10 Bears

Yes that's the simplest way to do it. Then go back to the office, plot them on your digital map in your PC, then put the finished article in your report. No need for a GPS.

No you're not wrong Tommy B. To fly a UAV commercially, you need to complete a series of licences and gain permissions from the Civil Aviation Authority. Most of the information you need is here I dont mean to put you off, but I know someone who set this up commercially and the licencing, CAA training etc ran to over £10,000.

As there have been a few threads on GIS recently, and Ive just heard about this, I thought I would share. I have to say Ive not used it personally, but after a quick read about it - sounds like it could be used to make site maps, mark tree locations etc. so hopefully useful to some of you. Just in case you dont know, a MOOC is a Massive Open On-line Course, so you can get a bit of free training too. The OSGIS is called gvSIG and is available here Registration for the 3 part MOOC is available here with the course starting on 4th May, second part at the end of May and the final part in Autumn sometime. As I said, I know little about the software but thought this may be a help to someone on here. I still recommend QGIS for an open source GIS though - its quite like the bespoke professional system that I use and there is a lot of online support and tutorials for it. Enjoy!

I would have suggested a brushcutter if Im honest - but that doesnt help with getting it done quicker. How about getting machinery in, something like a mega mulcher (or similar PTO attachment), flatten the site and start again. It doesn't sound like you have a seed source problem so this could make it more manageable in the long term - just depends on costs.

All you ever needed to know about LD... Wilson and Smith 2009 - Lyme_disease_ecology_epidemiology_and_prevention - Scottish Forestry.pdf

Triclopyr is also good on bramble (its the active ingredient in SBK I believe). If going down the Glyphosate or Triclopyr route - always use an adjuvant for better results.

Actually it might be - look at this: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.microsoft.office.officehub&hl=en_GB Sorry no idea about iOS as I am a droid...

Not sure - I recently upgraded my desktop software and it came as a free add-in with that. It gives me all the usual, near fully featured, MS word, excel, powerpoint etc. Its quite handy to be honest...

Yes, I can bowline mine easy enough. It doesn't close tight as it would on your lifeline - but it has always held and never slipped. The stiffness of the rope makes it easy to undo after it has been under heavy load too.

I have poly steel - 18mm I think, mainly used in a 5:1 block. It has pulled massive bits of timber - particularly when attached to the back of a tractor. Its very stiff though, hard to make small knots - but I can get a double fishermans in as a stopper at the block tie-off. I think mine is strength rated at 10T and by the way it performs I am inclined to believe this is true. I wouldn't shock load it though. The supplier (cant remember the company right now) told me the rope was originally made for use as the rope to make trawler nets from, so repeatedly being dragged on the bottom of the ocean - it has to be quite tough. Worth it IMO.

Sorry IL - for some reason I did not get a notice for your question, better late and all that. As for geo-locating trees it all depends on what you want to spend, or what equipment/programs you have access to. There are a few options ranging from a manual approach to an integrated GPS solution - but again its all about the money. There are obviously the bespoke GIS solutions that require GPS enabled data loggers, GPS mobile software, GIS desktop software etc. which I could advise on - but I don't think this is what you really need to get started with surveying. One simple and cheap option is to plot out your site maps in QGIS (before you get to site), take a clipboard and plot them straight onto your prepared map eg T1, T2, T3 etc. to relate to your data sheet. You can then digitise this when you get back to the office, so when you have a resurvey in a years time, you can simply print out the map with the tree locations already on it. This may sound a little basic - but it gets you started and you will be as accurate as some of the cheaper GPS units out there i.e. accurate to a metre or so - with your work do you really need to be any more accurate then that? If you have a tablet without GPS - but will handle excel, just use this to fill in your data sheet as I said earlier. It saves a little office time if you fill out forms in the field. I can do this on my mobile with MS Office Mobile, but also have a GPS/PDA that handles data entry for me. You mention using GPS, presumably to get 'under canopy' tree locations - but to be honest without a big investment in lots of kit you will find this difficult to achieve with any accuracy, so again a pen and paper approach for mapping may actually be the thing to use here. As for putting the digitised map in a report, once it is output as a PDF or JPEG, no-one will be able to tell that you collected the data in the field with a pen and paper rather then with a GPS unit. You can always sketch out high risk areas/zones on your map and add them in to your QGIS map too. This will all output looking very professionally done. I could go on, but I hope you are getting the idea that investing in GIS is not always needed. Either way, get back to me again if you want more information on this.

Yes this is all intended as being good natured for the very same reasons you raise - through debate and (dare I say it!) interpretation, we all gain better insights. As I'm sure you recall, we have had other discussions on various different matters, and for my part I always find the exchanges useful. I hope that our ramblings also provide some insight for others too. There are a couple of points to go over from your last post, so to recap I did state that 'no other deciduous are' exempt (and this bewildered you!) and that I had referred to the guidance document when using terms as legislation/regulations interchangeably. To be honest this second issue may have been simply lazy writing on my behalf so I understand the confusion. I referred to the guidance to show where the comments were written that BE/HB were exempt as I knew I had seen it written here. I understand the difference between the legal weighting of acts, regulations and informative guidance documents intended to allow the legislature to be applied in practice (which also supports my comments about the common practice of avoiding precise definitions in legislature, hence the need for the guidance documents). The point I was trying to make was nicely presented in the guidance so I used it as a reference. The issue is though - this got my interest up as to what the intended use was for this information. So, I referred back to part 8 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act (2003) in order to satisfy my curiosity as to why you would be confused by my comments about deciduous trees. I did read this Act several years ago, so it was useful for me to refresh. In any case, within the Act it defines hedges as: "66 High hedges (1)In this Part “high hedge” means so much of a barrier to light or access as— (a)is formed wholly or predominantly by a line of two or more evergreens; and (b)rises to a height of more than two metres above ground level. (2)For the purposes of subsection (1) a line of evergreens is not to be regarded as forming a barrier to light or access if the existence of gaps significantly affects its overall effect as such a barrier at heights of more than two metres above ground level. (3)In this section “evergreen” means an evergreen tree or shrub or a semi-evergreen tree or shrub. " ...and that is it for the entire act. No definition of evergreen or semi-evergreen, but importantly, no mention of BE/HB or any other deciduous trees. It seems that with the wider general meaning of 'what is a hedge' that is used in the Act, the interpretation of which was issued by the ODPM in the HH complaints document. I now believe that the comments on BE/HB hedges most likely have been included after consultation with practitioners/LATOs in order to provide some practical insight into applying the legislation. Herein lies some interest though - was this not an interpretation in practice of the original Act? On my re-reading of the wording of the original Act though, 'I am satisfied in my mind' (thanks for the line Jules, I will use that again!) that there is not a question over deciduous trees in reality and it is merely the sanctioned interpretation of the legislation as shown in the ODPM guidance, that gives rise to the potential grey area. I don't think we have different opinions on what interpretation means - perhaps just how it is applied. I believe that for an individual (i.e. the judge) to consider the benefits of one argument over another and to apply a weighting to the seriousness of each element of the argument even within a legally defined framework, will require a degree of interpretation and subjectiveness - no matter how objective they try to be. In my view, this is simply part of the human condition and in a legal context, the very reason why we have precedent and counter-precedent for almost every legal situation or potential case that can be thought of. Apparently, judges are human too...

Now my turn to be pedantic...! I don't disagree with you in interpretation of this, but even your reply starts with 'I think what [it] means is...' so it is apparent that there is a degree of subjectivity in the reading of the regs. I highlighted the 4.11 as an earlier comment said there were no species exclusions, however in fact there are. To apply the letter of the law BE and HB hedges are excluded. Your interpretation is that this should mean all deciduous/holding dead winter leaf don't count as evergreen/semi-evergreen, and while this is obviously sensible - it is not in fact what the guidance states hence the degree of 'interpretation' as I put it earlier. The conversation that I had suggested that without the clear boundaries of a definition, then there is the scope for interpretation that could be argued in court, but this would depend on the individual circumstances. The objectiveness should come in at the point of judgement of course, but prior to that there is the scope to raise questions on what is actually defined as a hedge under the regulations as they are currently written. That said, in the wider legislation this lack of clear definition is a common practice that enables wide reaching law eg UK planning regs, to be applied in appropriate ways in different locales ie the same planning regs apply in central Birmingham as they do in Stratford-upon-Avon, despite being very different places and having different needs. If there were very clear definitions of everything in law - there will always be a way around the definition. It is because of this frequent lack of legal definition that the judge has to sit and do their job, that is to make their judgement on how the law should be interpreted in each and every case.

Please refer to this document: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/11476/highhedgescomplaints.pdf and see paragraph 4.11 "Beech and hornbeam hedges are excluded. Although they may retain some foliage for most of the year, this is brown and dead". The semi-evergreen comments are in the same section. There is no definition of semi-evergreen, only the advice to refer to a couple of text books at paragraph 4.12 for information. Further to this, 4.13 clarifies that "Whether a particular hedge is mostly evergreen or semi-evergreen is a matter of judgement" - introducing subjectivity. While at 4.14, it states that "some deciduous species" can be brought "within the scope of the definition" - in particular circumstances. It was because of this section that I had a conversation with a solicitor (well, other things really, but this came up) and he gave the advice that due to the elements of interpretation here, there is the potential to consider a deciduous hedge under the law. Of course, this would be for the legals to decide and not us on this forum...

Perhaps this will help a few voters make up their mind. http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/-/html/votematch.html

All wild birds are protected under WCA when they are preparing a nest, nesting, brooding or roosting. However, if the situation is as described in this thread, i.e. imminent danger to the public, then the work is exempt from prosecution.

A bit far for me to come but just wondering, is access to the site by boat?

Sorry - regarding which bit? Do you mean prosecutions on HH with a deciduous element? I don't know of any straight away but it I will do a bit of research to see what I can find...

Assuming the hazard is as you say, and an immediate fell is required the work is Exempt from prosecution. You will need documented evidence in an independent Arb Consultant report (ie not your own), photographic evidence and any other evidence you can muster eg PICUS scan if relevant. Section 4 (3) a of the WCA clarifies this: 4 Exceptions to ss. 1 and 3 (3) Notwithstanding anything in the provisions of section 1 or any order made under section 3, an authorised person shall not be guilty of an offence by reason of the killing or injuring of any wild bird, other than a bird included in Schedule 1, if he shows that his action was necessary for the purpose of— (a) preserving public health or public or air safety; etc. etc. there are a couple of other clauses, but essentially if the situation is as you advise - you will be acting lawfully. You can refer to the entire document here for further information: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69 I know you have a tree survey done and this could be enough, but if feel you need the independent Arb Consultant report in addition to the survey PM me to arrange the work if necessary.

True, but they are probably after the knowledge, as knowledge is power....

I've spoken to solicitors about this - and there is the potential to use high hedges law on deciduous hedges as the law also applies to 'semi-evergreen' which *could* be taken to mean deciduous as there is no formal explanation in the legislation as to what semi-evergreen actually is. Interestingly though, Beech and Hornbeam hedges are exempt from the legislation, but no other deciduous are. Mixed conifer/mixed broadleaved hedges are not exempt - so enforcement could be pursued.

Right to light does not apply here (or ever?) with tree obstruction. The uninterrupted 20 year rule was in fact to allow prosecution if someone erected a billboard outside your window for instance. It cant apply to trees as they have grown in a natural state and partially obscured the window over a long period of time due to 'the quiet onset of nature'. The idea that they are bending the truth a little regarding high hedges law may be the closest here, unless the 'by law' threat is because of a trespass/actionable nuisance ie that the closest of the trees are crossing over the boundary so can be abated to the boundary as I'm sure you know. When required, I do expert witness work which is almost wholly tree on boundary issues, and the letters I have seen exchanged between solicitors/claimants/defendants are generally full of open threats which are based on half-truths and misinformation. I would expect that this is the same in this case, they are trying to force the customers hand by making them worry that there is going to be arbitration that will go against the customer. As stated above, I would formally request from the solicitor a full explanation of what offences have been committed and under what legislation they intend to attempt enforcement.

There are easier options then the bespoke solutions. I would advise using a simple excel spreadsheet in order to record your data (this could of course be on paper, but better in your tablet or PDA), then to analyse it using an SQL approach in MS Access. You can write your own queries in SQL and MS Access will essentially produce your analysis and report at the push of a single button once you have set it up. This will take a little time to get right of course, but worth it in the end. Try learning from [ame=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Access-2013-Missing-Manual-Manuals/dp/1449357415/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1422966281&sr=1-7&keywords=microsoft+access+2013]Access 2013: The Missing Manual (Missing Manuals): Amazon.co.uk: Matthew MacDonald: 9781449357412: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41pWVJY2-DL.@@AMEPARAM@@41pWVJY2-DL[/ame] - I used an earlier version that was very good. What you will be able to do is record your tree data in the excel spreadsheet, upload that to the Access, run your queries, and your report is finished in less then 5 minutes. Regarding the cartography, as I have recommended on other threads - QGIS.

I'm not having a go here New Guy Ti - so please don't take it that way. I'm just trying to inform as this is something I repeatedly see with arborists that think they are repollarding, and it seems your customer has got the wrong idea too... The whole point of creating a pollard is that a 'Boll' is formed - in fact pollarding is more correctly called Bolling ie work that makes a Boll in the tree. What you really want to happen, is after the first years cutting, the callus wood forms over the first cut, and from the callus the new shoots grow. The callus will form what is also called a knuckle, or more correctly a Boll. In repeat iterations of Bolling (pollarding) you are meant to cut marginally above the Boll and not into, through or below it so that the tree can reform additional callus over the smaller secondary or tertiary cuts, without having to reform the callus over the original cut. I hope that explanation makes sense! What I often see from other peoples work is that they cut through the first Boll, or worse, cut below it so that the tree has to repeatedly generate the initial callus each time it is cut. Unfortunately this is not Bolling/pollarding as some believe - it is re-topping. The attached image is an example of good Bolling/pollarding. The knobbly bit at the end of the branch is the formed Boll, and the smaller branches that grew out of it and were removed show only a small surface area that the callus has to grow over - which is what you really want to happen in this operation so that the tree doesn't have to loose resources trying to repeatedly overcome being topped each year. If done correctly Bolling will keep the tree healthy for many years to come. However, incorrect chainsaw 'pollarding' will eventually allow fungal pathogens to enter the tree's wounds and may cause its untimely demise. Either way, Im sure you did the right thing for the customer, and I hope that this public service announcement on Bolling helps some out there to know what a real 'pollard' is!

Nice spot - where was that? I was thinking that top will come down a little close to the building, but you placed it well.