daltontrees

I have just read the Measuring Guidelines Handbook for the Big Trees Program. It's a really nicely put together piece of work. The points system seems arbirtrary in the relative importance it attaches to girth, height and spread, but these are the only 3 things you have any chance of recording in a forest, so fair enough. The spread part is very small, compared to the other two factors for tall trees, so it seems to be mostly about big height but fat at the bottom. So I'm guessing that a 370 foot high tree would need to be 24 foot DBH. For us big tree novices, a height to DBH diameter ratio of only about 15 doesn't seem that impressive, but on a Sequoia scale of things it becomes something different that I can't really take in. I think Scotland has Douglas Fir about 210 feet high, barely half the height that you are recording.

Looks very much like Phellinus pomaceus.

Not as enthusiastic as 1130 dm!

aka Trameter versicolor or Turkeytail. As far as I know only eats deadwood.

If he can't even speak english, no wonder he has such a bother getting on with mainland europe.

Thanks, I must contemplate this. But imperial? Come on, there's only 2 countries in the world still use imperial. We invented it and we don't even use it. Just teasing, by the way, keep posting please it's enlightening.

We have a Tree Register. Trees are rated as biggest by height or girth or both, for their species. We have a heirarchiy for each species that goes national champion, regional champoin, notable and then locally notable. I think I just got a new regional champion Ilex last week. A tiddler compared to your trees, but pretty impressive. So can't you guys decide if tallest is best, or fattest, or widest spread? I shoudl add that one of the tree valuation systems here works on the basis of calculating cross sectional area of crown, but the tree gets ore points if it is freestandinfg and therefore visible. It's quality and quantity of visual amenity. Like a big tree is not that impressive unless you can see it.

Thanks, will look out for these James Blunts. I hate them soooooo much.

Sorry for not replying sooner. Steve has already baggsy'd this wood. But if you want to collect it for him...?

Offer still stands to give you a hand with this.

The lazy git! He has let you down which is not fair, yiou were fair with him, so I'd give him what I agreed but very begrudgingly. Did he make the job pay for you, or have you ended up subsidising his laziness and are going to have to put in extra unpaid work yourself so as not to lose money on the job? I,ve chahged my mind, I'd work out how much I would have paid him if he had done the whole thing at a reasonable speed minus your time at his hourly rate to finish what he didn't finish.

Sound advice from Sloth there. Your insurance might not cover heave damage, if it's to do with shrinkable clays. Why stick your neck out when the client could get a quick report from an engineer recommending a solution, after which you are just a contractor following orders. If it is you that recommends the solution, you could/would be het for damage if it goes wrong in 1, 3 5, 10 years time.

That's a pity, I have 2 or 3 that size up in Glasgow that are heading for my firewood pile, for want of someone to take them (free) for turning or carving. Would give the courier a hernia, I reckon.

Unfortunately, round Glasgow in the rougher housing estates fires at the base of trees are a depressingly regular thing.

Almost beyond the imagination, would love to see these giants smeday. I am not familiar with this points system, can you outline how it works please or direct me somewhere that does?

No-ones' said it's in a Conservation Area or TPO'd. Not having a go at you, the OP doesn't seem to eb aware of teh legislative basis for removign dangerous trees, maybe thinking there is a requirement to remove dangerous trees. Dunno, there is no way any of us have enogh information to say what should be done. if it is 1 metre shorter than its distance to the school access, why touch it? God I hate to think that the fate of trees that have been around for maybe 50 or 100 years might rely on forum opinion. Again, nothing to do with you, skyhuck, I just hit quote instead of reply. So, egs, I'd say leave it alone unless you think it's probably going to fall over soon in conditions when there will be someone right underneath it. See all that callus, that means it's fighting back and is strong and supple around the decay. 35,000 days to grow, 1 day to cut it down.

Already done it following your request on UKTC (or at least I think I did). Is it the same questionnaire? If not, I'll do it again.

I think you missed my point, doing it could help you get the job.

This is correct, Councils can try and get youy to use the TPO form and can even mistakenly believe that you have to, but they do get it wrong and the only thing that matters is what the Act and Regulations say. I wold also sya that I have in teh past put in notification for jobs before I win them. It starts the 6 week notification period running, but it aso makes you stand out as the most professional and helpful. The notification is for the tree not for the copntractor, so it doesn't matter who puts it in.

Deefinitely not Hamamelis. Cornus mas looking good.

The BS is not clear about a lot of things but it does say you can overlook minor defects. But it doesn't say you can ignore incurable active pathogens that re known to cause or contribute to premature demise of a tree. Would it be misleading to call it an A2? Almost certainly. Would it be misleading to call it a B2? Probably not. I call it the cross-examination test, and I make my decisions accordingly. Does the category feel right? Are the nearest alternative catgories any better? Would you recommend that a development with a design life of 40+ years be designed around it so that it can be enjoyed for that design life? If you were in the stand at a public inquiry, being cross-examined by some smart-ass, weasly razor-sharp QC whose job it is to destroy your self-confidence and your evidence, could you look him square in the eyes and say 'in my professional judgement, on all the available evidence, that is the most appropriate category? If you could, you've got it right. Having just done a big survey where there is huge hostility to a statutory scheme and where absolutely any of the trees surveyed could become a pawn in a very high-stakes game (and a few of the trees will be), I rehearsed this test for almost every tree before hitting the 'OK' button and moving on. I hope this helps you decide. I'd say it sounds like a B2. The stable hollowing of oak over long periods is well known, but in my experience more with Inonotus and Fistulina, whereas some of the Ganoderma species can destabilise quite quickly and the wind does the rest.

Not a lot of clear detail there to go on. In the past I have seen worrying white stuff in cracks in Beech only to realise that it was Adelgid or Cryptococcus. I saw something similar on a really old Beech on Tuesday, and my report is likely to note that it was unidentifiable but that there were no other signs such as hollowing, necrosis or propagation of splits to suggest that from a risk or tree helath management perspective, nothing more need be done just now.

I have the excellent National Audubon Society Field Guide. Makes me want to go to north america for a tree-spotting holiday. Soooo sad...

Wild guess... Hamamelis japonica? Your flowers are very blurred.

There was always going to be a slightly ugly Arbtalk thread about the general election. I hope this is the one, so that I can avoid it and the rest of Arbtalk is safe to look at. Don't you guys have trees to look at? Rhetorical question, I probably won't be looking at this thread again so I wouldn't see the answer.