Andrew McEwan

Maybe look at decent standard pickups, make some greedy boards and get a loadhandler, nice and light and if you're not hammering through a massive domestic job list will be fine to start out with, then can always get your own proper tipper body made up later.

Hope she can pull through J

Is there  Tunissenn/Ts industrie dealer near you Mick? Was always happy with my old psuedo schliesing one

Give Riko a bell, they'll tell you what litres per minute flow it is pushing out, my agt850 was good running a 9ton balfor splitter off it's hydraulics and I think I'm right saying it put out 30lpm. Don't underestimate the amount of heat the back axle has to dissipate from a good splitting session though, not an issue with a pto model with its own tank as Matt suggests.

New grant stream info that might be of interest, thought the temp infrastructure fund sounds sensible, depending as ever on how it's all dished out

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/woods-into-management-forestry-innovation-funds

Could the tempering on the blades have been knackered if dry ground?

It's a along time ago, but baked some of these to speed up seed collection as serotinous

Sounds like you need a copy of the carbon lookup tables/spreadsheet for the woodland carbon code.

https://woodlandcarboncode.org.uk/standard-and-guidance/3-carbon-sequestration/3-3-project-carbon-sequestration

Great little saws, L+S engineers still have lots of spares for them, recommend keeping it, might need new set of fuel lines. Where are you in the country? Once you find a good local saw tech or some help I'm sure a 350 will be fine for you.

Are they meant to be used gripping the start of the blade? or is the central section a bit short for that guy in the vid? always fancied trying/making one.

love mine, brilliant saw, must be incredible ported

Are you able to head into East Devon,Dorset J? big difference I've found from Dartmoor and surrounding mud levels 

On 28/10/2020 at 08:42, Lazurus said:

Olight are a good company with quality products but I cannot comment on the head torches but every thing else I have had is top drawer.

Best headtorch I've had, ally body, waterproof and magnetic charger to usb , worth the cost seems bombproof still ~two years in

6 hours ago, Johnpl315 said:

Never used any but there are also these ones which look sturdy enough. 

Bahco 1434 Tractor Tongs | Clark Forest : Logging Equipment

WWW.CLARKFOREST.COM

---

Bahco 1434 Tractor Tongs for gripping up to 700mm diametre...

 

I've got these, not used often but been spot on when needed

Yep that's the one Jules, good picture, I guess worth a try with single fisherman osm, but not done that

Which is why the fishermans isn't loaded Jules, the reef knot in the centre (and shackle if worried) takes the load, the fishermans either side stops it rolling or pulling through,  and also mean it can be moved over things or pass obstacles with less problems if it snags unlike a zep or any of the bends.

8 minutes ago, Dan Maynard said:

Reef knots roll, wouldn't use one of those for anything serious.

I can always remember the bowline, what about just putting the two loops onto a steel carabiner if you don't like the rope on rope?

Zeppelin bend is good and I've used it but not enough to always remember it.

That's why the reef knot is used in the middle of a double fishermans, mega secure yet easy to undo especially with a shackle in it if needed

Try a reef knot in the middle of the double fishermans, or if winching clip a krab or shackle into the centre of the knot before tightening

Worth an annual public service repost!

Even if forestry is warfare like at times, if you love it at least do a chunk of it, and you'll probably get on further in arb if you go back to that eventually, I'm biased but I think you can spot the groundie or climber a mile off that has some solid forestry saw time under their belt, and a lot of more rural based firms seem to do some of both, and also bigger arb with a forestry style approach/kit.

I'd get an experienced local consultant that has PI insurance for subs reports/advice to review any geotech and claim history and write the work spec if you're not covered.

seconded, speak to mark at Lincmaster, quality easy to use stuff

In response to your additional thoughts you mention scaling up to government survey level, that seems an odd justification for your homeowners policy content surely? Totally different scenarios, just because you may not remove vegetation on large numbers of roadside trees in Tasmania doesn't mean it's sensible to encourage homeowners not to remove ivy on their one roadside tree in a domestic setting in the UK, hence my original suggestion that you revise that (I'd remove it), apologies if that hasn't gone down well, but I feel it's important to at least register some concern with your document.

You state "To remove vegetation without an obvious tree risk feature to trigger it is disproportionate to the likely overall risk reduction"

I'd add that this is in your view, and although I asked what science you have been doing or encouraging, there doesn't seem to be anything new you are offering to show that this is disproportionate ? I'd suggest you are trying to quantify in terms of risk the un-quantifiable, as unless a very bored arborist somewhere does some stats on failures due to hidden features that hadn't been inspected, we are left with what to me seems a reasonable approach, not your proposed blanket statement that unless there is an obvious risk feature seen you go no further with veg removal. For example, your proposed approach would miss all the big healthy crown condition ivy clad willow and poplar, that upon ivy removal have been found to be long over due a red dot and felling, we all know they exist, surely part of job is to understand that and find them on a survey before they fail onto people or property?

You mention boundaries for decision making on vegetation removal, perhaps you are realising that it isn't something that needs to be laid out in a home owners policy as one way or the other?

Saying it is the duty holders choice seems a bit of a cop out, I think most of us in this area of work will be used to a client expecting us to provide a view and advice on if veg clearance is needed, not pass the buck back to them. I think tree inspection work is such an experience critical field, with so many variables that trying to put a risk output on what might or not might not be under vegetation isn't productive, and doesn't need a set of traffic lights to help, hopefully the PTI stays in the current format to reflect this. If experience of species, wind loading, water logging, soil type, snow loading, previous failures, past land use etc etc, leads me to think I need veg removal I recommend it, if a serious risk feature is found then it is, if it isn't it isn't, that's the nature of massively variable organisms and growing positions.

Semantics on safety or otherwise aren't of huge interest to me, a tree safety improvement policy might be better wording, but more time looking under ivy  and vegetation is probably time better spent.... But don't worry I'm sure arbtalkers are aware you can't make trees safe.

Have you been on the PTI?  when I did it you were certainly expected to look above 2m, or are you describing other previous training you've had that focused on below 2m assessment? that restricted type of VTA is not something I've ever heard of.

I think we can agree to disagree on survey approaches and what is or isn't defend-able, I don't think there is any parallel between the instruction of an aerial inspection or root investigation and removing ivy for example.

Creating access and visibility for inspection where there are significant targets seems totally logical to me, and yes I would strongly recommend looking for hidden features at the base as it is easy and low cost to do, and not at all comparable to an aerial inspection instruction, and with ivy severance you also allow a more thorough view up into the canopy for the next survey as the ivy dies off, the point at which you stop looking for hidden features also seems obvious, don't get in your harness or get the air spade out, but do investigate dense vegetation and ivy if there is a significant target.

I understand you are attempting to re-label/brand tree inspection and assessment, I asked what sort of science you are encouraging and working on as that would be of interest?

And yes I understand what a tree safety policy is trying to achieve,  hence my original point, I certainly wouldn't recommend any policy that had as a pillar the 'don't look under vegetation unless there is an obvious risk feature approach', you are obviously happy to do so, and anyone else reading can hopefully see and appreciate the two different approaches, especially if just starting out in survey work. 

It was just a suggestion, to me it seems contradictory to say there is an absence of a tree risk feature trigger when you can't see the stem or buttresses, ground level in relation to the stem, root plate lift etc etc because of dense under growth or  ivy/epicormics, how do you go about establishing there is no risk feature  or trigger other than getting in there? I know I have instructed plenty of clearance on trees with targets over the years for inspection, and been surprised/horrified/reassured by what became visible.

I understand what you're saying about homeowners keeping an eye out, but that's not really citizen 'science' is it, it's just encouraging engagement, unless you are collating data inquiries vs failure stats or something? good on you if so. Why not promote just a simple, no acronyms needed homeowners VTA guide? Like those helpful photos and captions on the last page.