the most recognised quals for practical Arb (NCH Arb). 15-16 ish years on the tools, working up the ranks of Climber, Lead Climber, Foreman...... probably worked for some 8 or 9 companies in this time. Some small, some large and well known. Some even AAACs! 4 ish years ago now i took the next step up the lader and got into contract management....... started off as Suppervisor, then onto Manager of our local County Highways Contract....... Stepped out of it for a year, and had a dabble with lecturing........ absolutely LOVED teaching, but totally hated the politics that went with it. Faaaaaaaaaaar too much about bums on seats for my liking, and nowhere near enough about teaching the modules as they were intended. Morals got the better of me after one term, so quit and got back into contract management. ended up as National Contract Manager of what WAS one of Europes largest Arb consultancy practices. My job was basically to manage the outsourced contracts provision, and make sure that the work was done to the spec that the consultants had specified. As a result, i managed one of the largest contarctor panels in the UK, and probably POLITICALLY the second largest on par with the AAAC. I quit back in Dec of last year (08) for reasons that i won't go into on a public forum........ needless to say my morals again got the better of me. My point in all this long winded story???? I can't hold "Profesional Level" membership of our industries aleged leading organiation, as i don't have a Level 6 qual! Does 20 years in the industry and aaaaaaaaaaaaall that experience mean i'm not a "Professional Arboriculturalist?" No, it means i'm just someone who has no interest in the scientific aspect of tree care........ my ident is pants, and I can't tell one end of a dryads saddle from another......... but you gimme a business plan, or a H&S policy, or a tender application or a works scedule, and i'll rip it to pieces, re-write it and present you with one of the most comprehensive doc's you'll ever come across. So what do i think of "our industry"? Well, despite now being unemployed for 12 months (as per my previous post), I still press on. Too many years off the tools to be taken seriously as a commercial climber again, but not enough experience in "consultancy" to be taken seriously as a "consultant" (despite the fact I have no interest in scientific consultancy). But i love this industry! I love the people in it (some, not all)! And i will continually strive to do my bit and have my say in the vain attempt that some day, my ten peneth might just make a difference. Does that make me an A) or a B) Tony?

Not really chap...... for starters you seem to be under the impression that i'm a "consultant type"??? lmao.... I WISH! I'm just someone who's spent quite a long time in this industry, and happens to have had a vast and extremely varying remit of experience....... As it goes, i've actually been out of full time employment for near on 12 months now. Lived of me savings for 9 months, then joined the ranks of the "officially" unemployed about 4 months ago. Most rational people would have said "sod this for a lark" and left this merry go round of an industry loooooooong behind. Oh no, not me though....... i still get up every day of the week and check Arbjobs....... i still deal with the almost hundreds of "Thanks, but no thanks" job application rejections.... i still do plenty of volounteer stuff and strive to do my bit to push Arb awareness forward....... In hindsight, i've royally screwed myself. As i lived offand used up my savings in a vain attempt not to be a burden to society, i've now got no cash left in order to do anything positive with my life, like going self employed or owt. Why?? Cos you just gotta love the Arb Industry.

Sorry chap, but considering that i used to work for the company in question, i have to be very wary of copyright and stuff...... thanks to the good old " 2 YEAR non competition clause" in my contract of employment. Great, ain'it? As for the first para...... yeah, totally agree. But keep in in context,and remember that this doc was written from the perspective of the insurers and structural engineers, towards highlighting the lack of Arb industry study to the same ends. 1.6?? My pdf copy of the doc doesn't show a decimal place. I'll gladly stand corrected if I've miss-quoted.

No, not at all. Just confused at how a publication written by two of our industries leading consultants could be apportioned as "childish extrapolation". The data is there chap, but you just need to look in the right places to find it.

In relation to the figures, the doc. makes reference to a 1994 publication by the Institute of Structural Engineers....... I'd hardly call that childish.

How so with the "childish extrapolation"?

It's an old doc. now, but in A critical analysis of the role of trees in damage to low rise buildings, M Lawson and D O'Callaghan mention that between 1988 and 1992, the cost in the london boroughs alone in relation to insurance claims for tree related subsidence, exceeded £23 million. The same costs on a national level, were put at £16 billion!!!! And you wonder why your house insurance is so expensive.

But that's just it Bundle..... those that are seen as "Industry leaders", don't! Those that SHOULD be coming up with the strategies, aren't! Just look at the recent ho-ha that came off the back of "Trees in Towns 2", between the AA and Mark Johnston...... Trees in Towns II author Mark Johnston slams Arboricultural Association for missing 'heaven-sent opportunity' | Horticulture Week Don't get me wrong, i don't wanna turn this into yet another AA bashing, but the pure and simple fact i that it all boils down to leadership, and unfortunately this industry doesn't have any.