10 Bears

Good advice generally above so Im not going to repeat - but advise you do some specific reading: FC Doc 1 FC Doc 2 FC Doc 3 - see section on site prep FC Doc 4

If you don't want to go down the subscription service route - you can set up a few good looking documents - like what you have in Word or whatever already, and use MS Office Mobile/OneDrive to do similar functions to the ArbPro service eg on the go invoicing, quotes, spreadsheets etc. Its all web based and doesnt require monthly fees. Otherwise, you can do what I have - pretty much the same as above but I host everything in my WD Personal Cloud (instead of the ether), which is a networked external drive that I keep all my documents on. Again this can be accessed/modified through a mobile app available on Play - See WD My Cloud. You just have to buy the external cloud once, network it and then no fees. Of course what documents you then use, and how you manage it is up to you.

I can see your point, ie out of the box solutions are commercially expensive, but there are alternatives that I don't mind sharing (no need for a patent!), for instance, I can write a DBMS in SQL to handle the back end, and a front end GUI/form can be knocked together in Excel. The whole thing can be run from MS Office Mobile - which is fairly standard across a whole range of GPS/PDAs etc. nowadays. As I have the required software for this already - and spare licences, this solution wont cost me anything more than I already have invested (other than time of course). So if I go down this route, all I would really need is a GPS/PDA. Hence back to the original question ie what are other people using in terms of tech and how are they finding it? Jules, Do you have any more information on your new set up? £1.5K is more than I want to pay admittedly, but I'm still interested in what/how you put it together.

I'm interested to find out what tech other surveyors/consultants use for completing tree surveys. I'm looking to buy a system, but would like some information on what people use, are happy with, levels of back up service from the supplier etc. I should point out though, that the budget is very modest (ideally only a few hundred pounds), so although I would really like one - I don't think a Trimble GeoXT at around £12K is going to be on the offering! The tasks/spec I'm looking for are roughly: Used to complete tree surveys/data capture Desktop support software to enable creating data dictionary or bespoke form for data collection Geo-referencing capability/accurate GPS (possbily with post processing) Good battery life Extras? eg photo, voice annotation, WiFi, Bluetooth etc. Good sized screen Weather proof(ish!) I'm not fussy about the brand, but have experience with Thales, Trimble and Leica - but I'd really like to know what you chaps recommend from your experience. If you could also provide supplier information too, I would really appreciate it. Thanks...

Yes you are right, the principal legislation is still the WCA 81 (as amended) which offers a wide range of protection to species. This should be considered with CROW 2000 which filled some legislation holes regarding habitats/handling/disturbance etc. And... of course not forgetting The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 which is the European basis (also effective here) for a lot of more modern legislation - particularly referring to principle species and habitat types eg forests, wetlands etc, and identifying a range of European Protected Species (EPS) So,... it seems like a lot to consider, but if you just find out why the SSSI was enacted, identify the relevant species/habitats and consider the protection afforded by the relevant legislations then you will be fine!

From that distance, I would have said Catalpa too.

Well, I've not written a postcard in years and I don't smoke - so Ill go for the reply button option. I'm going to make a few assumptions here: 1. This is a big tree i.e. 45 dbh+ 2. There are no significant diseases/compounding factors/root damage etc. 3. The tree has previously shown good to vigorous regrowth i.e. after pruning/damage. Now assuming that all 3 above can be answered with Yes, No, Yes, then I don't believe you will have a problem. The reasons are as follows: 1. The tree will have a large degree of reserves/sugars in the root system that will power the regrowth. There will be little spent after the winter storage and the initial putting on of shoots for this season. Whenever anyone tops a tree (I know he's talking about pollarding but it amounts to the same), then within 5 years you get lateral bud proliferation, leading to extension growth around the wound area, and the tree will be back to its previous or even bigger size. So, this pollarding will be no different. 2. Assuming the tree is healthy, there are no other major/unusual demands on the system, so following the hormonal trigger ie holy Moses, my top has snapped off - must grow a new one, the tree is biologically adapted to deal with this kind of damage. I don't know about you, but I have seen many wind snapped trees regrow with (aside from looking ugly), little to suggest that this was an event that hindered their physiological processes. Yes, there is the shoot/height ratio to consider - but I don't think the tree has read about this yet... 3. Its easy to forget, that the tree is *roughly* a bit less below ground biomass then above. The benefit to this is that following the major catastrophes such as having your top snapped off, or indeed pollarded, then a reaction can take place - through polar auxin transportation, and the auxins get to work their magic and create new apical growth. Lots of people ignore this - even some experts, but trees are far more hardy then many give them credit for. Have you ever seen a farmer chain flail a hedge to destruction, then it recovers that season? They will react to maintain their apical dominance in exactly the same way a tree that has been topped will. So, in short pollard away. Assuming what I said previously, you wont have any problems.

A paper pushing exercise - never! You are probably right about it being a way for the council to justify keeping on their own staff. I hadn't considered it from that perspective. I have been called back to complete other works after I submitted my schedule, for the local councils and the FC. It is hard work to get it right, but I think its worth it. You could write a caveat on them something like, "I reserve the right to reprice in XYZ situation" - Im sure you could come up with something suitable.

It's just the law of averages and the idea that they will become a high volume client. You may lose on one job but make 35% on the next 5 or whatever. If you become the go to guy for the council, you will not be short changed. It's up to your ability to price well that will get you in that position.

They were asking for a schedule of rates for other works that you may be in line for at some other point in the future. The idea is that they put some works out for tender, and if you include a schedule of rates they can then compare possible additional works between you and the other tender submitters. It can be used to either differentiate between you and a similar competitor for the original job, or simply give them an idea of your usual rates on specific tasks, and if those jobs come up while you are in the process of completing your original tender, then you will be given the work at the rate identified on the schedule - without the work being offered out to anyone else on a new tender. So... its a good thing to have a really educated consideration of your standard schedule of rates as 1. you don't want to shoot yourself in the foot pricing too low, and 2. you don't want to over price as this could be a consideration in the original tender. If nothing else - it will help you price other jobs if you have a schedule that you can refer to regularly.

Ah - thanks david. So that bit of information leads me to: Aspergillus and the lung

A very brief search and I cant find the farmer story - perhaps you want to try, but this is similar: Acute Respiratory Illness Following Occupational Exposure to Wood Chips -- Ohio Ive also been told that breathing in Oak dust when sawing is carconogenic. A little off topic but a quick search again turns up: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/wooddust.pdf CDC - NIOSH 1988 OSHA PEL Project Documentation: List by Chemical Name: WOOD DUST

Any moulds or fungi spores have the potential to cause respiratory distress in anyone that breathe them in. Its obviously worse in the elderly (compromised system), the young (immature/underdeveloped passageways/alveoli etc.), and those with a compounding issue e.g. asthma or similar. There is a fungi spore, particularly found in wood chip that has not been rotated, that caused the death of a German farmer a few years ago. I have forgotten its name, but this was in an enclosed barn that he visited every day so presumably this is not your situation in any case. The point is - with no images etc., I personally couldn't ID anything for you, but my general advice would be to avoid breathing in the spore cloud if you could avoid it.

Check out this website: Mark's Daily Apple I would give a better answer, but Im trying to finish up some other work and AT is distracting me!

So pseudo-science pushed by a toff hippy. A convincing argument against chemicals if ever there was one!

Now Doobin - Thats just showing off!

First off, best of luck in your new venture. When I set out 10+ years ago, the first couple of years were definitely hard as I didn't earn, I piled everything back in and was a kept man by the wife! The way I got by was I made a spreadsheet which itemised each element of the job and it had a cost attached to it e.g., spade 50p, wages £60, day insurance 37p etc etc. Each time I was asked to price a job, I would simply put an entry in the correct box for the equipment I needed to use/staff etc. and it will then output a cost to me. I then decided on two profit rates for either private or commercial work and then tax on top. What came out the other end was the price for the job. I can tell you it probably wont be £10 an hour, but it will give you a better idea of how to cost things out and perhaps you can settle on an hourly rate based on a series of average jobs that you complete - and the costs shown on the spreadsheet. So, I suggest making a similar spreadsheet yourself, or if you cant do it, I could email you an old one of mine - just PM me with your email address if you want it.

To be fair, treat this research with a little caution. I followed the article through to the original research, and there are several flaws in the study. Briefly, some of these are: - their sample size is n=9, which is too simply small for analytical purposes - they are not testing the toxicity of the base chemical eg glyposate, they are testing the interaction of the adjuvant and the chemical, (you don't always use adjuvant when applying) - they don't state at what dose rates they have mixed the chemicals - just advise below agricultural standards (how low? is it comparable to standard 50:1 mix or even weaker garden centre variety strength) - They have conducted in vitro cell growth ie grown cells in a dish covered in chemicals, and to a saturation point in which they kill the cells - so a foregone conclusion and not research conducted in a practical like-for-like situation eg external application to skin, inhalation through mask etc. - The scientists report no conflict of interests, but they were part funded by environmental and conservation foundations, and two organisations promoting organic farming and production, so perhaps there is a conflict as they research the needs of the paymasters So... am I saying its tosh? Not entirely, but its certainly not as clear as you would think on first read. That said, whenever I spray, I don't generally mix in adjuvants and I always go kitted up. I certainly wouldn't recommend that anyone else assumes chemicals are totally safe - but in regards to this paper, it reads like a bit of pseudo-science that makes a nice attention grabbing article on a permaculture website, but that leaves too many holes in their argument. In my opinion!

Its not that complicated if you give yourself time to read the whole document and go through it step by step. As for your wee trees - it sounds like the 1.25 method may actually be the way to go. As I said before, its a rule of thumb that you can just use to open discussions with the TO ie XYZ size is roughly 15 years old etc.

I had to Google PITA to find out what it meant! Difficult then?!

It should be in the manual that came with it, telling you how to retune it yourself - or at least how to set back to 'factory setting'. Its pretty easy to do yourself, but as its new I'm sure the shop you got it from (assuming it wasn't on-line) would tweak them for you.

No need for all those fancy ropes and harnesses. This is how to get a proper tree down! [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-SwpDKkHko]Walking on air[/ame] Top level skills in my opinion.

No they should be factory ready. Perhaps the hi/low jets aren't set properly?

I agree with the comments above ie, get the TO out there and agree any works. As a rule of thumb, you could measure the DBH of the tree at 1.3m from the ground (not 1.5) and multiply the answer by 1.25. This is a *rough* age, but can be used for starting a discussion. It obviously doesn't take into account different species growth rates etc. Another method used by the FC can be found here (although this is meant for larger trees, it may be transferable to smaller). This is a more complex way of ageing trees but is more accurate.

Yep - I found this on the BBC first BBC News - Lucky escape for chainsaw workman Then found this thread!