Andrew McEwan

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.

Nice gesture but maybe consider revising the not clearing basal growth unless there is an obvious risk feature point, and having seen a fair few 'citizen science' tree surveys I'm not convinced tree risk assessment is the right topic for engagement, or they are something I'd encourage without major caveats.

I'd say you're spot on with Nothofagus. I've found little patches of it with some incredible growth rates over the years, but often frost bark damage, I think lots of foresters gave it a go in a spare space a while back.

Recommend getting a qualified local forestry agent/consultant, not an easy DIY job to do well/run first time

I'd be tempted to look into spending a few quid sorting out the kiwk chip if not too far gone, anvil, roller gap and teeth, reverse etc as they are properly built, if you aren't set on a crane fed one, especially if a newer one is just going to get bashed in the woods with a digger behind it, also suspect some of the bigger TPs or similar might be a bit of a handful off road for the 9400? Be interesting to see some photos of the job and setup when you get into it.

Why not ask if you can put a plumb line point and ground marker in, just an ally nail in the tree will do. I've done that a few times following survey work and used the plumb line subsequently to establish nothing is moving.

A Ber tree at Amritsar? says Wikipedia

Amazing amount of effort, where was that?

That's a great idea, a 'rev the nuts of anything loud' NHS salute Might get evicted from my road mind

Yes blade changes are easy, nearly two years ago the 200 series (215?) was meant to be getting a tracked version, but maybe shelved as not seen anything lately, that'd be my choice of tracked machine.

I had the pto version on a 50hp alpine tractor and it was excellent, great infeed for it's size, high quality build, easy to service, paint work held up well if that bothers you, I'd have another if I needed one.

Or a 353

I'd go for a new 550 or 560 in your boat and as already said definitely run it on Aspen2, but another option for your budget would a be a good used husky 350 and get it ported/serviced by Spud on here, if you want a fast light non ecarb saw, can find them having had a much easier home user life than pro 346s

I found it quite tricky doing large posts the first time and getting the first big cant/beam totally square Mick, allowing for taper, wedging up the ladder to be spot on etc, but if careful will be fine I'm sure, and a very satisfying job. You've probably seen in milling threads but if you have a second guy, get him to wedge as you go along a board, and be an auxiliary oiler with a little bottle of veg to squirt at the mill.

Yes quicker milling, narrower kerf, I have two gb bars with 3/8 lo pro 050 gauge chain from robd on Husky 288s and at first the chain looks a bit lightweight to take the hammer from milling but has been totally fine.

A fair bit of the easter afternoon happily spent reading thanks VI, virtual forestry nosy parkering! I'll pm you a fj contact

Great read VI! First thread this length I've read in a oner, ace to see the story and all your work unfold. I know you've said it's not something for the moment, but I'm certain forestry journal would be interested in some of your writing, be few more quid for tcf gadgets! Let me know if you want a contact.

Bachar ladder set up on the side of the house, struggling! Def didn't used to be that hard....

Oshsenkopf wedges from Clark forest are good, and they do a plastic insert for hilift wedges which are a decent idea

Great photos, miss having a spaniel

Another view is that there are plenty of us in our 40s that have done fine from tree work as a very genuine and useful career....., initially planting and forestry then climbing subbing paid for my education to degree level. Sounds like you'd be suited to getting on a level 2 arb apprenticeship with a decent company and going from there, if you're prepared to earn them money and put the time and effort in on the basic tasks, don't think that it will make you a climber, view it as a first step.

Yeah good luck Dan, have a scan through the the woodlots website if you haven't, and put up an ad there too, often see countryside and woodland work on there