JonnyVine

I much prefer the cut and thrust of properly (sensibly) evaluating a tree for retention. As you say it makes it more interesting, especialy when initial investigation via binoculars points to an aerial defect and actualy seeing what is going on when you get up there

Clearly you have been privilaged with oportunity to make most operators look lazy. Very nice work David Jealous Jonny

Wow, its a different world isnt it Makes the Robinia I last inspected look like a shrub Good vid David

A crock of whatever, arboriculturists are able to advise on tree matters because they have the knowledge, otherwise why hire one in the first place if this guy was so clued up! Pete started this thread called "would this offend you" so people could comment, I have commented, given my reasons why it offends based on arboricultural knowledge and your whingeing about it? If anyone is woried about potential damage to reputations etc dont post pictures and ask for comment I can see that there is some " growing up" to be done on here! One of the first parts of growing up is to understand that just because someone disagrees with us does not make them the enemy

Hi Rich I did read the thread, my response was just my opinion offering a different outcome based on quite a number of years studying tree biology. It is arboriculturalists that should have the knowledge to educate clients as to what should be done to a particular tree with potential problems, not the other way round? I do not remember reading how 18 stoner advised the client on the potential problems I pointed out so there is a big difference in our posts. Rich, I completely agree that we can not feed ourselves on principals, however, if everyone had the tree AND the clients interests properly ordered then no one would be mutilating trees in this way. If this client had been advised differently, the tree surgeon would still have had the chance to use his chainsaw and chipper, he would have had a larger load of logs to punt on, and a sapling sale to boot, no? Best Wishes Jonny

Hi there Firstly I would have made it clear to the client that trees get their food and energy from photosynthesis, this can only take place in the leaves and cortex of young growth, NOT from the roots as some ill informed folks believe. Cut all this lot off (like the tree in question) and what is left can't feed itself so it goes into a lower state of order- the living parts become dysfunctional- an unfortunate situation for the tree (if one can still call it that) because it now needs more energy to defend itself against the pathogens that exist at this lower order and there is not enough food producing material to even susstain what is left ( remember, this tree WAS used to having a huge cannopy to supply glucose and carbohydrates to feed the massive structure and rooting system which in no longer there) What now happens is that epicormic growth attempts to supply the desperately needed energy, but unhappily the biological makeup of epicormic sprouts do not posess the same ability as healthy shoots to make this energy! To cap it all, what is left is a hideous eyesore, next summer it is going to look like a huge toilet brush ( or "bogbrush" if you come from Dobcross,Diggle, Delph, or Uppermill) With all those sprouts growing from everywhere. Seccondly, I would tell the client that the mutilated (tree) he is now left with is going to need regular (costly) maintainence and monitoring over the few extra years it had been given. Thirdly, if the client still wanted to go ahead, I would have given him the telephone number of a "tree surgeon" that was on his arse and desperate for coin. Lets just suggest that this thing is going to exist for another say ten years, think how well established a nice young Lime or Oak would be in ten years if the correct thing was done and this tree was felled and replaced NOW! Hope there are enough words to explain my view Kind regards Jonny

Spot on Jess

I read it, but I'm a realist, unfortunately.

Sights like this can only be based on one thing, money. This is what people desperate for money have been reduced to doing for a living. That hideous thing is not a tree The desperado that did this will be sure to glean a few more quid in about 18 months time for more disfigurement, because it sure is going to need it Wake up

I would guess Mr Humphries would point you in the right direction there. Excuse my noseyness, but whats wrong with Alice Holt?

Jesse You are quite right, English law strives to protect everyone, frustratingly, sometimes, the wrongdoer. However, some things are cast in stone so to speak and the point here is that if a hazard exists (quite well established here) then a "Duty of care exists" and "someone" is responsible for that tree. Just one point I feel requires a clarification, you mentioned money, As far as I am aware, financial constraint is not mitigation.

Forgot to say, glad you joined in properly in the end, brilliant.

Andy I think you've just about covered everything there!

I think Iv'e missed something? Perhaps it was my little rant that upset Andy? If this realy is an open, democratic forum, then surely the "odd gripe" is not out of order?

That last post is what a forum like this should be about! Proper advice, well written by someone who KNOWS his subject. Ever increasingly I read posts that are seriously misleading or downright incorrect, lashed together by halfwits that are completely out of their depth. We have to understand that quite a number of people visit this forum because they have a problem that they would like answers to. Supplying the wrong info can only set up a wrong path, costing people time and money which is unfair!

Fantastic Video David, a truly magical place

Jesse I feel you have misinterpreted the 1957 act Under the duty of care, the person or organisation responsible for the tree must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that could reasonably be forseen. The very fact that the tree has shed parts resulting in damage to a shed is grounds for compensation. The likelihood that further parts, or even the whole tree will fail is forseeable, necessitating a detailed inspection of the tree. I am not a lawyer but I have here some 50-60 kilos of tree related court cases as precedents and copies of most statute documents. Due to the fact that the neighbour has expressed concerns places a duty of care on the tree owner to make it safe. The councils failure to act after damage has occurred is also on dodgy ground. If this tree falls and injures someone arses will sting and it will not be the complaintant

Here here

No point repeating what has already been pointed out so not much to add. Perhaps my favourite tree species, a very beautiful tree, especialy when open grown is hard to beat for overall shape/form, especialy an old hefty Vet Sycamore seem more abundant in the north of England and perhaps this is where it aquired its weed status, but weed or not the british landscape as we know it today would look very bare without it. Being thin barked and lacking true heartwood it is quite susceptible to decay fungi, esp, P. squamosus and K. Deusta. Hope this is of help Regards J

Absolutely The names of those that have conducted thousands of hours of extensive research that you so vehemently contest? include, Dr Alex Shigo, Dr David Lonsdale, Dr Claus Mattheck, Dr Helge Breloer, R.G Strouts, T.G Winter, Neviile Fray ( I personaly attended his award and conferance dinner for continued services to Arboriculture) David Dowson, Charles Maynors, N.D.G. James, R.B. Allison, again the list is endless. Some 4-5 months ago, you stated on this very forum that you were in the process of writing a book that would blow away all the theories of world renowned authors, REMBER? The World still awaits this Revelation! Where is this elusive publication?

Glen A superficial look at those photos suggests this could be Phytophthora Ramorum. P. ramourum is another of the imported pathogens our American friends have given us affecting huge numbers of Quercus species over there. I have recently attended a site with the disease and the symptoms look very similar The spores are disseminated in water My advice would be to send a sample to be analised to Francois Bocheraeau Forest Research Alice Holt Lodge Farnham Surrey GU10 4LH This will rule out any hasty diagnoses made by headless chickens that then flap from one conclusion to another

Tony I would leave it there my friend!

Tony Swithcing to a computer as opposed to iphone ( possibly the Chateau neuf du pappe could also have had an influence) the Gano brackets are now obvious in pic2. I am surprised that you continue to compare all the pictures you have posted to Ross's. The MAIN road, the layby (static target), the pavement (on a busy road), the list is endless, but the main difference is the type of decay you are trying to assimilate here, Gano V Kretz! I have lost count how many trees I have retained over The last 20 years that have unfortunately been colonised with a Ganoderma, including Fagus. Even a moderately healthy Fagus can outproduce (adaptive growth) what the majority of Ganderma species can consume. Kretzschmaria Deusta is a completely different can of worms, due to the type of decay, it is very difficult to determine the extent of the decay, the type of rot produced is also completely different and the effect of the breakage if it does let go is much more severe. K. deusta behaves in two different ways, 1, when a surface wound has been colonised but the decay dosent penetrate too deep (more commonly with trees that form a true heartwood) and 2, when the fungus has colonised the internal dysfunctional tissues of a species of tree that doesn't form heart wood ( ie age altered wood ro ripewood) as per Fagus. Unfortunately, what we do when we remove huge amounts of healthy tree (which you quite rightly prescribed a reduction of TWO THIRDS) is to remove photo-synthate material that the tree now desperately needs to defend itself and produce reaction-wood to maintain a "uniform stress", to compound this disability, more dysfunctional wood is created adding to the volume of wood available for colonisation by this fungus! We can not rely on epicormic regeneration to supply the defecit in Glucose either, epicormic sprouts have considerably less photo-synthesizing ability than normal healthy new shoots. The exposed nature of the tree (Ross's), is also a major issue to consider when retaining trees of this size, the house which could be argued is sheltering the tree in one direction could create turbulance that could possily DOUBLE the windspeed under certain circumstances. I truly feel for the TO that had to make the decision to fell this tree, invariably people that choose a career in arboriculture do so because they care about trees and having to commit this tree can not hve been an easy decision, just the same as the poor souls having to remove it must have felt making the first cut (as Arbs, we are all aware that the more you remove the easier it emotionaly gets) Incidentaly, the pic you posted with the work done looked good to me, very well balanced reduction I would say, however, if you look back through this thread, you will see that I never made any reference doubting your ability as a tree surgeon! Good luck to Ross with the rest of the reduction Kind regards Jonny

Good pictures of a very nice tree Tony As for the similarity with the tree that Ross is dealing with I'm afraid the only similarity is the species The target potential Ross is/was dealing with is every arbs nightmare, 360 degrees worth of total destruction. From an insurance and arboricultural perspective the tree you display pails into insignificance. My eyesight is not doing me justice this eve Tony because I fail to see any pictures of Gano, felling, your presence etc, perhaps these are pics you gleaned off the net today? I'm sorry but I dont quite get what your trying to say Best wishes Jonny