daltontrees

I binned them 2 years ago, they were pretty inept, noever made the changes I asked for and if they did they got them wrong. I haven't paid them for 2 years and have cancelled my deal with them but I can't get them to remove my listing. It contains errors.

Personally I don't think the bedding plants thing is actionable. They must have been planted under a tree, and a reasonable man would not do that knowing thatthye would not thrive in the inevitable shade of a tree. But more generally, it seems right to appreciate that a TPO is an imposition, bringing with it unavoidable compromise to a man's right to do with his tree or the encroaching brnaches of his neighbour's tree whatever he wants within the gamut of common law. Does shade of bedding plants trump the societal amenity benefits of a tree that has been selected for preservation. I don't think so. So I don't think the nuisance could be abated lawfully under the exemption. Just my opinion, it's a matter of degree. I think it would be competent for guidance to state the types of things that would fall under the exemption, but the guidance would have to be careful in sidestepping definitions of 'actionable'. If that makes sense?

I'd say Populus canescens, Grey Poplar

Apologies to 10 Bears I misread your posting. What you said was correct.

Lowlife scumbags! Did they break in to your garage or car to get them?

I don't think this is a correct statement of the law. Or to put it another way, I think that this is an incorrect statement of the law. it is the tree that is TPO'd, not the area that it occupies.

I was told once that it is not ideal because ther is no way of knowing or testing its strength. I'd use them if the crotch was subsequently getting chopped off but I don't like the damage ropes do to them with the heat of friction. What does rthe latest CS41 syllabus say?

Trouble is, it does not reflect the value of the location , only the tree. So it can be used rurally and urbanly and will produce the same answer whether in city centre or village green.

My guess would be multiple breaches of HSWA, including LOLER, PUWER and WAH. Basically not using industry best practices, and ignoring wealth of industry advice against discredited practices, But the lawyer in me wants to qualify that by saying that if you used natural fork as a one-off when no alternative was available you'd be OK but if you repeatedly used it you wouldn't be. And if your rope broke because you had knackered it beforehand and had't checked it was fit for purpose, you'd be busted.

Why? No point in asking unless you either want to be told what you thought anyway or want to know the right answer. Dropping and lowering on krabs and shackles will wreck or break a rope. You won't be insured and somene might get badly hurt. Buy a pulley. MIne cost £80, I have used it probably over 8,000 times, that's a penny a go. And it's still shiny, will outlive me for sure and will never ruin a £120 lowering rope. Saving me a fortune, it is.

I agree totally, I wouldn't use rope and krab if a sling was available. Which it always is except for emergencies. Big big bites get a timber hitch and an isolating half hitch.

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

Thanks, as you are someone whose opinion I have come to respect on Arbtalk, I attach weight to your comments on this suibject. And immediately on looking at your company's website I see that you are CAS accredited in PTI. Maybe there's the answer to my dilemma. If it is possible to be a CAS member and to do tree risk assessment under the PTI competence I don't need to concern myself with TRAQ. I have already satisfied myself professionally that TRAQ is a bit like trying to wire a plug while wearing gloves and sunglasses.

This is making less and less sense. CAS says that QTRA is deficient by having no minimum entry requirement. It says TRAQ is better in part by having a level 2 qualification requirement. But membership of CAS requires level 4. Anyone getting into CAS and having QTRA surely meets and exceeds the requirements of CAS and TRAQ by some considerable extent?

Thanks, and just when I thought I was getting my head around this and about to jon the CAS.... So (and by all means say you don't know and direct me instead to the CAS), does this mean that I could not get a CAS competency in tree risk assessment if I don't pass the TRAQ training and exam (including having the implied minimum entry requirements)? Even if I have the PTI qualification? Even if I have my own tried and tested tree risk assessment system? Will QTRA competent CAS members have to re-train to use TRAQ? Will the QTRA competency in fact disappear, replaced with a TRAQ competency? I'm not getting this so far, am I? On the CAS website it is clear that the BS5837 competence is by peer review. This seems logical. So why can't tree risk assessment be by peer review, or even better by one of a number of routes (QTRA + Level 2, TRAQ (which includes level 2) or peer review)?

I am keen to write such a paper, but like most folk I have a living to earn which gets in the way of such niceties as pure research without financial reward. That's a tough assignment you have. It took ISA two years and a cast of thousands to come up with TRAQ, and it was basically a re-hash of what it already had. Can I ask, what level of qualification is this assignment for?

Likewise. I seem to have persuaded the family that Preston is lovely at that time of year. Now i need to think of some cracking questions for David Lonsdale.

Nifty knot! After a couple of minutes' practice I can now tie it in 5 seconds with my eyes shut. It aint no bowline though, try using it to tie a line to the bow of a boat, it can't be done. Circus midline yes, circus bowline no. Like the bowline is,weaker than say a figure of 8 on the bight, the circus 'midline' is weaker than the similar alpine butterfly. And it's not 3 directional like the butterfly. Definitely easier to open, though. The ugly bastard child of the bowline and the butterfly.

I see that the 11th June session is north of Preston, a definite bonus. I'll see if I can double it up with a visit to family in Lancaster. And I need to get over my anti-American bias and loathing of the term 'Arborist', and join the CAS. I don't know if I mentioned it here on Artalk before, but I had plans to research and publish a paper on risk perception and comparisons of qualitative and quantitative methods. Then I ended up surveying in Wales all winter, the commuting (time) nearly finished me off and I put it the adminintensive proposal on hold. I'd be happy to revive it if someone wants to pitch in. I am partly put off by the prevalent (but tankfully not unanimous) attitude that doing tree risk asssessment better and more easily than it already is doesn't matter. Co-write credit of course if it gets to the Journal (which it should), always nice to get research peer reviewed and published. QTRA or TRAQ devotees need not apply...

I just tried this outside. Maximum load I could hold with right hand while tying with left hand was about 5kg. So it's OK for tying the knot in a rope that's hanging below you but tht's about it. And better than the hand-wrapping version. For fully loaded rope I'd still use a prussik loop to establish a midline attachment point.

I think the preview has all the useful bits, probably not worth paying for the full article.

That's got to be a backward step. Much as I disagreed with the QTRA trainer's presentation of his critique of TRAQ, I certainly agreed with the overall conclusion - it's dangerously imprecise. Kew used (possibly still uses) the original Matheny & Clark system, a number-based additive system that was the progenitor of QTRA. It's probably a matter of semantics, but the word 'subjective' seems to be shifting from its true meaning, which is the opposite of 'objective'. Commonly now it is becoming synonymous with 'imprecise'. Tree hazard evaluation should be objective, even if it is impossible to achieve precision due to hidden aspects. It shuld leave no room for what the surveyor thinks a word means. As such TRAQ seems t me a masterpiece of imprecision and subjectivity. Co-incidentally, I have the details for signing up to CAS on the desk this week, after a bit of dithering I am thinking of going ahead with it. Somehting lke this would certainly cause me to re-consider. I wouldn't want my professional competence to be pre-judged by potential clients by my being hitched to TRAQ through CAS. Just a preliminary view for now, I'll look into it a bit more first.

Tree Ontogeny and Its Reflection in the Structure and Dynamics of Plant and Soil Covers - Springer

Trees: Their Natural History deals with this in a few paragraphs at pages 207 and 208. Not a lot of detail. If you haven't got acces to the book let me know and I will scan the relevant bit for you. Strictly for study, I don't want to get into copyright issues.

The tricky bit of this knot is missing from the pictures. Between picture 4 and 5. Put your right thumb under all the loops, so that it is tight to your right palm. Pass the bit being held in your left fingers to your right thumb and 3rd and 4th fingers, pinch it and pull out your right hand from the loops, taking the 'eye' with it.