Andy Clark

Don't get me wrong, i may be mistaken, but surely the LPA AND DCLG (by implication) are the responsible forces behind upholding and ensuring compliance with CROW 2000? Therefore, should the onus not come down to them, to issue guidance/info/advice on how best to comply??

It puts the liability (perhaps onus is a better word) back on the LPA, as under the Dept for Communities and Local Govt, they are the primary portfolio holder for responsibility of "AMENITY" trees. The unfortunate point in all of this, is that each and every LPA is allowed to draw up it's own strategies, rather than operate under one blanket set of rules. (Consider how long it's taken for LPAs to adopt Planning Portal etc, despite it being put in place by the DCLG!) 'Government might argue that DCLG meets amenity tree needs primarily through its policy that tree strategies are best if they are prepared locally. I think this really means that the Government favours woodlands and this policy keeps Arboriculture at arms length and avoids the need to foot any related costs.' 'The significant difficulty in expecting Local Authorities to lead on amenity tree management through the preparation of local strategies is that core information is not available. There is simply not enough UK orientated data to support these strategies and it is unrealistic, and unfair, to expect Local Authority Tree Officers to collect the necessary information.' Taken from The case for a Tree Commission: J Flanningan 2007 Until such time that there is a clear cut definition, when it comes down to "responsible" tree management by particular parties/groups/owners/landowners, all anyone can do is utilise whatever documents/guidelines/court rulings are in existence (HSE SIM 01-2007-05, Poll vs Bartholomew, Atkins vs Scott, Chapman vs Barking & Dagenham LBC etc) and do all they can to ensure that ALL possible aspects of criminal and civil law are covered. In short, this would equate to.... .... A system must be in place to ensure that trees are to be surveyed/inspected/managed according to their level of ascertained risk, by persons whose qualifications/competency corresponds to that particular risk level.

Annual budget DCLG = £250,000† Forestry Commission = £82,344,000 Number of full time equivalent staff employed DCLG = 6 FC = 592 Number of staff (FTE’s) employed specifically to deal with forest policy/strategy. DCLG = 0 FC = 7 (although these are now employed by DEFRA) Staff employed in research DCLG = 0 FC = 278 Annual research budget DCLG = £60,000 FC = £13,600,000 Figures taken from 'The case for a Tree Commission: J Flannigan 2007' The case for a Tree Commission

So when does a "long strop" become a short second rope?? And if that's the case, apart from the "Deadmans loop" syndrome (which we've already covered ), why not use one rope rather than two?

So when all's said and done, it basically comes down to personal preference. There are many arguments both for AND against both techniques...... yes, the "dead mans loop" IS dangerous, so you learn to climb and position both yourself AND your rope so that both are in no danger. And if you're getting SOOOOOOOOOOO caught up in the "heat of the climb" that you miss such things like that, then you seriously need to reflect on the fact that you get THAT worked up when climbing, and consider what other things you may be missing. (Unaware pedestrian etc!) Yes, VT's and hitchclimbers etc are quick... possibly quicker..... but when you consider that your 2nd end is theoretically an unlimited length strop, every re-tie in during an accent, gains you more height......... 1st end ascend - 2nd end ascend - 1st end ascend - 2nd end ascend - 1st end... etc as opposed to 1 end ascend - strop on - 1 end ascend - strop on - 1 end ascend - strop on - 1 end...etc Another valid point to consider, is that yes, it may be more weight of rope to carry around and yes, you may need a longer rope in bigger trees..... but 9 times outta 10, this is offset by having less length to pull up the tree during a re-route, as the rope is of course doubled, therefore half as long and twice as quick to pull up.

Ha Ha, i wouldn't be so sure, as i'm about to put a spanner in the works!! lol I climb on both ends.... have done or 15/16 years or more. 1 rope, 2 Prussik loops, 2 Krabs.... what more do you need?? lol Back in the day (I was at Merrist Wood 94/95), using both ends was seen as a "revolutionary" new method of climbing and looked upon with awe and amazement. And with people like Jack Kenyon (once seen as GOD amongst climbers) pushing and promoting the technique, who were we to argue? I spent a bit of time teaching ND Arb and C+G Phase II a couple of years ago now, and taught all my students to climb with both ends too! Don't get me wrong, i've got nothing against one end and strop, or SRT,or lockjacks, or any of the other climbing methods out there, but i strongly think that everyone should be taught the basics first, then allowed to try and test different techniques and develop their own style. Must admit though, i bought a Grillon from the APF 3 years ago, but only as it was on sale (show special.... 20 quid from George Karrs. BARGAIN!!) and to this day, i still only ever use it as a strop for... ahem.... "free climbing" round small fruit trees, or when walking along the tops of Conifer Hedges.

And yes, it also wasn't many years ago that H/C Bleeding Canker was said to be caused by Phytopthra spp., and Glynn Percival was subsequently prescribing the use of Propag-8 as a treatment! But hey-ho, such is the nature of research..... it may not be right, but every step brings us closer to the final answer. After all, if we didn't push on and persevere, the earth would still be flat and man would never have walked on the moon.

A long term cure on the horizon perhaps??....... "Conventional treatment methods such as spraying, root injection or removal of bleeding wounds have been found to be ineffective and harmful, often resulting in more damage to the tree. JCA have obtained experimental approval to test a new product which shows considerable promise. JCA Limited, in partnership with Allicin Tree Care in The Netherlands, have developed a new product, which, when introduced into the tree using a unique infusion method provides a breakthrough in the fight against Bleeding Canker in Horse Chestnut trees with applications for many other tree and shrub diseases. JCA Limited plans to start UK tests in Summer 2009 after extensive tests in The Netherlands which produced remarkably encouraging results. Allicin is a substance which occurs naturally and is one of nature’s most effective anti fungal, anti bacterial and anti viral agents. It has been known to man for centuries but until recently has been impossible to obtain in sufficient quantity or at a sufficient strength to use in anything other than human medicine. Our partners have obtained a worldwide patent on a method of commercially producing and stabilizing Allicin, in sufficient quantities and at a significant strength, allowing it to be used in Horticulture and Arboriculture. Allicin is manufactured from natural plant material (Allium sativum) which is grown under European GAP (Good Agricultural Practice) conditions. It is produced without the use of chemicals, is completely biodegradable and is safe for humans and the environment. Production is carried out under BS and ISO standards 9001:2000. In addition, it has been tested by the internationally respected organisation TNO, Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, in The Netherlands, whose tests proved that, when using the correct concentration, Pseudomonas syringae pv. aesculi, is destroyed. Further tests by the Botanic Diseases Department of the Dutch Ministry for Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality in Wageningen, The Netherlands, verify these results. In order to obtain the best results, treatment with Allicin is required as early as possible after the tree has been diagnosed as being infected. Using the tree infusion system, the solution is introduced into the cambium layer of the tree around the stem. Root pressure and capillary action ensure the distribution of Allicin around the tree via its vascular system. The size, vigour and condition of each tree help to calculate the volume and strength of Allicin required. The unique infusion system is designed for this purpose. Field trials have proven that the use of Allicin by this method gives the desired result. In addition to its anti bacterial effect, Allicin has fungicidal and anti viral qualities. After Pseudomonas Syringae pv. Aesculi infection, a tree’s resistance to pathogens diminishes allowing fungi to develop in the tree. These fungi are also killed by Allicin. A Welcome Side Effect In tests carried out in The Netherlands, a welcome side effect was noted which is also of considerable benefit to the Horse Chestnut. A control avenue of Horse Chestnut were left untreated whilst a parallel avenue of Horse Chestnuts were all treated. Apart from the desired effect of a general recovery in the treated trees, it was noted that they remained by and large, unaffected by leaf miner Cameraria ohridella and completely foliated. In contrast, the control avenue was almost completely defoliated by mid September and heavily infested with leaf miner. It appears that as the Allicin travels throughout the tree’s vascular system, it taints the foliage with the odour and taste of Allium sativum which the leaf miner finds not to be to its taste. Proof of this transfer throughout the trees system can be obtained by breaking off a leaf from the tree a week or so after treatment. If the leaf is crushed, a distinct Garlic smell can be detected." (extract taken from the website of JCA Ltd)

Was in Scouts during the 87 gales, and went and helped out at our local campsite clearing up all the tree damage. Thought "wow, this is soooooo cool! I could do this for a job!". 18 years down the line and still going strong. Even writing tree safety guidance notes for the UK Scout association now.

I've added an attachment that may be of some use...... It's worded as a bit of a sales pitch, as I was trying to get the procurement dept. on board, but don't let that put you off. It'll take 8 cubic/m of chip without overloading, and STILL tow 3000kg..... All for similar price to a new 3.5 tonner! Arb Crew Vehicle.doc

"What this means is huge increases in cost for the tree owner so most tpo trees will get left for years and years untill there in dire condition." Awesome!!! Then you can just crack it out under D,D,D exemption, and not have to worry about it. WOO HOOO.

I hate to say it Gents, but the new planning regs come into effect as of today (1st October 2008) Yes, there's some good points.... standardised application forms and the centralised use of Planning Portal etc, But the bad points are possibly going to make life very very difficult. See extract below, with regards to the level of supporting documentary evidence that will be required...... Condition of tree(s) – The presence and impact of pests, diseases or fungi that require work to be carried out to the tree(s) should be described in written evidence or diagnostic information from an arboriculturist or other appropriate expert. Arboricultural evidence must be provided to support applications that suggest the tree has defects that may be of concern to the current or future safe retention of the tree or parts of the tree. Subsidence - Reports will usually be provided by a structural engineer and/or a chartered surveyor and be supported by technical analysis from other experts e.g. for root and soil analysis. These reports must include the following information: • A description of the property, including a description of the damage and the crack pattern, the date that the damage first occurred/was noted, details of any previous underpinning or building work, the geological strata for the site identified from the geological map • Details of vegetation in the vicinity and its management since discovery of the damage. Include a plan showing the vegetation and affected building • Measurement of the extent and distribution of vertical movement using level monitoring Where level monitoring is not possible, state why and provide crack-monitoring data. Data provided must be sufficient to show a pattern of movement consistent with the presence of the implicated tree(s) • A profile of a trial/bore hole dug to identify foundation type and depth and soil characteristics •The sub-soil characteristics including soil type (particularly that on which the foundations rest), liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index • The location and identification of roots found. Where identification is inconclusive, DNA testing should be carried out • Proposals and estimated costs of options to repair the damage In addition, you must include a report from an arboriculturist to support the tree work proposals, including arboricultural options for avoidance or remediation of indirect tree-related damage. Other structural damage - Technical evidence in respect of other structural damage (e.g. garden walls, drains, paving, drive surfaces) should be provided by a relevant engineer, building/drainage surveyor or other appropriate expert.

See, that's another good point raised, right there... How many men in a gang?? Spending money and running a business, doesn't just revolve around the shiney kit, but also the people on the ground. 9 times out of 10, there's only one climber, but do you send 2 groundsmen, or one? Are two groundsmen gonna clear up twice as quick, or just work half as hard... thereby taking the same time as just the one??

Ah...... the magic word...... Profit. Surely that answers the "Business man or Arborist" question then?

Surely if you love the job enough, and are prepared for the hard graft that goes with it, you don't need all the gadgets/gizmos/big boys toys??? Admitedly, they're as cool as a polar bear wearing sunglasses, but at the end of the day, what's cheaper to run.... a grab lorry or a groundsman with big arms???

We've had some involvement within the consultation for this, and i think i kinda get the gist of what they're trying to do.... From what i understand, it's trying to put more of an emphasis on the techniques used, rather than just defining the cuts, shape, balance.. blah blah blah... Theoretically meaning that working to BS:3998 not only means that you prune trees to a specifically defined standard, but that the work is also carried out in a specifically defined manor, in a vain attempt to stop pikeys saying that they do work to BS:3998, and then climbing in jeans and with an old shoelace for a climbing line. I admire what they're trying to achieve, but not so sure that this is the right way of doing it.

Does anyone know of anyone at all who has this?? It would appear to be the holy grail of NPTC Units, and as rare as rocking horse sh!te.

Dudes, I hate to say it, but this has been around for ages! It's more to do with the work at height regs, (saying that helmets must be fitted with a 3 point fastening system) but AFAG are only just getting round to making it compulsory. Most companies have been issuing their climbers with Petzl type helmets for about two years or so now.