AA Teccie (Paul)

Dunno Mick, you always make me check myself...but I've yet to meet a climbing arb who hasn't had at least a nick from the handsaw. The pending Technical Guide 2 deals with use of tools in the tree and includes a section on handsaw use (I'll post a draft if I can put my hands on it.) Yeah, run down is quicker and hence 'less serious' cuts / injuries appen.

Good choice...Myerscough for me, I didn't travel well back then Yes, 25 handsaw to 1 chainsaw, or probably even higher...this is a guesstimate based on anecdotal evidence. I'm sure most would agree, "there or thereabouts". Going forward I wonder how many chainsaw cuts will be incurred through battery saws as opposed to petrol chainsaws...both very capable of cutting / injuring, and perhaps there'll be no difference, but my inclin is battery saws will be less, or less significant cuts / injuries maybe.

Probably summat like 25-1, or more even. Struggled to injure yerself with a 21" Sandvik, really? I must have been the 'clumsy' one of the bunch then Which caves did you originate from Mick? Paul

I'd (formally) reapply...today!

Is the original application not still live if they've not determined it, i.e. not issued refusal...which you could then appeal?

Surely this statement relates to pruning of LA owned trees given increasingly diminishing budgets and hence doing the minimum perhaps to meet their 'DoC' responsibilities.

Hi there, Sorry, but I don't recognize that condition / wording as being from the template (copy attached.) The 3rd party issue in the Ts & Cs refers to working on 'their' trees, i.e. trees outside of the enquirers property. Ts & Cs Template v6.1 (2018).doc I'm guessing the condition you cite relates to 'consequential heave' or similar (a complex matter.) Perhaps written confirmation that said condition would not apply in this instance may suffice. Cheers, Paul

Both City & Guilds AND Lantra (Awards) now offer qualification opportunities, i.e. assessments, and both use the same titles but not references (see attached.) Only Lantra offer training courses (and FISA of course for ground based stuff.) Forestry and arboricultural qualifications v0.2 27.09.13.docx

Hi all, Has anybody experienced the same? Been back to the suppliers still new, who fitted a new pump, but problem's recurred. Thanks in anticpation, Paul

Wall doesn't (yet) look unstable...poly-filla and retain a while longer Without the option to build into the footpath I can't readily see an engineering solution unfortunately. An alternative approach could be to remove the section of wall affected, above the inside ground level of course, and replace with fencing appen Shame, a nice tree...sorry Ben Paul ("chocolate fireguard")

Cheers Mick, didn't want to interrupt him ...n didn't know/realize that tbh Paul (the 'not so' teccie Teccie)

A reasonable assumption...but . C'mon Edward C. we're awaiting your answer Cheers, Paul

Think the confirmation is a separate document...hopefully Edward or Chris will be along shortly to 'confirm.' You could enquire with the LPA TO. Cheers, Paul

Morning all, and apologies here for relatively short notice...but hopefully at least some of you will still join me . 'Next' Weds. 22nd May at Parkill Hill Training, just north of Leicester (for more info and booking see https://www.trees.org.uk/Training-And-Events/Course-Detail?id=95A03586-3841-42B6-8E7C-67E66D18BEF6 ) Thanks all n hope to see yous there...and/or at the ARB Show of course. Paul

Above would seem to be "the way to go" ...I was of the (wrong) view that as you're not actually working on the highway, and no further signage / TM measures will be encountered by drivers, then 'MaW' sign wasn't applicable and the 'exclamation mark' sign was the relevant one...which still seems logical (but then I would say that of course .) Edward's comments are also very valid / relevant. Cheers, Paul

Hi Tim, suggest checking what your local Highways 'people' would expect but think the 'exclamation' mark with Tree Surveying underneath would be correct. As others have said hi-viz jacket and trousers...and 'orange' hard hat just for good measure. Hope you're well, Paul

Another term sometimes used is 'truncated', meaning inter-nodal cuts, i.e. between nodes / buds / "suitable secondary growth points, often resulting in multiple regrowth points from dormant buds, i.e. reaction growth. The other term mention was 'panic regrowth' which, IME, is not necessarily associated with 'excessive' pruning as often occurs when trees are stressed, maybe resultant from root damage/severance, but results in dormant buds along branches being stimulated to grow as 'last gasp' to survive (is how I think I've heard it described.) Paul

haha...none taken I think the word 'context,' as you described comes to mind with your Goat Willow n Beech trees. Tbh, albeit some time ago now, we did initiate a project, a photographic guide, of "how" different pruning operations may be applied / look on different tree species...and by differing amounts (percentages etc...shhhh.) Unfortunately it rather fell flat on its face quite quickly as it was realized how much work was involved and how much time it would likely take . In practice, "the day job" at the Association takes up more than my allotted time and we hope that members (and non-members potentially) and 'working groups' will lead and produce stuff like this facilitated, and assisted, by us...so if you've ever got a coupla hours spare. as it cites in the Foreword - BS3998 is to be applied by experts in any given situation as it's sets out broad principles...AND it challenges said experts to be able to justify any deviation from said principles (perhaps interpreted as they can't / won't be applied in all situations.) Wish I had the 'intellect' to suitably respond to your comment about being a 'pseudo governing body' and 'diktats'...other than the fact we don't see ourselves that way at all, well maybe just a little Cheers Mick, Paul

Hmmmm, "species" ...."context"

Good evening 'Mr Dempsey'...that hurt! We advocate pruning to BS3998 as the norm but wholly accept that often 'the spec' comes first, as would appear to be the case here. I know you've often been cynical when I've been advocating 'THE' British Standard but surely it's healthy to have a balanced debate then people can make their own decisions what to do. Paul PS Believe or not I was "with you" here as, whilst not BS3998 pruning, it could be the start of a pollard regime.

Hmmm, thought this was, in the least, frowned upon as a practice. The LPAs 'best bet' would have been to encourage removal on the grounds of 'being dangerous' and then a replacement would have been an automatic requirement.

Possibly agrilus beetle often associated with Acute Oak Decline (see https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/pest-and-disease-resources/acute-oak-decline/typical-symptoms-of-acute-oak-decline/ )

PS - If it's of interest, we/I deliver a 1-day seminar / workshop on BS3998 which, if you're considering, offers a significant discount to members (see https://www.trees.org.uk/Training-And-Events/Course-Detail?id=E3E82C2E-094B-486A-B741-6EFFC2688CC8 for a northern even but we're also delivering in the midlands later in the year https://www.trees.org.uk/Training-And-Events/Course-Detail?id=CD29BF71-1C8D-4526-B9D6-7619D0ACBCED ) Apologies for the 'sales pitch' Paul

Hmmm, there are many difference with the actual finished version / document tbh so I wouldn't recommend. The 'TreeLife' option (BS3998-Concise Guide) is the best one tbh but it doesn't include the appendices...in relation to 'pruning' Table B1 (attached) is the most relevant. In relation to MoPs 'buying a copy ' to check works...never gonna happen tbh, and why more businesses don't use the document for marketing purposes when meeting with customers I really don't know...but then maybe £230 is reason enuff . Cheers, Paul

Probably Blackthorn as flower's, and very floriferously, before leafing...I hope