daltontrees

I hardly know where to start in expressing my disagreement to what you have said. This is a Forum, no0t a courtrooom, and of course I would always encourage people to express their minds in the interest of debate but on the other hand bold well -artuiculated statements are fair game for criticism. I shall put it to you in this way. It is often said that if it aint broke don't try to fix it. But there was a time when people were burned at the stake for refuting the accepted wisdom that the world is flat. Courts are generally arbiters, they are reluctant to interpone themselves in a debate by suggesting a third option or (as I like think) the right answer. If Helliwell is accepted in a case over CAVAT, it doesn't mean Helliwell is right, it just means that the arbiter preferred it to the alternative in all the circumstances of that case. I'm probing here. A number of questions... Do you really think that there is no room for improvement. Do you think that Helliwell is suitable for purpose? Do you think TEMPO is better in some circumstance? And (most importantly of all) do you think it is unnecessary to debate amenity tree valuation in a public forum because everyone already understands it or maybe because it doesn't matter of humble arbs don't understand it because they are just following orders and rules? I'm not looking for a fight but I am taken aback by your dismissal of debate. I want to know what people in the business think about it. It wuld be paricularly convenient to my understanding if you present a representative view. Please pitch in again.

I'm just going by how some dealers are currently stating the policy online. For me I am happy to have a dealer that realises there will be no adverse comeback for them or Stihl by selling me an e-clip for a Ms230. It took me 1 minute to install including taking clutch cover on and off. Nobody has died or lost any limbs (yet|) as a result.

Wouldn't one expect premature death and continued attachment of leaves on Ash affected by Chalara? And if so, can you say whether these leaves wilted early and stayed attached? Looks like autumn to me (sorry, I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, I am just questioning why some leaves are off and others are still on and hanging).

The pictures are just sihouettes. Are you sure those hanging things aren't just ash keys? Apart form Chalara, it'd been a bumper year for Ash and their fruiting,

Thanks for replying, yes that Forestry Commission document is pretty good. Berar in mind though, that it deals with methodologies that are used for street trees; in a way that is straightforward because street trees are antirely in the public domain (road verges, central reserves and so forth) and there are a couole of implications for the relative simplicity of this (i) there is no prospect of sale of the trees or their land and the values are unlikely ever to be tested or needed for anything other than accounting purposes and (ii) the amenity contribution of the trees is enjoyed only by the public, not bnecessarily by the owners of the tree or by private individuals. My plan was to move on to your earlier questions about notional benefit versus notional nuisance next. I might not get a chance until later today though. Even though the FC document covers a lot of good stuff, I alos plan to go through the various methods one at a time and point pout how they are done in practice and how good or bad they are and why.

Sort of reminds me of the Ogden Nash poem, inspired initially by Wordsworth but making a perhaps more useful point. I am quoting from memory, apologies in advance for any mistakes. I think that I will never see A billboard lovely as a tree Perhaps, unless the billboards fall, I will never see a tree at all.

I've copied that poem and printed it off for my office wall.

Phew, thank goodness someone is looking in. I wouldn't value a car on a DRC basis. Think of the tests. Are there lots of transactions to compare with the car being valued (yes)? Are there lots of buyers and sellers (yes)? Is there lots of freely available information about the market (yes)? Are cars specialised things (no)? Would you have to make one yourself becasue demand for them is so low or infrequent that no-one makes them for sale (no)? So cars are a classic example of open market comparison valuation, definitely not depreciated replacement cost. What about trucks? Still open market value, I think. What about Unimogs? I think they should probably be done on a DRC basis, checked by a open market basis, but it''s a marginal one (think of the tests). What about a tracked Unimog with a Hiab on the back and a snowplough at the front? You'd have to make it yourself or have it specially made and would be willing to pay the cost if it was going to provide a return to your (bizarre) business plan. That's what DRCs are for. I will get round to public and private benefits of trees presently. This is the debate that shows some of the current thinking and metheodologies for the nonsense that they are. You are only a step behind me, insofar as you recognise the problem and how undemocratic it can be if it is ill-informed.

Markets are highly imperfect. Lack of information, unreliability about supply and demand, people thinking apples will do for pears, wedding rings that have huge sentimental 'value', cars that wear out from the moment they are made and go down in value, houses that fool the buyer with new carpets to hide the rotten floor etc. But there is another dreadful shortcoming of markets. What if there is no market? Or if all the transactions in the market are kept secret? Or if transactions are so infrequent that they can't be relied upon as valuations? Or there is only one buyer and no seller? Let me put forward the idea (in a utopian NHS society) of the hospital that is run by the state for citizens. Where then does the NHS buy a hospital? Or if it has one it no longer needs, who can it sell it to? The answer is obvious, as happens in reality. It builds one. In building it, it enters a market where there are lots of sellers, otherwise known as building contractors and suppliers of bricks, windows, roof tiles etc. This is a market in which it can satisfy itself it is getting the best price. But here's the important bit. How much is the new hospital worth on the open market? Nothing (there are no buyers nad no demand). What is it's value? Well, the cost of building it. Cost becomes a proxy for value. Cost for a moment equals value because it is worth that to the occupier. The decision to spend that much on building it has been justified by the benefits that will come from occupying it. That is a Replacement Cost valuation. Over time it gets worn out or stops being in the format required of a modern hospital. Yet is still operates, repairs are more expensive and it's not so efficient as it might be. That's called Depreciation. Combine the two and you have Depreciated Replacement Cost. For trees, planting costs are akin to building costs. Poor form, old age and defects are akin to depreciation Which is the basis of CTLA and CAVAT. And if I am being kind there are elements of that in Helliwell too. There, that isn't so complicated after all. There's no obvious market for mature trees. So we should value them on the depreciated replacement cost basis. Or shoud we?

So why do we need valuations? Why not just sell the thing and see what you get for it? Well, you can only do that if you have a marketplace, you have sellers and buyers together at the same time in reasonable numbers, you have a product that buyers can try, touch, see. And maybe the seller doesn't want to sell at that time, he just wants to know what he can expect to get when the time comes. Can he take his apples to market, haggle a price with someone then tell teh buyer he was just fishing? No, he can't. But he can suss out the going rates for apples so that he can go home and ponder whether to plant apple trees or pear trees. He can work out how much planting will tcost, how long he has to wait for apples or pears, how much work is required, how much he will get for the apples or pears and for how many years. He can then make an informed decision about what to plant. Vasluations are used when we buy a house and get a mortgage (back in the days when you could). What is the valuation saying. It says if you default on your mortgage and the bank repossesses and sells to get its loan money back, the house will fetch enough on the market to justify the risk of lending in the first place. There might never be such a sale, but an imitation of the market is needed, based on current house prices and current supply and demand. Valuations are used when something is to be insured. There is never any intention to sell the thing. But if it is stolen or destroyed, the insurer will pay the owner. The amount is the hypothetical amout that would be needed to buy or make a replacement in the open market. It might be a wedding ring, it might be a car, it might be a house, but it's still an imitation of the market. Without any buyers or sellers having been directly consulted. Another common use of valuations is for the sale directly off the market. Our man needs another cart of apples next week. He says to his neighbour, no need to take your aplles to market, I'll buy them from you. Perfect! But what's the sale price? So the neighbour asks around other people that have been to the market, both parties now have good knowledge and they strike a fair deal based on a mutually agreed valuatoin. Again, an imitation of the market. The seller won't accept less than he would get at the market. The buyer won't pay more than he would at the market. I am still planning to get rounfd to trees. But there is another important principle to explain. The most important one for anyone hoping to understand the strengths and weaknesses of tree valuations. I will give it it's full sunday name and allow everyone a chance to run away in horror. Depreciated Replacement Cost. It's not that scary though, I will pick it apart for you.

OK so I didn't expect overpowering enthusiasm for this subject but I am quite dismayed by the general lack of interests. If anything I am surprised how anyone can get through a working year in arboriculture without bumping up against the subject and having to have a rudimentary understanding of it. But that's maybe just me... A fair question then would be, why do we need valuations? To explain that, an understanding of what valuations are is needed. So here's my grossly oversimplified explanation. They are imitations of what would happen in the marketplace. That term 'marketplace' is used for global financial markets but we shouldn't overlook its origins in (say) a simple town market where buyers and sellers come together. Say ten sellers turn up with a cart of apples each and ten buyers turn up with empty carts looking to fill them with apples. Happy days, supply equals demand and the highest price will be paid for the best quality apples by the most discerning buyer. The lowest price will be for the desparate sale of the half rotten cartfull that the buyer only needs for pigfood. But somewhere in the midst of it all we can sense a market price for apples there at that time. So a seller or buyer comes home and his neighbour asks him 'I have a cart of apples to sell next week at that market, how much will I get for them?'. Our man, fresh from the cut-and-thrust of the market, tries one of the apples and gives his neighbour an estimate of what he thinks the cartfull will fetch. And that is a valuation. An up-to-date, informed imitation of the market. Lesson one, valuations are only good for a time and a place. Of course, there is no guarantee that that is the price that will be fetched. Say the seller turns up, the only seller that day, and ten desparate buyers turn up. The 'laws' of supply and demand suggest he will get a very very good price as the buyers compete. But say he turns up with nine other sellers and there is only one buyer. That buyer will smile to himself and systematically bargain the sellers down to a very good price. Lesson two, valuations are only as good as the assumptions that you make about the balance of supply and demand. The seller also brings along a cartfull of pears, thinking he will get the same price as for apples, they're all fruit, after all. But no-one wants pears that day. He tips the lot on the way home, disappointed. Lesson three, don't use apples to value pears. Bear with me, I will get around to trees eventually...

Amazing alliteration! I like questions, basically I get excited by the subject of valuation and am astonished and delighted when anyone else is. So fire away anytime, I might not have the answer but I will try.

Almost certainly Ganoderma applanatum, have a search in the Fungi Directory for general prognosis (not good)

Have a look at the fungi directory on this site. C. micaceus is listed there. It doesn't look like a perfect match for your pics. But even if it is it is a mildly saprophytic fungus. feeding on dead material rather than killing. So it could be causing ofr contributing to the rot but I would very very much doubt that it is causing the fundamental problem with the tree.

Now I see why nobody's ever posted about tree valuation before. Almost complete apathy about the subject amongst tree surgeons and tree workers. Oh well... So now that I have a forum thread with tumbleweeds blowing through it I can indulge myself by filling it full of whatever I consider might be useful to anyone in the future looking for a bit of background information. I will concentrate on a few specific themes how does the value of trees relate to the value of the land it is situated on (and vice versa)? how does it relate to the value of other land and public places (and vice versa)? what systems are currently used and what are their main features? what is good and bad about existing systems? what can be done about it? (chirrip.... chirrip)

Doesn't look anything aggressive. Doesn't look even like the usual suspects for feeding on deadwood. There's a big difference between causing decay and living on dead material. Perhaps the decay is being caused by something else and your mushrooms are bit-players in the background?

David, hope you don't mind if I pitch in? I think the use of the words 'reactive wood' could turn out to be unhelpful and confusing. There are the established terms of 'adaptive growth' and 'reaction wood'. The term 'reactive wood' is new to me. If your definitions opened with 'Formation of additional or specialised wood as a reaction by the tree to abnormal external forces....' then I think it would be a reasonable summary. I have always struggled to understand the difference between 'adaptive growth' and 'reaction wood'. The former should probably refer to the general habit of trees of self-optimizing (axiom of uniform stress etc.) by adding to their structure to compensate for forces that would otherwise compromise them. It is, however, also used by many people to mean the extra wood itself. It is further used to describe extra wood, specialised or otherwise, that has grown as a quick response to partial structural failures such as at compression forks or at decaying unions. 'Reaction wood' really ought to be saved for describing specially adapted wood. As you have said in your ddescriptions, the wood may be especially rich in lignin or cellulose. But there are other adaptations too in the orientation of fibres and cellulose in cell walls. Cells may be shorter, they may also be rounder. They almost certainly will expand (compression wood) or contract (tension wood) on maturity. That's where the push or pull comes from. All the other specialisations I have taken to be to provide additional strength, not push or pull. As such, I would disagree with the exact wording you have put forward, but only in a pedantic way because the cellulose or lignin does not push it only gives strength to the cells so that when they pull or push by shrinkage or expansion they do not fail. Things get complicated with the terminology in practice. Reaction wood tends to be added with unusually wide annual increments and so can appear just as extra wood. But if you try and put a saw through a branch union of a broadleaf you will soon know that you are encountering extra cellulose. Similarly with a conifer you will sail through the reaction or compression wood relative to the normal wood because it has more lignin that cellulose. It is like a linear resistograph test, you just need to listen to the saw revs to gauge the relative cellulose content. At least, that is how I amuse myself when discing stuff. So in summary my definitions are roughly - adaptive growth is the addition of extra wood (a process, not a substance), reaction wood is specialised wood, compression wood (in conifers) is wood arising from adaptive growth usually including the addition of lignin-rich reaction wood, and tension wood (in broadleaves) is wood arising from adaptive growth usually including the addition of cellulose-rich reaction wood. I am open to any other suggestions or refinements.

Ta, Rob, I think you're right. Leccinum scabrum. Could be quite tasty.

And just across the gorge under mixed Pine/Beech/Birch and Rhododendron was this pair.

This Bolete was spotted atthe weekend near Blair Atholl. Pretty soggy underneath and as it was beside a nature walk I didn't want to uproot it for a better look. Any idea what species, anyone? The Directory has the most likely candidate B. edulis as under broadleaf but occasionally under pine, but this one was under exclusively larch.

Found on Scots Pine near Boat of Garten (near Aviemore). Looking a bit old. Would this be Phaeolus schweinitzii?

Further to other pople's and my pics of Amanita muscaria, here's another taken near Dunkeld at the weekend, underneath Larch and Scots Pine. Previous pics were underneath Birch/Alder/Willow/Hazel. Just goes to show it's not fussy about soil.

I think that falls into the tools for the job category, as long as you state what your figures cover and don't cover there is no problem. Except as ever that valuations are not valuations if they are not rooted, literally and metaphorically, in the legal control of the land on which the tree or trees are situated. In effect you are trying to put a figure on the benefits that everyone gets from a tree, which has very very little relationship to the value of the tree to the owner. As long as you keep calling that 'assigning a financial value' instead of 'valuing', it's sound. As to which of these factors are amenity ones, wellbeing/feelgood definitely is. That seems to be what amenity is all about. Property prices are a reflection of that rather than another factor.

Here's the case. The court accepts broadly that the neighbouring property before the illegal removal of the neighbour's tree is £50,000 less than after its removal. r v davey.pdf

Been there too, 20 years in and out of local government (or public service as I stilll naively like to call it), I have sympathies in both directions. I am reminded of the origins of the Hellliwell system. It started off as a way of assessing the relative amenity of trees, I think as a means of deciding whuich should be proptected and which shouldn't. It gave each tree a number of points based on size, position, form etc. I find it hard to fault it (except on a few matters of subjectivity) for that purpose. But then decades later someone decided to attach a £ per point and call it valuation. A quite arbitrary £ per point. That does not make it a valuation. That makes it a monetised amenity assessment. That's where all the confusion started, as far as I can tell. Like nailing a hundred bits of wood together, sticking it in the ground and calling it a tree. Sorry, but that's called a fence.