john k

It's worth bearing in mind that whilst the Parish Council have to be consulted on planning applications they don't actually make any planning decisions. It's the District Council that is the planning authority. Small Caravan Club sites known as "Certified Locations" don't require planning permission anyway as they are exempt, so your Parish Councillors can make as much fuss as they want.

Nice! I'll have to give that a try

Ah, OK.

Interesting. Presumably you don't ever check, dress, clean or turn over your guide bar? Is that just stuff they teach on CS30 that isn't necessary then?

I couldn't find anything about the Gibraltar incident from a quick Google search. Do you have any more details? The Derry accident was presumably Anthony Tohill? His job is described as "Building Control Officer", is that the same as H&S officer?

Even crazier is when they send it back over here again as horse bedding!

Bear in mind that the WIFI-only iPads don't have GPS which might be an issue depending on what sort of "out and about" work you want to do.

Apparently it's possible that there will still be snow in April, but it's unlikely to be a major problem. So I'm told! We'll have snow chains just in case, but don't plan to use them, and we may need to walk the last bit up to Mariposa Grove. What I'm not sure about is whether we should also do a trip up the Coast North of SF. If it was just me I'd do it, but it would be a load more driving which isn't a favourite activity for the rest of the family.

We're heading out that way for a couple of weeks in April and we've got our itinerary sorted but any insider tips would be appreciated. SF for a few days sightseeing then hiring an RV and spending 3 nights in Yosemite. I've got the campground booking sorted, and will have snow chains just in case. Then heading across to Monterey and up the Atlantic Highway back to SF. Finishing off with a couple of days in Vegas and a visit to the Grand Canyon. Reckoning on Mariposa Grove as the main tree fix, but open to other suggestions subject to convincing the rest of the family. Not sure I'd get away with a long drive to "go and look at more trees". What do you reckon?

As far as I can see this is a bit of a myth. Colleges and training providers may decide that their risk assessment requires it, but there's nothing in the assessment schedule that does. This is what it says about PPE: "PPE used must comply with AFAG Safety Guide 301, HSE Chainsaws at Work INDG317 (rev1), Health and Safety Executive publications and current legal requirements in terms of specification and use." AFAG is discontinued, but the latest info is on the HSE web site here: http://www.hse.gov.uk/treework/safety-topics/chainppe.htm Gloves: "Suitable gloves for the task and subject to the operator’s risk assessment. Consider the need for protection from cuts from the chainsaw, thorny material and cold/wet conditions. Where chainsaw protection is required this should be to BS EN 381-7" Trousers: "AFAG recommends Type C leg protection for aerial work, because of the high all-round chainsaw cut protection. Where wearing Type C is impractical (e.g. because of the higher risk of heat stress), it may be appropriate to use Type A, where justified by risk assessment." Can you point me to something that says no gloves or Type A trousers should be an automatic fail?

I think you may struggle to get 2.7t of 4ft length of hazel onto your pickup trailer, and if you do you'll find it a handful to get out of the woods unless your rides are in really good condition. Banking on five loads a day seems optimistic. Similarly I think that you're very unlikely to get 10t of 4ft lengths onto a forwarding trailer, even with extra bolsters. Processing on site would seem the best option if possible, otherwise forward to roadside in manageable loads with whatever machinery you have available then use the biggest truck or trailer that you can get to move it to the yard.

I'd spend the extra few quid on heated handles. I didn't, but have wished I did on a few occasions. When you want them, you really want them!

There isn't an Arbtalk one, but have a look at TreeID and WinterTreeID. IndentifyTree is pretty handy too, especially if you need to ID conifers.

The British Biochar Foundation seems to be about as authoritative as anyone, and although optimistic they make it very clear that not much is really known and that more research is needed. http://www.britishbiocharfoundation.org/ It's rather refreshing after reading the claims of the snake oil salesmen. I believe that if we are to see biochar become a mainstream product it needs to be presented credibly and honestly.

Which all sounds very plausible, but I can't find any credible evidence that backs this up. The village idiot makes a very specific claim, "Nutrients bind to these surfaces and are held where the plant roots can reach them, potentially reducing the amount of fertiliser that needs to be applied", and I was wondering whether he knew more about it or if it's just his opinion.

I wasn't doubting the absorbent properties of charcoal, it was the claims about nutrient provision and fertiliser quantities that I was interested in really.

Do you have any references to support that?

Because at the moment it just sounds like a scam, with wild claims and little supporting evidence What are the desired properties that separate biochar 'charcoal' from charcoal as we know it? Does the "further processing" involve more than breaking the charcoal into smaller pieces? Or is that more marketing weasel-speak? Could you educate us a bit about "charging" the biochar? It's not something I'm familiar with.

Can you just be honest with them and say you don't know? How about seeing if they would let you do a couple of days on a day rate to see how much you get done? Or even put in a couple of days free if that would help avoid getting into trouble by massively under quoting? It sounds like it's going to be a learning experience however you work it, so maybe don't expect to earn lots off it. On the other hand you don't want to set a precedent with the estate of being the guys who do things cheaply otherwise you'll never earn any money from them!

Nothing as far as I can tell. Bio chat seems to be a fancy marketing gimmick for the charcoal fines that aren't any use on a barbecue!

No free pizza?

I agree that an18" bar isn't what you want to be putting on a 346, but I am surprised at the general dissatisfaction that people seem to be feeling about them. A couple of years ago everyone was raving about them. They were the best thing since sliced bread and no one had a bad word to say about them. Even die hard Stihlists were recommending them! Given that these saws are reliable and have no significant issues, why are people turning against them now?

Do your trees come all the way to the boundary? Bear in mind that if you plant your hedge underneath them in the shade it's unlikely to flourish! I've seen a few examples of this recently, and it's just a waste of time and money.

Cutter gloves in the dry, Traffi gloves when it's wet. Cheap as chips

It rather depends on what you want, and what sort of area you're thinking of planting. Single species is simplest and potentially would allow you to maximise your yield. It may not be best for biodiversity though and may not be as appealing as a mixed woodland. You'd also have no built-in redundancy against any new pathogens (who knows what will get hit next!). Planting a mixture would obviously give you more variety with the benefits that this brings, but with added complexity. Coppice is traditionally single-species, which means it grows at an even rate. You would need to be careful that slower growing species don't get shaded out by the faster ones.