daltontrees

Ah OK thanks.

What's the purpose of the ribs?

Here's a biut of trivia. To my knowledge (and I've been looking for years) M.g. is the only tree common in the UK that has its buds behind (or occasionally beside) but never inside/in front of (distal to) the axil. That's quite a thing!

Pairs

Ah but look closer, it does have opposite bud scars everywhere. Some of the buds have not developed, giving it an alternate looking pattern. But the opposite buds were there.

I don't see there being very much flexibility in that stem. Could be winched. Acrow prop would do more bark damage. A nice forgiving new permanent prop would be needed. If trying it, do it before it comes back into leaf, it will be a good bit lighter. I wouldn't try and get it more than a few inches up. Heck I'd try it but I'd also be prepared for it not to work

Defo not taxodium, which has really pointed needles.

Why not?

Looks like there are lots of opposite pairs of bud scars but not all buds have developed, I'm saying this because the leaflets look to be in strongly opposite pairs, which rules out swamp cypress and rules in dawn redwood.

One factor to consider. Driving a bus or a lorry? No thanks. Getting paid to look at trees? It's almost cheating. Who needs megabucks when most days are a walk in the woods and the rainy ones are snug in the office?

Wow, what does that say about a couple of folk I know who failed? Rhetorical question. One was a maniac, the other an imbecile.

I looked into this a couple of years ago and kind of gave up. Well, not quite, I found a company down south that had a spade big enough. There is a company in Cumbernauld that hired out Bobcat attachments that would do the job for smaller trees. The big issue is that unless young trees have been moved regularly at nursery to contain the rootball they will only survive a move if you take a huge cone. There's als a bit of a limitation on ground conditions for getting the spade in. Stony conditions are a killer.

Thanks. To be honest I am hoping not to have to deal with Felling Licenses ever again, although the rules are fairly simple.. The FC site used to be as treasure trove of documents, I remember it being vandalised a few years ago and loads of stuff disappearing.

This would make your head spin. The change to Fomitopsis doesn't seem to be entirely accepted. I just read a paper that say it all about how bonkers taxonomy can get. It starts by saying "no comprehensive investigation was carried out on a broad phylogenetic overview of Fomitopsis with enough samples from relevant genera, such as Daedalea and Piptoporus, and taxonomic delimitation of Fomitopsis has been controversial and remained insufficiently resolved . So, further phylogenetic analyses sampling more species are needed to clarify the relationships of Fomitopsis and its related genera." Pages later it concludes (if you can even call it a conclusion) that "In summary, we performed a comprehensive study on Fomitopsis s. l. and its related genera. On the basis of morphological characters and phylogenetic evidence, six new genera, Fragifomes, Niveoporofomes, Rhodofomitopsis, Rubellofomes, Ungulidaedalea and Piptoporellus are proposed, four new species, Buglossoporus eucalypticola, Daedalea allantoidea, Piptoporellus hainanensis and P. triqueter are described, and 16 new combinations are proposed. However, the DNA sequences data of ca. 20 species of Fomitopsis s. l. are not available, and the systematic and phylogenetic position of those species remains uncertain. " Yes folks, they didn't succeed in proving that Piptoporus should be renamed Fomitopsis but along the way they have identifed 4 new species and are suggesting 6 new genera. I remain in denial till it settles down a bit.

I meant the volume calculator. But now as you mention it, there's more than one goverment in UK and our one (Scotland) saw fit 2 years ago to repeal the Forestry Act and start again. Advice was being handed out to someone on Arbtalk last year based on english law but fortunately I checked on location and the guy was in Scotland so he got revised advice and was saved from some needless restrictions.

OK. No offence but I'd prefer not to start waving that around if you had just cobbled it together yourself. A clietn had a run-in with FC 2 years ago they came out and measured stumps and brash diameters to piece together removed volume. It was nip-and-tuck. Crucially they did (and still do) disregard any brahs below 75mm diameter. It can be a right pain to estimate tree lengths, you need to be able to deduct the sub 75 leader length from the height.

Looks like you are in for a rough ride and your beast course of action is probably to appoint an arb consultant before you get into thicker treacle. There's usually a way, and the answer is usually only clear when you see the site and the tree. Piling miught be the solution, but personally I think putting a floating floor over root protection area will deprive roots of water and will damage the tree as surely as if you had dug them up.

Where did this come from?

It depends what country you are in. You don't give a location.

I'd say that's exactly what it is.

Could the CAS organise training for the insurance industry too please? Only joking, we seems to ahve established tha thtey don't give a $£!&

Well there's the partial bollocks of assessment systems that take into account condition, quality, SULE etc. . They might well be used to assess a particular tree at a particular location as the basis for making an Order in the first place, but once the TPO is made the replacement rules can be used to ensure there is always A tree at a particular location. It makes no sense, therefore, to use an assessment system to assess a declining tree when a TPO application is being considered (or, arguably, a CA notification is being considered). The imporance of the position for the provision of tree amenity has become important.

A couple of thigs here. Firstly that legislation does not apply to NI and Scotland and only partly to Wales. Scottish rules are slightly different. Second thing is that replanting obligation is for breaches of TPO or where tree is removed becasue it is dead or an immediate risk. 'Dying' AND 'dangerous' don't count. Where a TPO consent is granted it can be granted subject to replanting conditions, so there is discretion for the Council and no need for mandatory replanting. The situation that was being discussed was the making of a TPO so that conditions about replanting could be applied. Otherwise removal would have been allowed under CA notification rules and there would be no legal competency to seek replanting.

Come now, lack of agreement does not imply disagreement in any matter! I know it's hard to understand this in a polarised society. That said, I thought I was clear. You asked "You seem to be agreeing that there are a variety of words used to describe people who make a living out of trees and know something about trees & quite a bit of confusion?" I agreed. I agree. In a nutshell I am lamenting the lack of public-facing coherent distinctions and separations between (i) tree professionals as contractors and tree professionals as consultants and (ii) tree professionals and cowboys/bluffers/charlatans; the lack of clearly understood terminology and indentity of disciplines is partly the cause, doubly so because it is exploited. I know very well the ICF covers arb, but it doesn't really, does it? Otherwise the charter changes wouldn't be needed, would they?

To be honest, I wasn't aware of the ilicis species, but I am now so thanks for that. I have not knowingly seen it in Scotland anyway. Having read up on it a bit and seen the pictures it does look like it has the signs of Phytophthora. I was just trying to rule out poisoning and Armillaria and generally waterlogging which could assist Armillaria or Phytophthora. Variegated hollies aren't the most robust either.