Andy Clark

To my thinking, the obligation is with the neighbour to ensure his property is secure, not with the tree owner to ensure squirrels can't use the tree to gain access. But with my legal head on, the thing that is concerning me at the moment, is whether there is the possibility that this could be classified as indirect damage - i.e, the tree plays a part in the equation, it's not actually the one "causing" the damage - in much the same way as subsidence. There is of course the possibility that the squirrel will still get in, even if the tree is pruned/removed, but i'm trying to determine if there would be a case to be had against the tree owner if they refused to carry out works to the tree. That said, I do love the sound of the .410 approach.

Does any one know of any cases, either pending or past, that have revolved around squirrel ingress into a neighbouring property via access from a tree? I'm trying to determine if this would constitute an actionable nuisance against the tree owner, but can't find any previous prescedence in law. My instinct/common sense says "no", but would like to be able to back this up with something more concrete. Any ideas???

And to just add Tony, that is from the perspective of someone exactly as you mention...... 20 years experience, minimal academic quals, but managed to work my way from dragging sticks, to climbing, to contract management, to college lecturing, to finally LA tree officer. And some fairly lofty achievements along the way. I don't NEED recognition for that, more than I WANT to see an improved and unified uk industry. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Tony, Please don't get me wrong. I fully and wholeheartedly agree with your mentality and rationale behind this. I just don't agree that this is the right mechanism to achieve what you think it will. Several years ago, I ran a national panel of "approved contractors" for a very large and well known consultancy practice. In it's prime, it was similar in size (by way of numbers of companies on that panel) to the AAAC. In running the panel, I discovered some VERY worrying things about this industry....... The "membership" criteria of that panel, as I've already highlighted within this thread, was set purely to alleviate the liability of "recommending contractors" . Nothing more than a baseline level of recognised competency certificates for relevant staff, and a blanket of relevant H&S policies plus the appropriate level of insurance for the company. I NEVER found anyone that passed that criteria. Not fully at least. And believe me, there was some BIG names on that list..... Even some well known AAAC's. But yet these were supposedly the basics! This level of criteria was what was supposed to be something that all contractors and folk within the practical arm of the industry should have had already! And that, I truly believe, is the mistake that you're making. You're not recognising the industry as it actually is. By all means, the scheme may well be another on the list of "would be nice to have's", but I promise you, the industry NEEDS something else first. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Jaime, That is soooooooo the wrong mentality to hold regarding "professionalism", and one that many of us already disagree with the AA standpoint on. One is a professional if they make a living from their undertakings. Pure and simple. I do not need to be a member of the AA to be a professional arboriculturalist. I am already one because I make my living from my daily undertakings as one. An argument that many of us have held with the AA for many years, is with the way they proclaim membership leads to professionalism - thus the flipside by default being one that implys those who aren't members, aren't professional. The point is one that "professionalism" gets confused with "excellence". The two are VERY different! And I reference that same point to Tony's comments earlier regarding professionalism also. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Jaime, There are a couple of reasons really - The first being timing. It was shortly before the AA announced they were reviewing the AAAC scheme. Plus you had Andy Burgess launching the Trustmark accreditation scheme also. Simply a case of too much other stuff going on to detract from the launch. The other was the day to day business model. In short, whilst we could all agree on the model for the membership criteria and the "ethos" of the scheme, we could never finalise how we should actually run it as a "business". I.e, should it be set up as a trust, a charity, a not for profit, limited by guarantee etc. We just lacked that particular person who could be a "dragon" (from the den) and point us in that particular direction. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Thanks Paul. Yes, it does help, but regrettably not in a way that instills me with much hope of this ACTUALLY becoming "the next big thing" in the industry, as the headline on the paperwork suggests.......... To the point that I did actually sink my head into my hands and let out a small disappointed sigh. Don't get me wrong, I'm not just being a nay-sayer, trying to poo-poo and negate the scheme before it's up and running.. Those folk from out there in Arb land that know me proper will know how close this subject is to. my own heart, and will know of my own experience and work, along with others, into trying to get a scheme like this off the ground. For me, what you just explained, highlights the same identical fatal flaw that all the accreditation/approval schemes hold. They're not BIG enough. They work within the confines of what's already in place, rather than being expansive or evolutionary enough to look outside the box and push the boundaries towards bigger and better things of what's already there. Anything less is totally pointless, IMHO, when considering the speed and momentum by which the uk industry continues to grow. You say it's not an AA thing. In some ways, I wish it was! But hey, that's another story. But let's not be coy here. The AA are going to have a vested interest in this. If not under the umberella of the organisations banner itself, then at least by the representation of it's members albeit under a different hat. You say it will under pin the AAAC by way of working with the individuals, and re-inforceing the contractors own accreditation within the scheme. Two points come to mind from that. 1) why does the AAAC scheme not already have a mechanism within its criteria to ensure that individuals within an organisation are relevantly qualified, and 2) what about everyone else in the industry that either doesn't want to be, or isn't working for an AA approved contractor? Scheme's like this NEED to have something that everyone NEEDS. Something that everyone believes in. Not something that a few hundred people WANT, just because those that can afford it will think it looks good on their CV.. Not if it's going to stand a chance of succeeding in improving the industry where others have failed. I do truly believe in an improved and unified industry, but sadly, as it looks on face value, don't believe that "this", as it stands, is the answer. And that's the voice of experience speaking. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Don't worry, we all feel like that some days. Regarding your comments of the R2 being "part of the 'nuts and bolts' contributing to AAAC/ArbAC" though, i've got to ask the question, "How?" I mean there are surely going to be areas of crossovers/duplication with this scheme, as there are with any of the other accreditation based schemes out there, that could pose as competition to the AAAC. I would imagine that in order to avoid this, then there must be a formal tie in between the two somewhere along the line? Either that or the AA runs the risk that AC scheme becomes superseeded? or at the very least becomes surplus to requiremnts? Lets not forget the recent update of the AAAC process. Surely there's no intention to go back to the drawing board again, so soon after the whole scheme got an upgrade?

Paul, I'm sure it will come up at next weeks presentation, but what's the AA standpoint on this in respect of the AAAC?

Andy, the way to look at this is from the perspective of that level playing field. If we, as an industry, are all singing from the same hymn sheet, then the same oppourtunities exist for everyone. As an example, i'm nowadays in a position of employing contractors. Within the local authourity aspect, how do i do so, whilst still being "fair"? By keeping it simple and not looking for the bells and whistles. I have no interest in AA approval or whether you hold SAFE Contractor or CHAS accreditation, all i care about is that you do a good job and don't get me sued. The only way i can do that is by ensure that my employment criteria is designed to make sure you, and your staff, are qualified to do the job you do, that you hold the relevant level of H&S policies and practices, and are insured to the relevant level. The upshot of that is that then Joe Bloggs Tree Work and his two gangs of merry men, stand with an equal chance as winning the work as the big boys. And thus the benefits roll in.....

This is a VERY interesting thread, and, as Andy has already pointed out, a topic that several of us from the length and breadth of the industry and its different sectors explored and penned out several years ago. The framework model in itself is quite simple really - at least in terms of negating the opportunity for interpretation; and thus negating the liability of "recomending" contractors. For staff, in short, you simply "Go back to the begining", and define the baseline and benchmarkable level of quals that each of us should (in theory) already hold in respect of the individual jobs. For example - a registered Groundsman would need to hold a qual in Manual Handling, and NPTC unit 45. A registered Climber would need to hold a comprehensive list of NPTC quals that reflect the work they do. A registered lead Climber would need to add in an accademic qual to that. In terms of companies, you simply expand that principle to reflect you undertakings - for example a registered company would have all its employees benchmarked at the relative level; plus hold a benchmarked set of H&S docs and policies and the structure in place to ensure they are adheared to. The magic of keeping it simple and going back to defining that grass-roots level, means that you still allow for free progress. You still allow for people to expand with new ideas and improvements to working practices - but you also ensure that they are at least doing it properly in the first place. The other factor to throw into the mix is that that principle can be expanded to all other relative sectors of the industry - registered colleges; those that ensure all their Arb students are taught to the same definable criteria; registered suppliers would be those that only sell kit to those whom hold the relative quals in order to use the kit they're buying. The whooooole shooting match in turn creates the level playing field that is so sorely missing from the industry, by doing nothing more than making sure those who are already doing the job, are qualified to do the job. From the buisness angle, the sky's the limit really, as the model can work for individuals such as those who choose to remain as freelance, to multi million pound contracting companies. All by ensuring that everyone is just simply benchmarked against a that same defineable criteria. Easy peasy.

Paul, interesting post. Surely that's a bit pointless though? Stable doors and bolting horses and all that? I mean, the ICOP already exists. - albeit now out of publication. It's called AIS 23 (or 30 or whatever number the HSE settled on) LOLER - How the regulations apply to arboriculture. Surely what you're suggesting in the above is in fact just a repeat of similar AA publications to that such as A guide to good climbing practice, and A guide to the use of MEWPS in arboriculture? In which case means the publication of a 'guide', not a COP? I'm not even sure the AA as a trade organisation would have the authority to produce/publish a COP would it? 'Industry' or otherwise? Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

"Art and Science....." is going to be the more useful of the two if you're looking for something like a "how to" guide. The Rigging Research paper was intended as more of a critique/critical analysis of methods/techniques of rigging used in the Uk, conducted on behalf of the HSE, whereas "Art and Science......" is intended as a teaching aid for guiding climbers and groundsman in how to apply different techniques in varying situations - even going as far as having question and answer sections that can be used to bolster knowledge, and even earn ISA CEU credits. Both are very different beasts The one thing to remember though is that both of these doc.s are now getting on a bit in age. "Art and Science....." was published in 2001, and the RR paper in 2008. Neither cover anything of the new methods and techniques that have evolved with the recent invention of the multi-use rigging plates and rigging pulleys etc. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

The Quick Arbor hand ascender looks good. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Dunno of the release date, but I'm running Ver 1.4.7.8. Any idea what the current ios or Android versions are? Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

And you're gonna be doing away with tapalk altogether? Bummer. Guess it's time for a new phone then. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Steve, will the Arbtalk app just be ios and Android? Don't forget the b/berry users. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Intriguing......... . Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Awesome find! Love that his hair-cut complies with natures design rules. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

No probs chap. I hope it "sort of" answered the question. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Yes Ben, in two aspects (sort of)......... If you look at the pic - the right hand one of the two triangle shaped cut outs in the middle, is basically a protractor. Set at 25 degree angle. This is the "sort of" nominal angle between a fork for determining the likelihood of an included union - anything less than 25 deg. is likely to become (if not already) included (BAD), anything greater than 25 deg. shouldn't become included (good). The other is the overall shape of the tool itself - that kind of sectioned pyramidial shape. This is "sort of" the nominal crown shape of a tree. Before the buffs start ripping that description to pieces, I'm gonna emphasise now the amount of "sort of"'s that I threw in there. As a lot of folk who know me will know, one of my fave sayings is "there are no straight lines in nature", and I know VERY well that it's not THAT simple to just determine all trees are the same and act/re-act the same etc. You have to take into account Ben, the differences between .species, growth habit etc, and remember that the tool is just no more than exactly that.... A tool. It's only as good as the bod using it. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

That's the kiddy Rich. And that was kind of my thinking behind it - for using it primarily as an aid to show others, rather than as a tool for surveying. The paperwork blurb that it comes with is nothing that isn't already in the VTA field guide or his other publications, and it's quite explicit in explaining that it's meant purely as an "aid", not as something that's to be relied upon chapter and verse. I can see some annoyances already - like having to be stood so far away from a tree with any sizable DBH to use the Height/DBH guide, but then am I actually ever going to need it categorically in order to make that assessment? I should hope not! But I will probably be using the same portion to asses the force cone, and to look at excavations within the root area. I recon, couple the info from the tool with the NJUG guidelines, and you've got a pretty good justification for refusing excavations - only by a means that someone else can see, instead of just accepting what you've written in a report. The bit for included unions is probably going to be most handy for speeding up survey work and making recommendations for pruning. We'll see. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Only a hypothetical cup of tea and biccy Tony. But none the less, google street view works wonders! Hypothetically. Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk