arb culture

Sounds like a few of you have seen arbs pruning trees from a bus. Unfortunately the bus I saw used in-house guys from the bus company, they weren't arbs at all. I think all the work was done with bowsaws - which I'm thankful for. I dread to think what a mess they would have made if they'd got their hands on chainsaws.

I've seen it recently. The swine came and lopped a load of trees which one of my recommended contractors had just done a lovely pruning job on.

Paul, I'm a member of the AA and value a lot of what it does. But... If the AA really wanted a bigger voice for the industry it would have joined forces with other organisations such as the ISA, among others. I know that both the AA and the ISA membership voted with a huge majority in favour of some kind of merger - which has never happened. I also note that recently the AA membership was not consulted on a possible deal with the only trustmark provider for our industry, and yet they have rejected any possible coalition. If 'raising the standards of practice' cannot be done in co-operation with the only government approved scheme for our sector, then I start to wonder why. I really think that membership has it's advantages, and I'll certainly be renewing next year, but if the AA really wants a a bigger voice it needs (yes, needs) to work a lot more closely with other arb organisations in future.

As far as I'm aware, the ICF is the ONLY way to get chartered arboriculturist status. I know the AA do CEnv, but it's not the same thing. I don't know if tis makes any difference to you.

I know exactly what you mean, but I bet you won't be able to resist on occasion. Especially when you see people being given duff advice. Give us a shout when your insurance is in place and I'll try to send some work your way if you want. I haven't forgotten about that weekend by the way, I'm just too busy with family stuff at the moment. Any chance of a midweek at some point, or are you still tied up with work?

At the risk of once again derailing a thread (I'm really sorry about this but I so often see things included as an aside which I find really interesting). Why on earth would you be expected to notice a manhole cover on a BS5837 survey?

Oh, and I remember that there was a really good article on trees in relation to flooding in one of the CAS newsletters a while ago.

Try: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/water3.pdf/$FILE/water3.pdf http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/fcin065.pdf/$FILE/fcin065.pdf Also try searching for the Plynlimon experiment. Hope this helps.

I'm glad I made a valid point, I wouldn't want to embarrass myself. I think we are all agreed that whatever the fungus is, it's very unlikely to be harmful. I'm just interested in what it is out of curiosity now. I really hope it gets ID'd.

Excellent post Bundle. Without wanting to repeat you too much I just wanted to add a few points. There seem to be a few people on here who assume that by posting anonymously there is some hidden agenda, something dishonest, or something mischievous going on. I've no doubt that in some cases that is true - but in most cases it is not. I've noticed a few posts on this forum where people have had questions about their employer and the way they are being treated. Some people have even been asked to do illegal things by their employer. Often these people come on here and get the advice they need. If they were unable to post anonymously I very much doubt they would do so. Many of the people on here are self employed and have dealings with various tree officers and other professionals. I know that the vast majority of tree officers are highly professional, but I'm sure most of us know of one or two who are not. Sometimes these people can hold a grudge against something which has been said on a forum and it can affect people's business's. Again, the veil of anonymity allows a more honest discussion. Sometime topics come up which people are not sure about their stance on, and in the course of discussion they may change their mind several times, and say things which they later regret. Once again, the veil of anonymity can help people to be a little more free and easy in their discussion. However, I think we are all aware that true anonymity is not easily achieved. There are many ways of discovering who someone really is on this forum. So even though people sometimes wish to remain anonymous it is worth remembering that once/if the legals get involved, it is very difficult to hide. So always keep things civil and honest, and (at the risk of being outrageously and incredibly overdramatic) don't say anything you wouldn't be prepared to defend in court if you had to. Ramble, ramble, rant ...

So what do people think - Is it okay to post anonymously or not?

I wasn't aware that I was being provocative in my question about anonymity. It's probably an issue for a seperate thread, but this was a genuine question, I don't understand why there is a reluctance to discuss an issue (any issue) with someone just because they wish to remain anonymous. By the way, I don't know what silly nonesense has plagued other threads, but if you know of a good reason for not allowing anonymity then let us know. It might be time for Arbtalk to change forum rules.

I think we deal with it in a similar way then. It can be frustrating sometimes though. Oh well, chin up and carry on...

Thanks Tony, a really good summary. The case law is really interesting (yes I know I'm very sad) and raises quite a lot of questions about tree valuation. Scott Cullen has made some interesting points on UKTC about this case - I don't have the link, but it's easy to find in the archives.

You are right my comments were not a critique, just opinions. However, they are the well educated opinions of someone with over 15 years of experience in arb based on an unbiased assessment of the many tree surveys that I have seen, made after discussion with lots of people (many of who have done your training), and also after reading many of the background papers on the subject. They are also the honest opinions of someone who has no financial interest in the validity (or otherwise) of QTRA. At the moment I'm not really interested in a debate on the minutae of your system. I would have enjoyed a debate of this kind a few years ago, but since then I've heavily researched QTRA (among various other systems) and I honestly believe it to be very poor indeed. If others feel otherwise they are free to do so - it is no concern of mine. Why are you so reluctant to discuss QTRA with someone anonymous?

What Paul says is good. Sorry to de-rail a little bit, but do you have any ideas on how to ensure good on site supervision Paul. I've always found it to be a problem, and unless the planners condition it, I know most sites go unsupervised.

Cool. I admire your confidence. I'm not saying you are right or wrong. I'm saying that you can't tell whether you are right or wrong until you know what species is being looked at. I think you may have assumed a mycorrhizal fungi when it is entirely possible that it's nothing of the sort. It could be a fungus which has very little, if anything, to do with the tree. After all, the patterns of growth are very similar to saprotrophic fairy rings. Warbaby please send your fungus to Kew for an ID - I'm donating to the Pakistan flood appeal at the moment, and I'm sure any contributions Hama wishes to make will be most welcome.

Graham, a bit of a guess, but is there any chance the ash were shaded out by neighbouring trees? Have you got any pictures showing a wider view of the growing location?

How can you tell?

My understanding of the term 'mycorrhiza' is that it describes a mutually beneficial relationship between a fungus and a plant root. If you haven't decided what the fungus is, then how can you be so confident that this is a mycorrhizal relationship?

Bob, have you talked to Mike in the planning department. He might be able to help.

Markiesla Does you software work independantly of AutoCAD? Also, what sort of price would you charge for your software? I've had a quick look on your website, but I couldn't find any prices so I gave up looking.

If someone's just spent several hundred pounds buying the right to use a system, it is not then in their interests to say it's not a good system. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but it's important to be wary of bias.

Hama and Monkeypuzzle, If money is tight then it's worth remembering that the THREATS system is free to download and use. I've done the training with Julian, and I thought it was very good value for money. I suspect you and Julian would have some interesting conversations Hama, he's a bit of a fungus enthusiast too.