daltontrees

Eucalyptus is very sensitive to harsh pruning in winter in the west of Scotland. Is the tree near Muirhead (your location)? By the way, if you're not the Council Roads Dept., spending time pondering the ins and outs of whether you can take your would-be customers' word for it that it's an adopted road and that they have to cut the tree back form the light seems to me a bit of a waste of time.

My guess is Rhus, the only one I know is Rhus typhina, which has some very odd autumn colouring effects. Might be that.

It certainly looks like a hybrid of the type first appearing in late 1700s. A 700 year old oak in good growing conditions wold have a diameter of around 2.9 metres. If it's that big you have got the scientific discovery of the year as it would have to be a natural hybrid.

Where was it, it looks like it wouldn't stand the cold?

Yes, it has te look of Sophora tetraptera about the foliage.

It would have been too easy and a bit negative to say 'if you have to ask, don't do it' but we all have to start somewhere and my first few reports (heavily caveated) were written an a tree contractor without any formal arboricultural training. The customer (not a client, note) was in no doubt that i was only giving helpful advice to the extent of my knowledge and experience and that I wasn't qualified or insured. Come to think of it, I didn't charge for them. Invariably got the jobs or on some occasions saved the odd tree from unnecessary risk-averse felling. Nice to see those trees 10 years on without crushed cars or tombstones beneath them... not so nice to see the other contractors that advised felling of the trees driving around in new trucks looking in love with themselves. Names withheld to protect the guilty.

Hold on! Are we still talking about heaven?

Yes. You'll get your fee paid in heaven.

The job's yours. 6 guys, 4 weeks. So if 2 guys are on traffic management, I suppose you're bang on.

Here's what the bark looks like.

That's the place! The trees are on the edge of the meadows to the east of the pond.

From that Oxford arboretum. Hornbeam on the left, Hop Hornbeam on the right. Also a picture of Hop Hornbeam 'hops'.

Down near Oxford there's an arboretum I went to, can't remmeber the name. Theres a Hornmbeam and Hop Hornbeam right beside one another and just going by thre leaves I tell you it's not easy to distinguish them. If you have one of each leaf side by side you can see the difference but if tested on it 2 minutes later you'd easily get it wrong. I'll see if I can find pictures.

It'd be better if it said there should eventually be nothing to worry about after the verdict.

Yaaaay! Finally a real hornbeam. Where are all the jokers now? I'd say not Ostrya, definitely Carpinus, very likely C. betulus

Picture of that big Beech in the middle that has fallen inwards.

Yeah but insurance won't cover gross negligence, insurers will duck it if the inspector acted outwith his qualifications and experience and/or without the reasonable skills required of a competent inspector. My insurers wanted to see sample reports and instructions before covering me. So don't call it anything other than a contractor's report and don't pretend you know about stuff it you don't.

I've got a Timberwolf 75 and I use it almost every week. It's fabulous and only 800mm wide and I have had it through garden gates, up steps, through (yes, through) houses, up alleyways, round tight corners etc. It would be alomost impossible to touch the moving blades, I don't think even Ussain Bolt could reach them. Taking the flywheel cover off disables the electrics. Really safe. Just got to wear visor and ear muffs, the noise form sticks rattling around in and banging on the hopper will make your ears whistle after a while. I would imagine that maintaining its manufactoirer's safety features an operating it in accordance with manufacturer's instructions will go a long way towards satisfying PUWER. I think that's where the leagal implications come from, not from any obscure rules about what is OK and what isn't for gravity fed chippers.

Holy shamoley, Mobile Elevated Death Trap! Compliant with the 'Poohing Yourself At Height Regulations 1880'.

So here's a question akin to how much wold you charge to cut it. The sign beside it says it takes X men Y weeks to cut it once every 10 years, using mewps. Assuming the guys get the weekend off, how many man-days does that mean it takes i.e. X x Y = ? Sensible guesses only. Or not.

It's the only place you can stop and see it from.

A survey appointment took me past the Meikleour hedge during the week. I thought it would be in wonderful autumnul colours but it was barely turning. And it's well into its spell since its last 10 year trim. Anyway, if anyone ever wondered what it looks like on the other side, here it is. Poor pic because there is so little light in there it was a hand-held 1/20 of a second exposure. Note a big Beech has snapped atthe base and fallen inwards.

In the same vein but not as good, here's one frm a cherry I took down yesterday. Looked better before it went orange like too much spray-on-tan.

PS The usual problem with uptake of BSs is likely to apply here, the cost is prohibitive for occasional use or reference use only for the likes of us arbs. I do wish there was a way that a few of us could share the cost of a copy, I'd be up for that. It kind of irks me that I spent about 15 hours commenting on the draft (it was all over the place, it took a long time to figure out what was right and what was wrong) for no reward and I have to pay to see how it has turned out. Some of my comments have made their way though to the micro-guide, and a lot of other people commented, so I can only hope the BS is substantially improved from the draft. But I aint paying £220 to find out. The draft included a sectionthat would directly affect how BS5837 surveys are done, so at least anyone like me doing these has to find out what it now says.

If anyone's interested, the Bat Conservcation Trust has just published a related 'method statement' for the non-specialist use of endoscopes for investigating potential roost features. It's available on the BCT website. It is stated as being for 'arborists', whatever they are. It dosn't appear to be a method statement, rather it is a method or methodology. Considerable adatation would be required to turn it into a method statement. As a measn of helping me remember what it is for, here's my understanding. a. If a tree has a known bat roost, a non-specialist (an arborist) shouldn't use an endoscope. b. If a tree has a feature that can be confirmed from the ground as suitable for bats, the method shouldn't be used. c. If examination can be doene by mirror and torch, don't use an endoscope. d. If a tree doesn't have a known bat roost but a scoping survey from the ground has noted medium or high potential for roosting, a non-specialist (an arborist) could use an endoscope to see if the potential can be downgraded to 'low'. e. If the endoscope examination is inconclusive, a licensed bat worker must take over. f. If a roost is found, stop. So I'd say arborists shouldn't be rushing out to buy endoscopes based on lots of new work coming up. The circumstances are so tightly constrained that endoscopic examination by a non-specialist will be rare. Funny thing is, this 'method statement' was published a few weeks before the new BS, but doesn't refer to it. The Micro Guide refers to the method statement. I haven't seen the BS.