daltontrees

Don't I know it, I have been surveying trees on the edge of a notorious housing scheme in Glasgow for the last 5 months and cavities seem to make an irresistable stove for alfresco drinkers to sit around. Not because they are veteran trees, but because they are just out of sight of police. Many of the cavities have been caused by fire damage between butresses a few years previously. Honestly, a couple of nights drinking and a bit of fun for the winos is enough to seal the fate of trees that have been there for a good 100 years before the scheme was even thought of and would otherwise have been tehre for another 200 years. Any metal over the cavity would have been prised up to make a handy toasting rack. Scum!

Best way to pruduce a barbers chair is to do the backcut too high relative to the sink. It can be used deliberately to get the tree to stay attached when it is on teeh ground, you need to cut a 45 degree sink , cut teh back slightly too high and when the tree starts to go the sink closes and instead of the hinge snapping the rest of the tree's momentum goes into splitting the stem. As the barber's chair happens when the stem is almost over there is plenty of time to get out of the way and the split stem goes upwards instead of backwards. Then as someone said the tree is split already for easier firewood and because it's still attached at the butt it is easier to brash. Only works for some species though. Worth a try when it is safe to do so is what I have just described but with the back cut well below the sink. Needs to be a clear-stemmed leaner though.

I agree, not one to learn on, more one to learn from someone else doing. The wood is incredibly dense and even quite short sections can be surprisingly heavy. The only really good thin about a lean is it can make rigging down pretty easy if you plan it right.

That it prevents monitoring is reason enough I think not to fill the cavity.

Insurance doent indemnify the policyholder against their own failing to employ somebody reputable, traceable, insured etc. If I was the insurance company I would say sorry but we only cover accidents not actions.

I worked with Deeco today and yesterday, hard working and keen guy, anyone who is looking for someone to do a shift or two in Central Scotland should get in touch with him. Quite a change from Mallorca up Loch Lomondside today...

Darn it! That's the rest of us put out of business. Oh well...

Certainly NOT a rare tree, at least the common species Alnus glutinosa isn't. We must have cut down about 500 wild-seeded road verge trees today, all small but growing vigorously. Will grow just about anywhere, the wetter the better.

I would imagine the LPA wants the mats everywhere the car parking is proposed AND that lies withing the tree Root Protection Areas, see BS5837 for RPA extents but someone has already mentioned the 12 x stem diameter rule-of-thumb Best if mats laid on existing surface with minimal preliminary excavation and levelling. If the trees are worthy, the LPA would be within its rights to consider refusing the application if excavation close to the tree is proposed before putting type 1 down. Edging may be needed to contain the type 1. I don't know how much it costs but as an alternative to excavating and disposing of material it might well be cost-effective to use CellWeb.

I think the 4T pull is for things with wheels on like boats on trailers, caravans etc. on the level. Very different matter pulling out stumps or dead weights. I resisted the urge to get one, and held out for a second hand Tirfor which is an absolute marvel to see working but is very heavy to carry around (not much fun taking it 1k into a forest across a river and uphill) so the thing in the ad looks attractive mainly because it looks light. I would be wondering at that price how long it would last. But as you say for occasional light work it could have its moments.

Horse Chestnuts are rubbish, something always gets them. I don't think either of these 2 fungi are that aggressive, more a sign that dead or dying wood is already there for some reason- frost splits, as Hamadryad says Pseudomonas is rife too, also thye just drop big branches for no particular reason and don't heal well, they can get weakened by leaf miners and go into decline after a couple of bad years of that and poor weather.

Assuming you know which way is up in a tree, I suggest you start with Trees: Their Natural History by Peter Thomas, an elegantly constructed and beautifully written book that manages to be general and specific at the same time and feeds you with an almost infinite number of leads to pursue as your appetite affords. Woodland Management by Chris Starr is a great read and introduction to the various aspects of woodland management. If you want folklore you should be able to get a cheapish copy of Meetings with Remarkable Trees somewhere. It's not very scientific but it's not too dippy either, and gives a good flavour of the tree/man relationship over the centuries.

For what it's worth the BS says an 'arboriculturalist' (i.e. the category of person in the BS who would be considered competent to provide the formal tree documents to support a development proposal) is a person who 'has, through relevant education, training and experience, gained expertise in the field of trees in relation to construction'. I imagine the Council would not contest the reasonable views of an arboriculturalist who has written and signed the report including a resume of his/her expertise. I have always assumed (but I may be wrong) an arborist to be a tree worker, operating in the contracting operational rather than advisory professional field. One cold be both arboriculturalist and arborist but measured against the BS definition most people in the business are likely to be one or the other.

I think they are just looking for the fee income, seems to be common in these lean times when DC sections are having to justify staff costs. So if the consent is about to expire presumably it hasn't been started. So unless they are TPO'd trees can't work be done on them for which the need has arisen, entirely outwith the rationale for the planning condition? I suppose it would be clearer if teh work needed to them now bears no relation to the work that would have been needed to them to implement the planning consent. But hte gnerality remains, just because a consent exists doesn't mean the whole property is in limbo for its duration, things (especially trees) change during the 5 years of a consent. So the question is, if no consent existed could the Council prevent or control the tree works?

If it was on an Acer or a Beech I would say squirrel damage and I might be right. Dunno if the wee blighters have an appetite for Salix?

Surely it is better to use a wedge or a pull rope or a winch or the wind or gravity or a hefty shove to commit the tree than to compromise the hinge size? A long hinge from a stepped cut I expect means bending less fibres but over a longer length than a straight-through cut which bends more fibres over zero length. If I am bothered about committing the cut and none of the above-mentioned means of assistance are enough to mop my fevered brow, I take the middle of the hinge out with a boring cut before doing back cut. All the control, half the effort. I like the explanation of avoiding 'stump-shot'. The hinge has to take the force of shoving the entire weight of the tree sideways in just a few seconds. A wee step in there feels quite reassuring in case trhe hinge shears through.

Pleurotus for the first I would say, common on Horse Chestnut around here. Second (yellower) ones could be Flammulina velutipes.

I know what you mean, asking a simple question can be very complicated. And it's not even lining up a criticism of QTRA, I just would like to know these few things so that I and others can delineate the limitations of QTRA so that (in my case) if I ever have a big client who wants recommendations for a system to use I can properly advise on the pros and cons in case the client wants to adopt QTRA. So far it's only doing what I already do and depending on answer to last question I may already be exceeding its capabilities.

Hard to tell, the leaves look poorly. If the leaves are alternate rather than opposite I don't think it can be O x fortunei. It could be Ilex x altaclarensis which has very variable number of spines. If it is, it's not well, looking chlorotic or frost-damaged.

Our quotes always have a time limit on them, and usually an explanation of why such as imminent bud burst, bird nesting season, fungal spores season, bad time to cut conifer hedges etc. etc. Customers understand and appreciate it. I never chase up quotes, if you're going to get the job you'll find out soon enough. You can pencil in the diary the ones you feel you will probably get.

Tony, I don't know who your question is addressed to. I can't answer a question about a question but I can elaborate a bit. Personally I feel able to distinguish between tree risk of death and lesser risks, from being flattened outright by a tree trunk right down to getting a poke in the eye from a protruding branch. The taking of victims as you find them matter is an interesting and important one in law. Although someone who has for example brittle bones might come off very badly if struck with a branch compared with someone who has normal bones, the assessor I think can only assess trees with reference to the potential for harm to an average physiology which statistically most people are. I wouild be amazed and astounded, impressed even, if QTRA made a distinction between risk on an average street and on a street in front of a sheltered housing complex where pedestrian usage by elderly and infirm is slightly higher than usual. That said, I always take a cautious view when surveying near primary schools where children could not withstand the injury adults could. Maybe I could illustrate my point with an example which is met with surprising frequency. A tree is set back from a pavement at a distance that means if the whole tree fell only the tips of the top of the crown would reach the pavement and the rest of the tree would land harmlessly in undergrowth. The worst outcome barring freak occurences and particularly fragile targets would be laceration and mental scarring. If the tree failure had been foreseeable and nothing had been done about it the landowner would be negligible and responsiple for recompense to the victim. Would QTRA have out this tree off the scale on the 1:1,000,000 threshold for death and could a landowner be left bemused by his misunderstanding that QTRA had his duty of care covered? I await comments from our Wolf Creek correspondent.

A. platanoides 'Drumondii' it is. The Louis Frere is variegated but in a different way, not the margin but whole interveinal sectors. Still no more shots at the Battersea Park tree? The more I stare at it the more I see a lady in a tweed dress and waistcoat. I think I need more sleep.

And if you wish something to ponder in the unlikely event on not being mentally fecked down-under, here is a wee thing that troubles me about quantification of risk and how QTRA might address the issue. I am taking as read the 1:1,000,000 and 1:10,000 brackets that HSE has suggested as guidelines. To make it really really clear, this is the guidelines for risk of death. This seems to be ingrained in QTRA calculations. However, does not the common law and the Occupiers Liability legislation create an obligation to avoid foreseeable risk of injury or damage? I don't want a war on the exact wording of the law, I just want to point out that the HSE figures are about death and the law definitions are about 'injury'. To confuse matters, HSE analyses industry accident figures based on 'serious harm'. There could be as much as a degree of magnitude of risk between death and serious harm and another order of magnitude between serous harm and injury. I have worked on large tree surveys where the instruction has been to satisfy the client's Duty of Care responsibility. Had I used the unacceptable/tolerable/broadly acceptable verdicts of the QTRA system or indeed a home-knitted version of it, I could have been far far off the mark and have failed the client. I am not sure I have a question for QTRA, but do you recognise the differentiation I am making and accept that duty of care obligations may not be immediately compatible with QTRA outputs without some sort of adjustment being made to the threshold? Even if it were just to allow for a tree presenting a 1:100,000 risk of death simultaneously presenting a (say) 1:10,000 risk of injury or serious harm? As a tag-on I would suggest that QTRA output for damage to property may be in line with duty of care obligations since the damage is defined by cost of repair. The HSE 2001 document, whilst very thorough, discusses risk without saying risk of what, then jumps straight into guidelines for risk of death. That it seems is a jump that leapfrogs risk of injury or serious harm and leaves no guidance as to what the corresponding thresholds would be for those less serious but higher probability risks.

Av there's no need to apologise, you have brought upon yourself the enormous taks of fielding all manner of questions about QTRA, I have no more right to demand speedy or any answers than you have to demand that we stop asking obvious questions. Your response regarding property is logical. Regarding moving targets, particularly slow moving ones, your position is clearly stated but personally I try to take account of increased target presence time for wider canopies. The difference between a Lombardy Poplar and a Horse Chestnut of the same DBH for example could be considerable. As regards height of fall, again I would tend to differentiate when if the shape of the canopy allows me to. A clear fall of a high-up snow-laden Scots Pine limb (close-grown examples of said species can commonly be 20 m high with canopy restricted to last 5m) onto a road I think deserves higher rating of 'IP' than same size limb lower down. But I take your point about how difficult it could be to generalise for all the ifs buts and maybes. More questions come to mind but you may be pleased to hear that rather than ask I am trying to find the answers from the Guidance Note and this thread, so that I can restrict myself to questions I can't get answered otherwise. The questions I ask are a bit broader than they need to be so as to provide a bit of interest for other readers. Anyway, I can think of better things to do in Singapore than answer questions about QTRA, so your elucidations and our education can continue whenever.

I'm not worthy to be on this thread, but I offer this little stunt fell for inventiveness even if it is a small tree. We had already taken down a tree at the front only a foot away, so I cut a V-notch in the stump of it, and felled the next tree across it and caught the butt in the notch, saving the wall and a fair bit of time.