Acer ventura

For those of you who might be interested, VALID now has a Facebook Page. The website and dates of going live should be released in October. Anyone interested in beta testing the App please PM me. https://www.facebook.com/Tree.Risk.Benefit.Assessment/ Cheers Acer ventura

M D's post (thanks) has had me think that perhaps I should clarify that 'tree management' would be included under likelihood of failure; ie what questions would you like to see answered about decay fungi and managing a tree? Cheers Acer ventura

Hi I'm just back from delivering the likelihood of failure part of VALID at the ISA Conference in Washington DC. Whilst there, I caught up with Lynne Boddy - who was also presenting - to talk about the mycological content of VALID Tree Risk-Benefit Assessment training when it goes live this autumn. Lynne, as generous with her wealth of knowledge as ever, was happy to help out and I now reckon I've got the key parts in place. However, as I've been going through my own re-calibration on tree risk-benefit assessment and management, I thought this would be a great opportunity to take stock and see what questions you guys would like answering about the role of decay fungi in likelihood of failure. Far more importantly, and serendipitously, Lynne's currently writing a book about fungi and trees that's pitched at arboriculturists, rather than mycologists. I raised the idea of canvassing opinion about what you would like to see specifically covered in such a book with her and she thought it a great idea. There might be a top 10 myth busters section, or similar. It strikes me there's two parts here that are in keeping with a the risk-benefit approach outlined by the NTSG. What questions would you like to see answered about decay fungi and the likelihood of failure? What questions would you like to see answered about fungi and the benefits that trees provide? I'm thinking of the habitat and mycorrhizae value side of things. I’m happy to be emailed directly if you’d rather not post on a public forum. Cheers Acer ventura

Hi Gary No problem. I was happy to clear up the misunderstanding about what VALID is on the UKTC. The AA are planning to email my Likelihood of Failure Club Abstract out as part of the marketing, which may help put some more flesh on the bones of the day. The AA also had a piece in their recent magazine about the tour I did with Paul Muir and Claire Harbinson (Treework Environmental Practice) of New Zealand and Australia, doing something very similar. It should give you a good idea of what the day is about. Arb Magazine Summer 2017 What's the Likelihood of Failure.pdf Cheers Acer ventura . Likelihood of Failure Club - Abstract.pdf

If you've been looking through this thread, and find yourself here, this might be of interest. http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/general-chat/108629-valid-tree-risk-benefit-assessment.html#post1588205 Cheers Acer ventura

Hi I posted this message on the UKTC because there seems to be some confusion about VALID that's cropped up on the back of the Arboricultural Association's recently advertised 'What's the Likelihood of Failure' seminars. Hopefully, this will make things clear. I abandoned my long-standing relationship with QTRA last summer. So, I am no longer a driver of QTRA development, or deliver QTRA training. I originally put VALID together as a decision-making tool to help with the Likelihood of Failure part of tree risk assessments in 2015. I presented it at that year’s AA conference, and it was designed to be used in any tree risk assessment system. Since then, VALID has not only developed further as a Likelihood of Failure decision-making tool, it’s now a fully blown tree risk-benefit assessment system. The blueprints of this were revealed at the AA conference in 2016, and the SE AA Seminar in January of this year. More of it was revealed at the “Is it VALID?” downunder tour of New Zealand and Australia in February. I’m setting up VALID as non-profit to deliver training and guidance in tree risk-benefit assessment and management. The website and App should all be in place soon. I plan to start delivering training in the UK at the end of September. To give you an idea of what I’ve been up to, I’ve attached the VALID Tree Risk-Benefit Strategy. This is roughly 100 pages of the NTSG’s ‘Common Sense Risk Management of Trees’ distilled down to a one side of easy to read and understand A4. It’ll be a giveaway position statement template that anyone from a Local Planning Authority, to Mrs Miggins with a tree in her back garden, can adopt and make their own. It’ll give you taste of how VALID will look. VALID - Tree Risk-Benefit Strategy 2017.pdf My PhD at the Centre for Decision Analysis and Risk Management (DARM - the risk experts used by the NTSG) will be researching Likelihood of Failure decision-making. The plan is for this to be a synergistic adventure where the income from VALID will fund the research, the training will provide some research opportunities (it’s already delivered much), and the research will in turn improve VALID. The forthcoming AA seminars that I'm running with Frank Rinn are focused on the Likelihood of Failure part of a tree risk assessment. However, in one of my morning presentations I’ll be revealing the why, what, and the how of VALID Tree Risk-Benefit Assessment in the context of quantitative v qualitative tree risk assessment. Hopefully, that’s ironed everything out. Cheers Acer ventura

Hi David Point taken, and apologies offered for having to put on your moderating pants. I could, and should, have clarified the facts here with less fruity prose. Cheers Acer ventura

Hi Jules I've never said I have no connection with QTRA. Self-evidently, as a QTRA trainer for the last 10 years, and one of the people that’s helped develop it to where it currently stands, I do have some connection. I have no idea what your agenda is in falsely claiming I’ve said otherwise. I very, very much doubt this, but I invite you to persuade the forum otherwise with details of how your ‘adaptations’ managed to take QTRA from an ‘adequate’ tree risk assessment system to exactly what they needed. The ‘adaptations’ you pitched on the QTRA forum were far from adequate, and were ill-thought out, if not backward. Perhaps your staggering sense of self-importance blindsided you to the fact that absolutely no one on the QTRA forum said, “You know what Julian, you’re onto something here”. Just to repeat that, in the unlikely event it might sink in. No one, of all the QTRA Users around the world, posted a supportive comment about your proposed ‘adaptations’ and ‘improvements’. You’ve regularly bragged on here, and the UKTC, that you have a method of quantifying tree risk that is superior to QTRA, yet constantly refuse to disclose anything about this marvel, and bristle with indignation when asked. Such a boast is an empty suit without any evidence. Who knows, if you walked the walk and showed it, rather than endlessly talk the talk, it might turn out that you have superior tree risk assessment method to QTRA. However, given the lacklustre stature of many of your comments on here, the UKTC, and now QTRA forums, about quantifying tree risk, I would be incredibly surprised if that were the case. The word on the street is that you’re cheap. Very cheap. This is profoundly depressing. I do hope we’re not going to get another ‘Poll’ or ‘Laman Street’, and the associated reputational damage to QTRA, because of your hubris. I’m going to draw a line here on this public forum, for the benefit of other QTRA Users who may stray across it, and reaffirm my previous post. “Any comments about how QTRA can be improved are very welcome and debate about them is encouraged. What is not encouraged is individual adaptations and customisations, particularly when they are highly questionable, that depart enough from QTRA guidance the tree risk assessment is no longer a 'QTRA'.” If you doubt me, email mike [email protected], and he’ll tell you exactly the same. Cheers Acer ventura

Hi Kevin But I haven't revealed the Third Rule of 'Likelihood of Failure Club', yet. The all-important giving yourself permission to change your mind for the third vote. That changing your mind is a strength, not a weakness. Cheers Acer ventura

Hi elspedo I think you might be mixing up my take on ‘What happens on tour stays on tour’ with, “The first rule of Fight Club is: You do not talk about Fight Club”. Serendipitously, I’ve tweaked the fight club quote to play ‘Likelihood of Failure Club’ when using the ‘VaLiD’ Approach to Estimating Likelihood of Failure. “The first rule of Likelihood of Failure Club is: You do not talk about Likelihood of Failure Club”. Some Arbtalkers may have seen me present VaLiD at the Arboricultural Association conference last year. I’ve been trialling it in Australia, with some great results, and will be tweaking it in the UK before it taking it to present at an ISA Tree Academy Workshop in Texas in August. I’ll let you know on here when it’s ready to have a play with. Cheers Acer ventura

Hi James These are serious allegations you make that could damage the reputation of QTRA. Anyone involved with QTRA training, or its development, has a zero tolerance to such behaviour. Could you please let me and/or Mike Ellison [email protected] know, off forum, when these incidences of ‘bullying’ and ‘badgering’ occurred, who was responsible, and what the moderators of the forums did about the 'bullying'. Cheers Acer ventura

Hi Dilz I'm a QTRA trainer so my experience might be biased:001_smile:. Unfortunately, I can't help you out beyond saying the feedback is usually very goood. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of chat about the course on the thread so far. Perhaps Kevin and Jules could let you know, on or off forum, what they thought of it. Paul Barton is another Arbtallker who I know was recently on it as well. If you have any questions, please fire away. Cheers Acer ventura

Hi Jules What goes on the QTRA forum stays on the QTRA forum because it is not for public access. However, as you've brought it up here, I'll give the other side of the story. Any comments about how QTRA can be improved are very welcome and debate about them is encouraged. What is not encouraged is individual adaptations and customisations, particularly when they are highly questionable, that depart enough from QTRA guidance the tree risk assessment is no longer a 'QTRA'. As you point out eslewhere in the thread. You won a tender to undertake a QTRA. I very much doubt they were after your 'improved' version of QTRA. Cheers Acer ventura

Hi 10 Bears I'm interested in the reasons you believe QTRA is inherently flawed. As Jules points out later on, Goode v Burnside isn't a legal case, nor is it precedent setting. There's a summary of its main points, including the problem with the QTRA undertaken, here. Goode Judgment & QTRA Cheers Acer venutra

Hi Just a bit of admin. The 'Safety in Numbers' presentation in the link below has been updated (Thanks moderators). http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/general-chat/88697-tree-risk-assessment-traq-qtra-compatibility-common-ground-2.html#post1347612 The only significant difference is the file is now half the size it was without the graphics suffering. Though still bulky, this means it can be emailed. With the reprint to pdf, I also took the opportunity to change the screen grabs of the QTRA software calculator so they are all the same current version, and naturally I couldn't help but tweak a few of the notes upon revisiting. Cheers Acer ventura

Hi Kveldssanger So, a fruit body could be produced under favourable conditions for the fungal colony, or unfavourable conditions for the colony. There’s no current way of telling the condition of the fungal colony from the fruit body because there are so many unknown exogenous and endogenous factors that can affect its production. It’s not unlike being given an apple and then claiming to be able to form a detailed opinion about the tree it came from. Worse still, ‘panic-fruiting’ seems to be an increasingly common term to not only draw conclusions about the condition of the fungal colony, but to extrapolate from that as to the structural condition of the tree. With current knowledge, I think the only thing a fruiting body tells us is the fungal colony has reached the bark where it is fruiting from, and there will be some decay. It doesn’t tell us how much decay, and it doesn’t tell about the structural integrity of the tree, or the likelihood of it failing. Cheers Acer ventura

Hi Kveldssanger Nice idea for a thread. Though I appreciate the Lynne Boddy paper you cite is a great and a useful source, can I just point out your paragraph about ‘Panic-fruiting’ has nothing to do with it. I’m aware the term ‘Panic-fruiting’ seems to have gained common currency on Arbtalk, that Tony Croft has tossed the term around a lot, and he seems to have become colonised by it via Gerrit Keizer. I have major issues with it both as a misleading term, and as a concept. I’ve have not yet seen any peer-reviewed evidence for ‘Panic-fruiting’, and would be grateful if someone could point me in the right direction if there is some. There was a lengthy debate on the UKTC about it in involving Tony, and I’ve included a link to one of my last comments to give you a taster of my misgivings. RE: Panic fruiting of fungi- stuff of nonsense? Sorry to bomb your thread with this, but I’d rather ‘Panic-fruiting’ didn’t end up like a Dr Fox’s Brass Eye ‘fact’ about paedophiles having more genes in common with crabs than they do with you and me. As he memorably reasoned, "Now that is scientific fact—there's no real evidence for it—but it is scientific fact" Cheers Acer ventura

Hi Kveldssanger There's nothing currently planned for the autumn schedule near Essex, and I was in Cambridge in July. However, beyond the scheduled workshops, the locations of which are partially driven by enquiries, it works on levels of interest. By way of example, I ended up spending a week and half in Canberra, had an additional session down to Hobart, and then had to abandon a well-earned holiday in order to get over to Wellington in New Zealand earlier this year. The trip ballooned to 19 workshops by the time it was finally organised. Not that I expect too much sympathy for escaping the arse-end of our winter and spending time downunder. What I would suggest is registering interest here. Register interest in QTRA Then see whether there's anyone else in your neck of the woods you know who might also want to come along, and get them to do the same. If there is enough interest, I’m sure either Mike Ellison or I could get to Essex for this autumn. If there's not enough interest to go at such short notice, then it could be short-listed as a possible venue for early next Spring. Cheers Acer ventura

Hi By way of an update that might be of interest if you find yourself at the end of this thread. I've uploaded my presentation 'Safety in Numbers: Balancing Risks with Benefits', which I delivered at the International Society of Arboriculture Conference in Florida, 2015, here: http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/general-chat/88697-tree-risk-assessment-traq-qtra-compatibility-common-ground-2.html#post1347612 The presentation is a useful introduction to some key concepts about risk, and the value of using numbers rather than words when assessing and managing tree risk. It also covers the main developments in version 5 of QTRA. Cheers Acer ventura

Hi By way of an update that might be of interest if you find yourself at the end of this thread. I've uploaded my presentation 'Safety in Numbers: Balancing Risks with Benefits', which I delivered at the International Society of Arboriculture Conference in Florida, 2015, here: http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/general-chat/88697-tree-risk-assessment-traq-qtra-compatibility-common-ground-2.html#post1347612 The presentation is a useful introduction to some key concepts about risk, and the value of using numbers rather than words when assessing and managing tree risk. Cheers Acer ventura

Hi By way of an update that might be of interest if you find yourself at the end of this thread. I've uploaded my presentation 'Safety in Numbers: Balancing Risks with Benefits', which I delivered at the International Society of Arboriculture Conference in Florida, 2015, here: http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/general-chat/88697-tree-risk-assessment-traq-qtra-compatibility-common-ground-2.html#post1347612 The presentation is a useful introduction to some key concepts about risk, and the value of using numbers rather than words when assessing and managing tree risk. Cheers Acer ventura

Hi Kevin It might be better to contact QTRA direct here. I suspect your question is bit niche to be of much interest to the readers of this thread I'm only one of the trainers and know little about the fine detail in the words of which you speak. My understanding is the registered time begins from the day you do the training. However, you do not become registered until you pass the QTRA test. If you have any further questions in relation to this then please PM or email me and I'll chase it up for you. Or better still, email Diane, the QTRA admin - [email protected], where I'm sure you'll get a more authoritative and comprehensive answer than I can provide. If you do come along to Exeter, I look forward to catching up with you there. Cheers Acer ventura

Hi Kevin Would Monmouth or Exeter be West Country enough for you? The rest of the 2015 QTRA calendar is here. Quantified Tree Risk Assessment: Training calendar Cheers Acer ventura

Hi Paul Yes, I think I am. I look forward to catching up with you there. Cheers Acer ventura

Hi Paul Thanks, and let us know what you think. Which QTRA course are you going on? You should find the presentation good preparation for it. There's a lot that's changed since 2010. Cheers Acer ventura