arb culture

Hi,

Sycamore upon a bank in grazing field with root plate exposed on one side. The otherside is ok. Root plate exposed due to severe flooding back in December.

 

I am surmising that the other side will sustain tree. We are now cleaning up the damage to fields and will fix the damage to bank.

 

Will this Sycamore recover, or should we fell it now?

 

Thanks for your any feedback.

Mike

We've had some seriously wet and windy weather since December, and I'm guessing you have too.

So with regard to tree stability, if the tree is still standing and it's not rocking on its roots, then I'd be tempted to leave it be.

In terms of tree health, if there is sufficient alternative rooting area, then the tree will almost certainly pull through. So again, I'd leave it alone.

Cheers,

As somebody who deals with this day in and out I would knock back the app and ask for further detail to include all specifications.

The current guidance is not to give percentages (which are ambiguous at best) but to provide measurement from lateral branches – ie how short from the crown it is intended to cut.

We can also ask for cut diameter in relation to branches/extension growth pruning.

Just wondering...

At 7.7.2 in BS3998 it says,

"NOTE 1 Specifications for a percentage reduction are imprecise and

unsatisfactory without reference to length, height, spread etc."

Presumably, this means that if there is a reference to length, height or spread etc., then specifications can be considered precise?

eg, I wish to reduce the tree by 10% of its total height. The tree report shows that the tree is currently 20m tall.

or,

I wish to reduce my tree by 15% of its total spread. At the moment, the tree has a total spread of 16m.

Cheers

But if the contracts you are hoping to tender for specify a particular system or qualification then you'd be restricting your chances of winning the tender if you don't meet the initial spec.

What you say is very true - If a tender or job specifies something, then not having that qualification or training will put you at a disadvantage - even if the system/qualification specified is pseudoscience, and everyone is free to use it with or without training or license anyway...

http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/images/vacancies/ResearchConsultantpersonspesonfication.pdf

A person will not get an honest opinion about certain training providers on a public internet forum because of a long history of certain individuals bullying, badgering, and eventually silencing anyone who disagrees with them.

So I would suggest that Dilz (and anyone else considering training) finds actual real-life people who have done various training courses and talk with them about the options available. Training can be expensive and it pays to get it right. I have found that a whole range of very knowledgeable and experienced people are readily approachable at conferences and seminars etc.

Good luck with it - whatever you decide to do

I really have problems with the concept of QTRA. My personal opinion of course, but I believe it to be inherently flawed.

 

Its also the only tree assessment system, *that I am aware of*, that had its procedure and use considered in a legal case, and simply, the judge found it wanting as it demands a "fair degree of subjectivity" - and therefore isn't really *objectively* quantified at all.

 

The case was Goode Vs City of Burnside, 2007, if you are interested. To be fair there are some counter comments to the judges summing up from Mike Ellison, on the QTRA website - but if you read all the information carefully, Mike is just protecting his business and the judges views are spot on.

 

To the OP, just to give a different view, you don't need to do any course and can develop your own tree survey method. This will be perfectly defensible in law if you follow the basic principles of VTA, use up to date tree knowledge, are methodical and record what you survey etc. of course, you will also need educational qualifications or experience to help you justify your opinions expressed in the survey.

 

Or, simply, you may want the security of having done a course and to follow someone else's method? It won't give you any further legal protection, but it may just set your mind at ease if that's what you need. I've not done any formal tree surveying course, but I am told this is a good one. It may help get you these contracts you are looking for?

Woo Hoo!!!! I am not alone

Removing the crown from a mature tree is called creating a monolith.

I know it's in common usage, and I'm not criticising anyone for using it, but doesn't the word 'monolith' refer to stones? From the Greek monos - single, and lithos - stone?

I always feel it a bit strange to use this word in reference to a tree.

old age, i guess, just fell apart, the remains are still there.

That is very sad. From the picture it looks like the tree had plenty of life left in it.

With regard to section 4.6.2 of BS5837, it is my view that the circular RPA for these sycamores should be adjusted (see attached photo). In this instance the trees are off site (the site is in the car park above) and the trees are located at least 1m below the retaining wall and the level of the site. I think it is unlikely that any roots growing under the footing of the retaining wall would be well established below the surface of the car park above? Surely the majority of roots will be in the garden below in the more favourable rooting conditions? What does anyone else think? Not sure how I can prove this either way without the aid of a mini digger, so can anyone point to any literature which deals with rooting characteristics in this kind of situation?

Hi Jacquemontii,

I agree with you that it is unlikely that major roots will be growing under the car park, but I also agree with others who have pointed out that nothing is certain.

So in the absence of further information I'd leave the RPA's circular if I was doing the constraints plan.

Would you be willing to tell us what you are wanting to do in the car park area? I ask because there might be above ground constraints which would prevent construction in that area anyway - irrespective of the RPA's.

Cheers

That is very cool indeed!

Thanks for the link :-)

I took the kids (and a dog) to Formby Point this weekend - lovely place.

We stumbled upon your carvings and we were really impressed with your work Simon, my daughter especially loved the tiny horse on the bench.

Thanks guys :-)

I'm wanting to make transverse flutes out of wood.

I've seen some really lovely ones which play well, and want to have a go myself.

Does anyone know of an easy to use guide/calculator for bore diameter, length, hole position etc?

Cheers

Arb

Thanks :-)

That's an opportunity missed - I wish I'd thought of blagging free beer as part of the job... hmm next time :-)

I hope this picture thingy has worked.

I'm trying to show you a picture of a chainsaw carved owl that I made for a town centre bar front. My friend is in the piccie to show scale.

The bar is now open for business, and the client and customers are really happy.

It's good fun carving stuff, I can't wait to do more.

Cheers

I was starting to get a bit concerned by some of the responses on here, so I thought I'd add:

"Examples of trees with a high risk of this type of failure include various species of willow and poplar, horse chestnut, beech, ash and true cedars."

Taken from,

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/fcpg13.pdf/$file/fcpg13.pdf

Just in the last two weeks I've been to see and prepare reports on three different beech trees which have failed, and which I suspect looked similar to the second example tree in this thread before they did fail. I can't really comment on the first tree, because I can't tell what's going on just from the photo.

The other thing that strikes me about this thread is this:

What does the client want?

Maybe they are loaded, love the tree and are willing to spend money on it, but perhaps they hate the tree and just want it gone, or perhaps they are (like most clients) somewhere in the middle.

As for how this relates to the PTI assessment - from my experience they are more interested in your observation skills and reasoning than in any specific set of recommendations.

You seem to be on the right tracks Jacquemontii, so even if I don't necessarily agree with your recommendations, I'd suggest that if it's something you want to do, you are probably ready to do the PTI assessment. Good luck with it

Apologies for getting the wrong end of the stick. Your "Here you go" was interpreted as a justification for the link rather than the posting of the link.

Ah, no worries. I was a bit confused there for a while.

Except that emotion has no place in law. Stick to the facts and provide suitable evidence which will be believed by the court.

 

When the law is changed and it becomes legal to prosecute on the grounds that the LA think an offence may be committed, that is the day to shut up shop and hoist the red flag . . . kafkaesque or what.

Who has suggested that an LA should prosecute on the grounds "that the LA think an offence may be committed?" I missed that bit.

Except that its not "here you go" because the council lost the case and the farmer was innocent and awarded costs.

 

Why would you carry out enforcement for something that you think may happen. Surely enforcement relates to the failing of some planning requirement. Enforcement can only be carried out when something is not done in accordance with a planning approval. In this case, there is no planning issue to enforce but there may have been a criminal offence taken place, in which case the council may choose to prosecute or perhaps caution. My view would be to go for the caution and save us all £10K.

Eh? Nick asked me to re-post a link, so I did, so yes it was 'here you go', as in, "here you go, here's the link".

I wouldn't carry out enforcement - I'm no longer a tree officer, so that's not my role.

Old thread on geo/gravitropism....

 

http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/fungi-pictures/14352-geotropism.html

 

 

.

Isn't it called plagiotropism when things grow horizontal?

I have had to unfortunately ask for the previous thread to be removed due to some potential issues going on in the back ground with this case, sorry to those who put up some useful and worthwhile opinions. Apparently the mods weren't able to simply delete specific posts so the lot had to go. there was a very relevant link to a previous similar situation in Bradford in 2007, so Arb Culture, if you're happy to, could you re-post that please?

 

I'd still like to continue the discussion but I'll need to be careful what details I include for now.

 

As a brief recap:

 

A land owner has recently introduced livestock onto their land where TPO trees sit. A letter has been sent informing the owner of the potential repercussions of damage that may occur to the protected trees unless adequate protection is installed.

 

The previous thread had seemed to centre on whether or not a council would be successful or just in prosecuting an individual for damaging TPO trees with livestock on their own land.

 

My feeling is that once an owner has been made aware of the potential damage that may be caused, and they fail to protect the trees, then they should be open to either enforcement of some type or even prosecution. There are obviously many variables with this but I don't want to be too specific at the moment. As far as I know the land was not previously used for agricultural purposes and the livestock are a recent introduction, so it's necessarily a commercial decision to introduce animals onto the land.

Hi Nick,

No problem, here you go:

Pigs in the dock accused of destroying protected trees | Daily Mail Online

I would like to repeat that the article does not present all the facts. The tree officers at Bradford are very knowledgeable and capable people.

For what it's worth, I agree with you when you say, "that once an owner has been made aware of the potential damage that may be caused, and they fail to protect the trees, then they should be open to either enforcement of some type or even prosecution."

This is clearly supported by the word 'permits' in; (2) A prohibition imposed on a person may (in particular) relate to things whose doing the person causes or permits (as well as to things the person does).

Copied from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/section/202C

Lovely work

I took the kids to see this in summer. We got a bit lost, but the locals knew exactly where to direct me when I asked about the 'giant hand'.

Needless to say, we were really impressed when we got there.

It was chucking it down when we did finally find it, but this just added to the atmosphere of the piece.

The setting and context is just superb, and it gave me a really good intro to talk about trees and environment with my kids.

Personally, I think this is one of the best sculptures I have seen for a long time.

I use the miller komet butterfly,which if you delve into some of the old threads,im sure you'll find some climbers trashing it.I absoloutly love my harness and rate it very highly.

Harnessess are very personal;and you may have to shop around till you find that perfect fit for you.

I have worked with 2 members of the fairer sex who are ecologists and used treehog harnessess for bat studys and both loved the harness.

If your not climbing every day then comfort is not high on the list of nessesities in a harness,but price and functionality is so i totally understand your constraints on price.

Good luck finding your special harness partner,when you do you'll just know

Cheers

No im not,read the whole thread and you ll see what i mean from my comment on 1st page.

Ive no experience of treehog harness so cant comment on it.

I'm relieved that you weren't knocking the Treehog, for a moment I thought you were going to tell me that I'd made a duff choice.

Out of curiosity, what kit would you suggest?

Just a pic of a carving that I was asked to do for a kiddies playgroup, head and shoulders of the Gruffalo, 26 ins high and 18 ins wide. I end d up having to paint some of the features in order to ensure it met the expectations of the kiddies.

I'm not sure about painting a carving and was wondering what the carvers out there feel about.

I really like your gruffalo, it's very cool indeed.

I'd say that if you want to paint a carving, then do it - you obviously know how to make it work.

And I know it's not chainsaw carving, but I was checking out painted wooden sculptures on the internet and found this guy - my was mind was blown!

Bruno Walpoth - wood

Hopefully someone will find his work beautiful and/or inspiring.