Treeline, summer 2013

TREEL NE

The International Society of Arboriculture UK and Ireland Chapter Official Magazine Summer 2013

Part 2 of Geoffrey Donovan’s Relationship Between Trees and Human Health, Part 2 of Cass Turnbull’s Exceptions To The Rules,

A Personal Perspective on the Ride for Research

by Russell Ball

CPD

CEU’s

WHERE MUNICIPAL ARBORISTS GO! For regular technical meetings, on-line education, updates and networking.

MTOA, JOIN NOW.

CONTACT THE CHAPTER OFFICE FOR DETAILS, CLICK HERE.

Contents Editor’s Comment

3 Editor’s Comment A few words from Charlotte McDermott

This edition of Treeline includes fol4 President’s Pulpit A few words from Alexander Laver low-ons from the previous edition; part 6 Events Calendar two of both DonoNotable events for this year van’s The Relationship Between Trees 7 Contacts and Human Health The people to call with your queries and Turnbull’s Exceptions, as well as an Features admittedly late article written by the winner 8 The Relationship Between Trees of last year’s UK&I TCC, Alistair Magee, on and Human Health Part 2 his experience representing us at the ITCC In

By Geoffrey H. Donovan Portland.

The previous president, Russell Ball, has also included a personal perspective on his ride for the Ride for Research, a bike-ride that helps to raise money for... trees, of course!

The summary of this year’s TCC near the end of this edition will be expanded upon within the next edition in Autumn, but congratulations to Jon Turnbull, who is once again travelling to compete in the Worlds in Toronto, which will also be documented in the following edition.

There are also plenty of event information as usual, including various write-ups from previous meetings and seminars and ones that are yet to come, so please check them out.

I would like to extend my gratitude to Sybs Johnson, who has served as a great inspiration to me and given me a helping hand when I needed one; thank you Sybs!

— Charlotte McDermott

12 The Evidence of Nature and the Nature of Evidence

By Howard Frumkin, a commentary on Donovan’s research 16 Ancient churchyard yews

By Tim Hills 20 Exceptions To The Rules Part 2

By Cass Turnbull 26 Portland, Oregon, How it went

By Alistair Magee 28 In Search of the Perfect Report Part 1

By Jeremy Barrell 31 Ride for Research, A Personal Perspective

By Russell Ball 34 Laying the Track for TRAQ

By Sharron Lilly 37 TCC Summary

By Charlotte McDermott

3

President’s Pulpit

The chapter has been busy for the last few months with plenty of things going on and now we are looking ahead towards the year to come. The Chapter TCC at Highclare Castle Game and Country fair was smoothly run and a resounding success; we had a constant crowd watching the climbers in action, myself being one of them. I am still gaining new contacts, knowledge and skills from my fellow climbers every time!

A run of Certification exams have taken place around the country, showing that everyone is taking the time to study at home and up their games in the ever-difficult fight for work.

There has been plenty of interest on the ISA stand at various events with some of the new books we have, that can be purchased via the online store. Thanks to all members that came to say hello, even if we could not tempt you to a new read.

The Student Tree Climbing Championship was held at Easton College, Norwich, Norfolk, alongside the East of England Cutters and Climbers Comp at the Norfolk showground. The students all had a great time, learning and making new friends. I was glad to see a lot of students volunteering to help and become members of the chapter. The guys over in Ireland are building their numbers with a great tree event and climbing competition.

The Ride for Research riders completed another great event up in Glasgow, as you will read about shortly within this edition, and we have much more to do. All of these things could not happen without support from volunteers, new and old, at all of the events. This is what the ISA is all about, a sense of community ownership of the industry.

Our little industry is growing up and we need to help and nurture it for the good of all, with the changes in HSE policy changing the face of guidance, qualifications creating a more competitive market, the push to work a system of company and personal validation and recognition, with the AA explanation of the contractors scheme and LANTRA backing of the R2 project. As for the Chapters part in all this, it is up to you the members - to be active, keep supporting, fly the flag on your emails, company letters heads, web sites and social media.

Thank you and keep it up.

Don't miss out on the chance to join us at Kew in June for the Tree Law seminar; it’s a fantastic opportunity, time and places are running out fast.

Alex Laver

4

Phil Wade, Director – Sorbus International Ltd

Sorbus International Limited are leading suppliers of specialist & hi-tech equipment to the arboriculture, forestry, utility, grounds maintenance, landscaping & environmental care sectors in the UK & worldwide.

In late 2012 the PICUS 3 was launched; the most compact, lightweight, fastest & user friendly PICUS system ever.

The PICUS 3 hardware is a complete re-design & the result of this and the new Q73 software means time on site is effectively halved compared with previous PICUS systems.

Quentin Nicholls, Managing Director of Arbortrack Systems Ltd comments: “After 10 years of getting to know the PICUS, it was time for us to take the plunge and buy the PICUS 3.

The first thing you notice is the smaller case, which is now not much bigger than a standard briefcase. I found the PICUS 3 to be easier to use on site and there is no longer the need for a PC as the PICUS 3 will store the records of dozens of trees. The sensor belts are more streamlined & easier to handle & it also has built-in GPS and a clinometer to accurately measure the heights of trees.

I would also thoroughly recommend purchasing the electronic callipers as these are simple to operate and considerably speeds up the time taken for each inspection.”

Please contact Sorbus International Limited for more information on the PICUS 3 or go to our website www. sorbus-intl.co.uk

Events Calendar Upcoming Events for the Busy Arborist June

1st 4th 5th 14th-15th 25th

2013

3ATC, St Asaphs Certification Exam, Leicester UK&I Chapter Board Meeting AA Trade Fair, Cirencester Ask the Experts, Kew

July

26th-27th Arbor Camp, FR Jones, Kent

August

3rd-4th

ITCC, Toronto

September

7th-8th ETCC, Switzerland

http://3atc.trees.org.uk/ www.isa-arboriculture.org/ www.trees.org/ www.isa-arboriculture.org/

http://www.frjonesandson. co.uk/show/

www.isa-arbor.com

http://www.itcc-isa.com/events/ regional/etcc/etcc.aspx

Left and below: trees from Highclere

Contacts Who’s Who?

Contact list for the chapter volunteers President

Alex Laver

President-Elect

Jess Herbert

Vice-Presidents

Bob Widd Vacant

Past President

Russell Ball

Editor

Charlotte McDermott

Exec. Director

Ian McDermott

Office Manager

Jean McDermott

PA Reps CAS MTOA

Bob Widd Tim Wetherhill

Standing Committee’s TCC Ian Morgan SSA Stuart Phillips Officers Rise for Research Tree Fund Certification AFAG Commercial EAC

Russell Ball Glynn Percival Dan Yeomans Alex Laver Jon Tonks Craig Johnson

Website: www.isa-arboriculture.org Email: Enquiries@isa-arboriculture.org Tel: +44 (0)121 556 8302

Below: The ISA trade stand at this year’s TCC, Highclere.

Above: The location of this year’s TCC, Highclere.

7

The Relationship Between Trees and Human Health Part II By Geoffrey Donovan Results

Respiratory-Related Mortality

Regression results for the respiratory-related mortality model are shown in Table 1. The negative coeffıcient on the time trend confırms that overall respiratory-related mortality declined over the 18-year study period.

The presence of the borer was signifıcant by itself and in interaction with years of infestation and median income (dichotomized at the median split).

The positive coeffıcient on the income interaction term suggests that the borer has a bigger effect on mortality in wealthier counties.

This is consistent with previous research showing a positive correlation between tree cover and income in urban areas. This result was mirrored by the effect of ash on mortality related to lower-respiratory-tract illness, as counties with more ash trees had lower rates of this type of mortality. In addition, the effect of the interaction term between ash trees and median income is negative, which suggests that the health benefıts of ash are greater in wealthier counties.

Given the signifıcance of the interaction terms, the coeffıcients on these terms cannot be interpreted in isolation. Therefore, the delta method was used to calculate the net marginal effect of the borer on respiratory-related mortality taking into account the direct effect and the effect through interaction terms.

The presence of the borer in a county is associated with 6.8 additional deaths per year per 100,000 adults (95% CI_4.8, 8.7).

8

To determine how the effect changes over time, separate marginal effects were calculated for each year of infestation (Table 2).

Results show that as infestation in a county progresses, the magnitude of the marginal effect also increases. Applying these marginal effects to the appropriate infested counties shows that the emerald ash borer was associated with 6113 excess deaths between 2002 and 2007.

The delayed effect of the borer may be due to the 2-5 years it takes an ash tree to die after initial infestation. In addition, any effect on human mortality would be expected to lag behind the borer’s effect on tree mortality.

Indeed, it may be surprising that the borer has any effect on human mortality in the fırst year of infestation. However, once the borer is detected in a county, often many healthy trees are cut down to prevent its spread. This practice was particularly common during the early years of its spread.

In addition, there is often extensive media

coverage when the borer is fırst detected in a county, which may cause some of the same stressful responses as tree mortality. For example, within the fırst year of discovery in Michigan, the Detroit Free Press ran 39 stories on the borer including four on the front page. Similarly, the Chicago Tribune printed 53 stories relating to the borer in the fırst year of infestation in Illinois, including 16 on the front page. For the current paper, stories were identifıed using emerald ash borer as a search term. Each story was checked to make sure the emerald ash borer was in fact the subject.

cause of death it could not plausibly affect.

Discussion

Results suggest that the widespread death of ash trees from the emerald ash borer lead to an increase in mortality related to cardiovascular and lower-respiratory-tract illness.

These results are consistent with previous research that has identifıed a correlation between the natural environment and health.

They also provide stronger support for a causal relationship.

The borer had a greater effect in counties

Cardiovascular-Related Mortality

Results for the cardiovascular model are shown in Table 3. The signifıcance and magnitude of the coeffıcients on the borer and borer interaction terms are similar to those for the respiratory model.

The effects of other covariates are generally consistent, although ash is not associated with cardiovascular-related mortality except in interaction with median income.

The marginal effect of the borer on cardiovascular-related mortality is 16.7 additional deaths per year per 100,000 adults (95% CI_5.7, 27.7) for a total of 15,080 excess deaths from 2002 to 2007 (Table 4).

In the accidental-mortality model, no effect of the borer was found.

Specifıcally, using a Wald test, the null hypothesis that the coeffıcients on the borer, the interaction of the borer with median income, and years of infestation were jointly zero was not rejected (p_0.22). Although the accidental-death model is not a control in a formal sense, it is encouraging that the model found the borer to be uncorrelated with a

9

whose median household income was above average. There are a number of possible interpretations for these results. People in wealthier counties may have greater access to ash trees, so the death of these trees has a greater impact on them.

In particular, urban areas within wealthier counties may have more trees, or better maintain them. Indeed, past studies have found that within a city, wealthier neighborhoods have more tree-canopy cover.

It also is possible that trees provide different benefıts in wealthier areas. For example, Troy and Grove found that proximity to urban parks increased the sales price of homes in wealthier neighborhoods, whereas, in poor neighborhoods, houses close to parks sold for less. The authors suggest that parks may attract criminal behaviour in poorer neighborhoods, so residents are not able to benefıt from the park as much as people living in a wealthier neighborhood. In addition, risk factors such as air quality, which trees can mediate, may be different in wealthier counties.

10

Results do not provide any direct insight into how trees might improve mortality rates related to cardiovascular and lower-respiratory-tract illness. However, there are several plausible mechanisms including improving air quality, reducing stress, increasing physical activity, moderating temperature, and buffering stressful life events. Future research could fruitfully investigate the possible mechanisms linking the natural environ-

ment and health.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. It is possible that despite the natural-experiment design, the results are an artifact of an omitted risk factor that is correlated with the borer or residual confounding.

The authors believe that this possibility is unlikely for three reasons. First, a wide range of covariates that have been shown to influence mortality related to cardiovascular and lower-respiratory system illness were included in the model. Second, a confounder would have to be strongly correlated with the borer across both space and time. Third, an omitted variable would need to influence these types of mortality but not accidental death.

Nonetheless, it is re-emphasized that this is an observational study, and the results await confırmation. In addition, this is an ecologic study, so the overall results do not necessarily apply to a particular county or group of counties. Finally, even well-controlled ecologic studies can be subject to ecologic bias.

The variables used to denote the borer and ash are another potential source of error.

Specifıcally, data availability forced use of a simple dummy variable to denote the presence of the borer, and past research has shown that modeling a continuous process with a binary variable can result in coeffıcients that are biased upward. In contrast, ash abundance was measured continuously.

However, the ash coverage variable is a composite of county-level canopy-cover data and state-level data on ash abundance and is,

therefore, a coarse approximation of the true amount of ash in a county. However, when models were estimated in which ash-canopy cover was replaced with canopy cover from all tree species, there was little change in the coeff覺cients of borer-related variables. Therefore, the choice of ash variable does not affect the conclusions about the relationship between the borer and mortality.

Steve Gale at the TCC.

Conclusion

Tree loss from the spread of the emerald ash borer is associated with increased mortality related to the cardiovascular and lower-respiratory systems. This relationship is particularly strong in counties with above-average median household income.

Credits

From the Pacif覺c Northwest Research Station, (Donovan, Gatziolis, Mao), U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacif覺c Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon; the National Institute of Standards and Technology, (Butry), Gaithersburg, Maryland; the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, (Michael), Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (Prestemon), Southern Research Station, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina; and the Northern Research Station, (Liebhold), U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Morgantown, West Virginia.

Address correspondence to: Geoffrey H. Donovan, PhD, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, PNW Research Station, 620 SW Main, Suite 400, Portland OR 97205.

E-mail: gdonovan@fs.fed.us.

0749-3797/$36.00. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.09.066 Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.09.066.

11

The Evidence of Nature and the Nature of Evidence

By Howard Frumkin

“Thousands of tired, nerve-shaken, over-civilized people,” wrote conservationist John Muir over a century ago, “are beginning to fınd out that going to the mountains is going home; that wilderness is a necessity, and that mountain parks and reservations are useful not only as fountains of timber and irrigating rivers, but as fountains of life.” Muir was not breaking new ground. Since ancient times, people intuitively have been drawn to places of natural beauty, seeking tranquility, restoration, spiritual fulfıllment, and even better health.

Modern research offers tantalizing clues that corroborate this tradition. Consider the benefıts of trees. Studies have found that post-surgical patients recover more smoothly when they can view trees through their hospital windows; that public housing residents enjoy stronger social bonds, less violence, and (among girls) greater concentration, impulse control, and delayed gratifıcation when there are trees near their apartments; and that in neighborhoods with trees, newborns are less likely to be small for gestational age, children are less prone to become overweight, and elders live longer.

12

An article in this issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine adds to the literature on the health benefıts of trees. A beetle—the emerald ash borer—has wiped out millions of ash trees across 15 U.S. states over the last decade. Donovan and colleagues hypothesized that the loss of trees might threaten health—specifıcally, by increasing mortality from cardiovascular and lower respiratory disease. Their independent variables were the presence and duration of emerald ash borer infestation, at the county

level, and the extent of ash tree loss (estimated based on county-level tree canopy data and state-level data on the proportion of ash in each state’s canopy, a parameter that nowhere exceeded 7.9%). The dependent variable was cause-specifıc mortality, also at the county level. Regression analysis controlled for such potential confounders as race and ethnicity, income, and education but not for smoking, diet, cholesterol, family history, or air quality. The authors found that ash tree loss was signifıcantly associated with cardiovascular and lowerrespiratory-tract disease mortality.

This study exemplifıes the challenges of research on nature contact and health. Some of these challenges relate to epidemiologic methods. For instance, how should researchers measure exposure? What is a “dose of nature”? Do people need to view leafy trees, or does a wintertime look at denuded trees do the trick? Are trees necessary, or do shrubs suffıce? What density of trees is needed?

How close to trees do people need to be?

How long a view is needed? In this study, instead of individual-level exposure assessment through measurement or dose reconstruction, the investigators used county-level estimates of what might be called “elm deprivation.” The spatial scale of the estimates was large; we cannot know if residents of the study counties ever came near the dead and dying trees, or noticed the loss, or even knew of it. Exposure assessment in this fıeld remains a thorny problem.

A second challenge lies in elucidating biological mechanisms of action. Clues may lie in the concepts of biophilia, described by biologist E.O. Wilson, attention restoration,

described by environmental psychologists Rachel and Stephen Kaplan, and/or solastalgia (feelings of grief, health threat, and powerlessness triggered by ecosystem degradation), described by philosopher Glenn Albrecht. Physical activity, social capital, and/or improved air quality may play a role.

None of these is easy to invoke in this case, in which the loss of ash tree cover—a loss representing well under 10% of local tree canopy, and to which large portions of the study populations may well have been unexposed—was associated with substantial increases in mortality due to cardiovascular and lower-respiratory-tract disease. One wonders whether an unmeasured confounder operated. Causal mechanisms in this fıeld remain a thorny problem.

Other challenges are even broader. What threshold of scientifıc evidence should we reach before we draw tentative conclusions?

Must we meet the high burden of proof generally associated with biomedical research (as reflected in the low p-value expected before accepting an association)? Perhaps not.

It can be dangerous and costly to conclude, incorrectly, that a medicine or surgical procedure is safe and effıcacious; recall mammary artery ligation, thymus irradiation, and post-menopausal estrogens. In contrast, thedownside risk of nature contact is often no worse than a few bee stings and poison ivy rashes. The precautionary principle holds that protective steps should be taken when there is a credible risk of harm, even absent defınitive proof. Do we know enough of the dangers of Nature Defıcit Disorder to recommend more nature contact? Recognizing the limits of the biomedical research paradigm and knowing how to move from partial evidence to action are thorny problems in this fıeld.

Finally, even the most rigorous biomedical research results would not tell the whole story. Trees offer many nonhealth benefıts. They provide shade, which cools cities and towns

in hot weather. They improve air quality and contribute to storm water management. They increase real estate values, boosting municipal revenues. They provide venues for outdoor recreation, socializing, and relaxing.

They are beautiful. In a world of specialized researchers and niche journals, it is the rare study that quantifıes all the benefıts of trees, for human health and well-being, the environment, and the economy. For interventions with a wide range of potential benefıts, well-informed decision-making requires fullbenefıt accounting. Biomedical research rarely delivers it.

Nature contact extends from flowers (as in horticultural therapy) to healing gardens, from viewing trees to wilderness adventures, from bird-watching to visiting zoos to owning pets. Collectively, these experiences offer enormous promise for disease prevention and health promotion. They are widely available and inexpensive; they don’t need to be prescribed or dispensed by highly trained professionals; they are easily personalized according to age, ability, and cultural preference; they inflict few adverse effects; and they offer numerous co-benefıts—claims, by the way, that few medical treatments can make. This fıeld deserves far more research attention than it has had. And as results emerge, we need to be thoughtful and innovative in assessing them and applying them to bettering people’s lives.

No fınancial disclosures were reported by the author of this paper.

From the School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Address correspondence to: Howard Frumkin, MD, DrPH, Dean, School of Public Health, University of Washington, F-350 Health Sciences, Box 357230, Seattle WA 98195. E-mail: frumkin@uw.edu.0749-3797/$36.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.10.016

13

AFAG meeting 2 May 2013 Held in Birmingham Hosted by the HSE

Issues arising that will directly effect our industry were less numerous than those effecting colleges in the Forestry sector, but a few could have far reaching effects in the future. Any comments or opinions please make them known; this is our voice to the wider Tree based industry and we need to be heard.

The AA still need to produce a business plan to present to the Arb industry, for the progression of a Approved code of practice (ACOP) for Arb and adoption of the Arb AFAG guides and amalgamation of the Guide to Good Climbing Practice. The AA have taken on ownership of AFAG guides for Top handle chainsaws, Climbing, Ariel Rescue, MEWP & Stump grinder. The AA Officer rep stated this would be a 1 - 2 year project. Funding seems to be the issue, but keen interest and support from commercial sectors as sponsors of the publications are forth-coming.

Pressure by the industry must be kept on to insure this key new document is produced, with experience and quality, to insure it will be robust enough to serve us well. There is also the opportunity to make this document fit the needs of the world wide industry as a whole; this would spread the funding burden wider and in turn produce a better ACOP. HSE request comments and views on 13/03 annex 2 Extracts From the Agriculture sector strategy relating to Tree Work by June 2013. This is important as it will be the corner stone of the HSE strategy to drive support to our industry. This will help the HSE deliver help that the industry needs and will use.

Double manning of large tree felling is still on theagenda under risk assessment and method statements, but in forestry there is more of an issue with working methods for large edge trees and the Forestry Commission not wishing to except method statement controls, or interpretation differences, termed 'exceptional circumstances'. This issue will drag on and

14

new attempts to reach an accord will be chaired by the HSE forestry representative officer.

New standards are in the pipeline on Log splitters for guarding and safe use, particularly horizontal splitters where third party injuries have raised concerns.

The work on similar standards for fire wood processors has stalled, due to the diversities and speed of development in this growing market. Please make sure you are following guidance in the PUWER regs and that all operators are suitably trained and have full access to manuals. Be sure the manuals are usable and accessible; problems with foreign imports and languages are a key issue.

The wider use of small/compact mobile machinery for handling has been highlighted as an area that will need further work on standards to keep up with developments of new products and work practices.

For example, tracked base units fitted to chippers/ MEWPs, and compact loaders for timber handling with limited access to the Arb industry is challenged.

The increased awareness of vibration and reducing large saw-use for operators, the growth of the fire wood market for Tree surgery timber, and of course commercial pressures of cost and time, have all contributed to this change in working methods.

The meeting closed with a need for a further meeting to be held with leading Arboricultural bodies and reps, to look at the issues arising from the new look HSE requirements and the increased ownus on industries leading good practice and safety. The forestry sector has been busy, as recent publicity highlights, may not be the best way forward, but action has been taken. A clear way forward for Arboriculture and Urban forestry is needed, to be sure we are not rail-roaded by changes bought about by large stack holder businesses of the forestry sector.

Industry support growing for innovative scheme Major arboricultural employers are backing a new framework, which aims to recognise the professional skills and experience of industry operatives to encourage improved safety, standards of work and assist in professionalising the industry.

It has been six months since trade associations and arboricultural businesses came together to develop a new tool called the Register of Tree Work Operatives (R2). Thanks to the vision and persistence of the R2 steering group and the support of arboricultural businesses the project has made considerable progress.

Discussions have been held with key employers in the sector with the aim of gaining feedback and winning support. To date the following arboriculture businesses have lent their support to the scheme: Bartlett Tree Experts, Beechwood Trees and Landscapes Ltd and Dartmoor Tree Surgeons. The steering group is also in discussions with Makita, CTC Recruitment, Treetop Arboriculture, and Land Based Training “We are extremely encouraged that these respected names within the UK arboricultural industry can see the benefit of R2 and share our vision of helping to create and retain highly trained individuals and flexible, skilled workforces”, explains Jaime Bray steering group chair.

The R2 online system is taking shape; a test site is underway, which will be used to gain user feedback during the forthcoming pilot phase. R2 will help individuals and businesses to record and demonstrate their skills, experience and training, whilst providing structured skills development and improving progression. The system should make it easier for employers to recognise skilled staff and improve retention.

“Without the valuable contribution of our sponsors, the vision and implementation of R2 wouldn’t be possible so we are extremely grateful for the support we have received so far”, adds Ros Burnley, Lantra’s Industry Partnership Manager. “By providing an industry standard aligned with other accreditations it is hoped that R2 will assist with professionalising the sector and improving industry image.”

For more information on R2 email ros.burnley@lantra.co.uk or call 07867 90 81 70.

Lantra Press Office, Kerry Todkill, Assistant Communications Manager.

Tel: 02476 858 418 or email media@lantra.co.uk

15

Ancient churchyard yews National treasures or irritating eyesores?

How many more are we prepared to lose?

Ashford Carbonell and Acton Beauchamp case histories.

Tim Hills - Ancient Yew Group

The fate of our most ancient trees hangs in the balance each time there is a change of personnel at a church. Eight or more centuries of good guardianship can be undone if an individual or group of people take an active dislike to one of their trees.

This precarious position is illustrated by the events at Ashford Carbonell in Shropshire, which led to the felling of this ancient yew between 23rd and 25th November 2011. Not only felling, but burning, grinding out the stump, filling the hole and levelling the ground in an attempt to erase all memory of the tree. But this needless loss will not be forgotten, because it has highlighted the need for changes to a flawed system of churchyard tree protection.

This needs to begin at Parochial Church Council (PCC) level, since their members should not be expected to have the skills to interpret the viability of an ancient yew. It is to their credit that Ashford Carbonell’s PCC commissioned two reports from respected local arborists. The first in 1998 was to consider the impact on the tree of a proposed extension of the church. The report stated that ‘if the building is constructed as proposed the ancient yew will be killed by a combination of root damage and severe pruning’. It added that ‘the presence of these trees also makes the churchyard a nationally important assembly of ancient yews’ and ‘left to itself the ancient yew is likely to survive almost indefinitely’. The 2002 report was commissioned to ‘diagnose the cause for this tree’s decline and to make appropriate management recommendations’. In this report the PCC was again left in no doubt that this was no ordinary tree, describing it as ‘of extreme age and of considerable historic and cultural value, as well as biological and ecological interest’.

16

The yew should also have been protected by local knowledge. A certificate in the church recognised Ashford Carbonell’s ‘5 ancient trees’, while the church guide went further, stating that two of them ‘have a girth of twenty five to

thirty feet’ and that the ‘age of these trees has been estimated as over a thousand years, so that they are likely to be older than the present Church’.

In spite of this, in 2007 the patience of the PCC, and perhaps the money they were spending on reports, ran out and they applied for a faculty (church authorisation) to fell the yew. Since this was a significant and important tree the application should have included advice from a tree expert stating that the tree needed to be felled; we are not aware that such advice ever existed.

The faculty request was made to the Diocese, in this case Hereford, and would have been submitted to their Diocesan Advisory Committee (DAC), a body with the power to determine the fate of the tree. Where there is insufficient expertise among its members, the DAC is advised to call on outside expert advice. Whatever advice it did receive it clearly could not have included the arborists’ reports from 1998 and 2002, nor could it have been informed that this was a living ancient tree growing at one of only a handful of sites left in England able to boast five or more significant yews. Had they been aware of this information they would surely not have granted permission for the yew to be felled. At this stage South Shropshire District Council also had the opportunity to intervene, but since there was no TPO (there almost never is) and no post of tree officer, it was left to a junior member of their planning department to say there was no legal reason why the tree should not be felled.

Having received permission in 2007 to fell the yew, the PCC took the decision to give the tree more time to revive. Two years later, in 2009, the churchyard was included in an extension to the village Conservation Area, and so the faculty to fell the tree was no longer valid. At last the yew appeared to have the protection it needed, since it could now not be felled without first consulting Shropshire County Council.

Ashford Carbonell 2003 - Geoff Garlick

In spite of this, at a PCC meeting in 2011 a vote was taken to fell the tree.

The Parish Council does not appear to have been consulted, local people were not told about it, the Conservation Area status was ignored, no new written report with evidence of a sudden decline in the tree’s state was submitted to the Diocesan Advisory Committee, and a local contractor, who carried out much work in the village and knew the Conservation Area regulations, was instructed by the PCC to fell the yew.

In the days that followed, the Diocese of Hereford received a letter from Shropshire County Council headed Illegal felling of a yew at Ashford Carbonell. The Council had given ‘considerable thought’ to the merits of pursuing a prosecution but were ‘not convinced that on this occasion it is truly in the public interest’.

A few days later, when Tree Officers became fully aware of the significance of the destroyed tree a second letter was sent, and two Church Wardens were ‘advised to seek legal counsel prior to giving evidence under caution at County Hall’. The Ancient Yew Group was asked not to publicise the felling, since it would prejudice their enquiries and hopes of bringing a prosecution. The 29th March 2012 had been arranged for interviews under caution to be held, but at the last minute, Shropshire County Council’s legal department found an extraordinary loophole: “During the course of our investigation we discovered that the extension to the conservation area made by South Shropshire District Council in 2008 may not be enforceable, because we cannot prove that the correct procedure was followed when it was designated…….The legal advice is that the validity of the conservation area extension is open to challenge and therefore in this situation it would not be in the public interest to pursue the investigation further.

Furthermore, we could be acting ultra vires if, knowing the situation, we invited parties to interview under caution”. This was to be the final act in a catalogue of failure and incompetence.

18

In the same Diocese, at Acton Beauchamp, stands another ancient yew fragment. It was described by botanist Edwin Lees in 1856 as ‘a most magnificent old yew-tree, riven into two

parts, but still green and vigorous, and which, from the examination of various old yews, I should put down at 900 years old’. By 2004 only one of its two parts remained and a few local people were suggesting it was ‘dead’ and ‘dangerous’ and should be cut down. I was invited to a site meeting to present a case for the tree’s defence. I had with me a copy of an 1810 painting showing clearly that this was the tree described in 1856. Here was evidence that we were standing next to a tree with a possible age of above 1000 years. PCC members in attendance no longer saw a dead or dangerous trunk, instead they noted the vigour of new growth on its large central branch. It was decided to keep the area around the tree clear so that it was no longer competing for nutrients, and to create a viewing point in the churchyard from which the yew could be seen at its best. A return visit in 2012, when the photograph was taken, shows a steady recovery with much new wood being laid down on the old shell. There is no reason why this yew should not live on for many more centuries.

One ancient yew lost, one saved - but only for the time being, since the personnel at Acton

Beauchamp will inevitably change, and once more that tree could be under threat. If these are National Treasures is it time to take away from reluctant PCC members the power to decide whether an 800 year old tree, with the potential to double that age, is allowed to live on? How can we ensure that Diocesan Advisory Committees seek appropriate expert advice? Why are local authorities and the Church so reluctant to reprimand wrong doers? Who determines what is ‘in the public interest’?

We should not underestimate the cost element in maintaining these trees and it is perhaps time that a fund existed to support those 600 or so churches in England and Wales with the responsibility of looking after them.

A new assessment method (TreeAH) has recently emerged from the Arboricultural profession which provides a very effective framework for the formal assessment of heritage tree val-

ue. It has already been used to protect important yew trees around the UK as well as helping communities all around the world identify and protect important trees. For anyone interested in identifying and conserving heritage trees, it offers a means of adding weight to existing protection mechanisms or acts as a standalone assessment method where no legal protection exists. Either way, it provides an opportunity for ordinary people to make sure extraordinary trees are recognized and protected for future generations. For more information download the form and explanatory notes from www. treeaz.com/tree_ah/.

Would it not also be possible to create a list of professionally qualified arborists who might be willing to waive or reduce some of their fees for the privilege of working with and preserving these unique trees? We are after all only talking about eight hundred out of the nation’s several billion trees.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULES Part 2 Crown Reduction

By Cass Turnbull

In the first part of this article I went over the very few instances when it is okay to top or head trees. I did so reluctantly because just naming exceptions tends to feed the beast. By ‘the beast’ I don’t mean the US government; I mean the overwhelming, universal and seemingly innate desire to fix or control trees. This compulsion has created the defining crisis of the arboricultural field—the fact that 90% of the work done on trees is wrong and bad and shouldn’t be done. That work is tree topping which looks horrible, costs more, makes trees dangerous, shortens their lives, and doesn’t even work to keep them shorter as they speed up their growth rate to compensate.

Crown Reduction and the Beast When I was first learning pruning from my mentor, Andrea, she said you should never top a tree, but if you are going to do it, this is the way, and she proceeded to show me the crown reduction cut which at that time was called a dropcrotch cut. I wondered why she would show me how to do something that shouldn’t be done. For this reason I do not show crown reduction in PlantAmnesty literature, whereas almost every other pruning guide I have seen does.Frequently brochures imply that crown reduction will make a tree safer. This instinctual belief, based on the physics of leverage, may or may not be true.

Like adding amendments to the planting hole, painting pruning cuts and staking trees, that which is common sense, is not always born out when tested. Even if reducing the size of a tree makes it less prone to breakage and blow down now (remember tree topping does that), the long term ill effects of crown reduction have not been quantified and are rarely given more than a nod by advocates of crown reduction. Questions remain unanswered. Do the roots die back?

How much energy is taken up by compartmentalization? How long is such pruning effective?

If repeat treatments are necessary what does that do to longevity and health? Are previously crown-reduced limbs as structurally sound as same sized un-pruned limbs? Although it may seem logical that a shorter tree equals a safer tree, it is equally logical that 360 million years of evolution has selected trees that are exactly the right size for their root systems.

20

How Dangerous Are Trees?

But mainly talk of crown reduction pruning puts me on edge because it feeds the beast. I mean,

really, just how dangerous are trees? Most trees fail because they have a ‘defect’, or they are simply unlucky, being in saturated soils during strong winds, not because they are ‘too big’.

This is the point--we need to continue pushing risk assessments for people who fear their trees.

Julienne Dunster did a Google search for reports of significant death or injury due to tree failure in the English newspapers of the world for a year.

Guess how many tree deaths were due annually to tree failures? Just over 200. That is in the whole English speaking world, Canada, USA, England, Australia, New Zealand, etc. Hey, 200 people die a day in car accidents. And most of those people hurt by trees were driving during a storm when a tree or tree part hit their car or they were puttering around in their back yards days after a storm. Also, it is pretty dangerous to live in a trailer near big trees in hurricane allywell, duh! Size is not the issue. Elephants don’t fall down more often than pigs. It is just more impressive when they go down. Skyscrapers will stand during an earthquake when small, poorly built buildings crumble. I tell people to think of their arborists as building inspectors.

In a perfect world, trees would not be pruned to make them smaller. Only small growing trees would be planted under wires. Fruit trees would all be on super-dwarf rootstock. The perfect hedge would be invented—fast to twenty feet, then it stops and is only 3-feet wide. The large size of a tree would be a source of pride, not fear. Tree risk assessment would become more accurate and common.

The Crown Reduction Cut I am getting ahead of myself. First we need a

definition of a reduction cut (previously called the selective heading cut and the dropcrotch cut).

According to my copy of the American National Standards ANSI, A-300 Pruning Standards a reduction cut ‘reduces the length of a branch’ by cutting back to a lateral branch that is ‘large enough to assume the terminal role.’ In plain English that means that it will not result in dieback or the creation of watersprouts. It looks natural and it is low maintenance, unlike topping which looks bad and must be redone often because of the watersprout regrowth. However, it is not without negative consequences. The damage that is done to the tree is internal. The tree has difficulty walling-off the rot (decay) that enters the cut. Far more so than with a true removal (AKA thinning) cut that removes a branch to the collar. Crown reduction is hard on the health of trees. It is harder the bigger the cut and the older the tree. John Hushagen, owner of Seattle Tree Preservation Inc., early in the history of PlantAmnesty denounced dropcrotching by saying, “Let’s call dropcrotching what it is. It’s topping and it is the kiss of death for trees!” In truth, it is not the same as topping but it is a close cousin and it needs to be done sparingly.

Size of the Cut Size matters. The bigger the cut, the worse it is for the tree, which is to say the more decay gets in, shortening the life of the tree and perhaps posing a hazard later. Also important is the relative size of the lateral. Older versions of various pruning standards tried to codify this relative size. Some documents said that you should not remove over a quarter of the branch’s foliage.

That’s pretty good advice. Another would say cut back to a lateral that is at least one-half the diameter of the parent stem (way too severe in my book). That was revised to ‘reduced to a lateral that is at least one-third the diameter of the par-

Crown reduction Scary illustration from A-300 Standards

ent stem’. Still way too brutal in my book. The A300 standards has a very scary illustration of this cut which I will include here. Yikes! The main reason it is objectionable is that it shows fairly sever reduction on the apparently mature trunk or leader of a tree, as opposed to reduction of the scaffolds which would do far less damage. I can think of very few instances when such a cut would be preferable to removal. That would be utility pruning when removal is prohibited and fruit tree reduction (apple or pear, not cherry).

Otherwise just take the tree out! Big is a relative term, but just as a point of reference I get pretty concerned when I see cuts over 4” in diameter on middle aged, mid-sized trees, reduction or removal.

Age Age also matters. If a tree is young, defined as under 15 years, it can withstand almost any kind or amount of pruning, easily outgrowing the injury, sealing off the rot and putting on many rings of sound wood in the future. But the question remains, why do it? Such cuts do not restrict the height of the tree (it just grows faster) but it will make it broader. It might be useful if the top was damaged in a storm or by vandalism. Crown reduction cuts are more often correctly used on lateral branches, but age matters here too. One should not make cuts in older wood meaning over, what? five years old. Old trees and unhealthy trees have a harder time dealing with all kinds of pruning cuts, too, except for deadwood.

Total Amount The total amount of foliage removed also matters. In general trees don’t take a lot of pruning.

Not when compared to, say, a forsythia. The A300 says ‘not more than 25 percent of the fo-

21

liage should be removed within an annual growing season.’ That is the outer limit that should be allowed, and I guess it kinda says that. But when I teach I say that you shouldn’t remove more than an eighth of the foliage and a lot less, like 1/16 if it is the sort of tree that watersprouts easily (cherry, crabapple, plum, magnolia, dogwood). Just to give students an idea of what to expect I tell them that, on an average tree, 80% of the cuts will be deadwooding, 19% removal and 1% reduction. Reasons for that reduction might be that the limb hangs over the chimney but a removal cut would be too big. Or if the tree has previously been headed you could remove the ‘hydra’-like mess at the end of a branch with a nicely placed reduction cut.

Directional-Utility Line Clearance Pruning One justifiable use of reduction cuts is for line clearance. I’ve written on this subject before.

Here again crown reduction is not a good thing to do to a tree, but it is the best way to do a bad, but necessary thing. The better option, tree removal, is not allowed without tree owner permission—which they rarely give. The object of such pruning is not to keep a tree small but to direct the growth away from the wires. Sometimes it is called y-pruning or rabbit-ear pruning because of how it looks. For a while our local utility arborist was trying T-pruning, or what I called ‘mouse-ear’ pruning where all the branches were kept below the wires. That wasn’t going to work, but it was interesting to watch. In my perfect world utilities would have the power to condemn trees newly planted, large-growing trees under wires. The homeowner would have three weeks to transplant their new, wrong-sized

Rabbit-ear pruning

22

tree before the utility company comes to take it away. That would put an end to it!

Included Bark and Subordination Pruning Only a certain percentage of tree failures can be predicted. No one knows what that percentage is. Many predisposing factors are hard to detect: internal decay, root rots, and tight soils. And it is questionable if pruning for safety on risky trees is helpful, harmful, or just lulls tree owners into a false sense of security. Few defects are correctable. However, one defect, called included bark, can be seen, and if dealt with soon enough, fixed. I will explain. When a young tree has many leaders or trunks that are close to each other it can develop included bark. In the narrow angles of attachment, bark gets trapped between two or more trunks and, as the tree continues to grow, that ‘included bark’ increases. There is no connective tissue between the competing trunks and one or more are likely to bust out (fail) even many years later when they are large and can do considerable damage. Such a tree is said to have co-dominant stems with included bark.

One can also have included bark between a lateral and parent stem.

If a tree is young, and the co-dominant stem is spotted, it can be removed with a large, scary looking cut. Not to worry. The young tree can quickly compartmentalize and out-grow it. For a somewhat older, larger tree – an adolescent’ -- this big cut is out of the question. But the arborist can do what is called ‘structural pruning’ to improve ‘tree architecture.’ The arborist chooses which trunk is to be the leader and ‘subordinates’ the rest using reduction cuts. This is good, especially in high traffic areas. The sad fact is that the good work we do is rarely appreciated since it prevents a limb from crashing out of a tree onto the car thirty years later. Who notices that?

My arborist friend, Jack Magai, also recommends subordination pruning and cabling for even older trees—the middle-aged—those with included bark that are well loved by their owners, and which (although they may not have a target), he can keep from pulling apart for while longer. What size cut is acceptable? Well, Jack says it is more the age of the cut that matters. He wouldn’t go more than eight years back. I guess I can live with that. Other arborists would stick to thinning to ‘reduce end weight’ using removal cuts and cabling. “Reducing end weight”--there is another term prone to abuse.

I

Spotting included bark on a narrow-angled crotch A. In a V-shaped crotch the bark disappears into the trunk. This is a weak attachment.

B. In a U-shaped crotch the bark is pushed up.

This is a strong attachment. do worry about over-management of trees, though. I’ve seen a lot of crazy stuff done in hopes of helping--elaborate systems of cabling, a giant prop imbedded in a tree trunk and which no longer reached the ground, a ‘corrected’ tree in the middle of the woods where there was no target. The good arborists I know spend much of their time talking people out of doing things to their trees.

The light touch is the right touch. An arborist saying is that ‘the older the arborist the fewer and smaller the cuts.’

Overall Crown Reduction A long time ago another arborist friend of mine showed me slides of crown reduction pruning in Brussels done from a nifty telescoping ladder. The before and after was amazing. The crown reduction was light-handed and the trees looked great, and they looked safer. Similarly at an International Society of Arboriculture Conference not many years ago, a German engineer/arborist type (Andreas Detter) proclaimed that light reduction of tree size would make a significant difference in the probability of blow down. It had been my contention that if the pruning was significant enough to effect the leverage, the cuts would be so large that they would seriously damage the health of the tree. And minimal pruning would do little harm, but minimal good. Here was this guy saying that just a light reduction would make a tree significantly safer. I had to ask myself, what if that were true?

What would I say and think then? My first reaction was to require more proof. Nose-camel-tent! Inchmile! Slope-slippery! I don’t know how much property would be protected or how many lives would be saved (for sure, not more than 200 a year!) if we went out and crown reduced all the trees near

targets, but I do know that it feeds the beast!

Every time you equate big tree with dangerous tree you open the door to more and worse pruning. I feel we need to stay concentrated in our efforts to push for tree risk assessments.

If a tree shows risk factors-decay, cut roots, clay soils, whatever--is crown reduction a valid mitigation measure or are we just kicking the can down the road? Do we give the customer a false sense of security?

Speaking of a false sense of security. There is also a question in my mind as to whether pruning to keep the homeowner calm is justifiable.

It is a fact that most pruning is not done for the sake of the trees and shrubs themselves, but because to owner wants something. They may want more light, a view, headroom, or just a sense of control or stewardship. That’s fine. As long as we are not pushing it, and as long as we are not doing something that degrades the long term health and safety of the tree, modest crown reduction to keep the homeowner calm is probably fine. I just never want to see it as standard, kneejerk procedure, for all the reasons mentioned above.

Retrenchment Pruning Which leads to a discussion of retrenchment pruning. Now we’re getting into it. For those unfamiliar with the term, retrenchment pruning was popularized by Neville Fay who uses it to gain more time for an old tree which is already dying back and shedding limbs. By drop-crotching severely and even by topping, he claims to mimic the natural processes used by trees to survive in old age. By choosing where to make the cuts he claims to do a better job than the tree would if left to its own devices. With such pruning the strike area for failing limbs or trunks is reduced. The remaining area under the crown may still need to be cordoned off to keep people away. I saw a slide of similar pruning at a Claus Mattock presentation, where he topped back a very large old, declining tree.

The main thing is that when he was done, the tree looked great! Short tree, fat trunk, with a large low spreading canopy. One must be very careful in determining the usefulness of a procedure by how it looks. For example, heavy nitrogen fertilization of a sick tree can force lush new growth which makes it look healthy, but, in fact, it is forcing the tree to waste energy pushing out new growth instead of protecting itself from disease. Looks can be deceiving.

23

So what do I think about retrenchment pruning? Well, I try not to think about it. I know that PlantAmnesty approved arborists engage in retrenchment pruning from time to time. And I’m sure the circumstances justify their decisions.

One could think of retrenchment pruning as surgery. Sometimes one does serious damage to the patient--opening him up with a knife--in order to save the patient. These circumstances are, and should be, rare. A lot depends on the skill and judgment of the doctor.

Unfortunately the field of arboriculture is full of experts who know a lot about trees but who also are sometimes wrong. I know this for a fact. And a good way to establish yourself as an expert is to recommend something that is counter to common practice. You will cause a sensation. People will seek you out and ask for your opinion. I know this from personal experience. When I first started PlantAmnesty and questioned the common practice of tree topping people started to imbue me with skills and knowledge I did not possess. They assumed I knew everything. I even heard that I would stand on the ground and direct arborists as to what to cut. In fact, I was a gardener, not an arborist, who just knew that topping was bad and was willing to say so, loud and clear.

24

Feeding the Ego So not only does recommending crown reduction feed the beast (that being the notion that trees need to be made smaller to be safer) it also feeds the ego. Everyone wants to be the surgeon, the one who is so skilled and knows so much that he/she can break the rules to save lives. So how can you tell when an arborist is overprescribing crown reduction? My guess would be that if crown reduction is recommended more than 10% of the time, the arborist has become victim of his or her own ego.

Well, that’s my opinion anyway. I think that the vast majority of old, decrepit trees should be left alone to die a death with dignity, becoming great wildlife habitat as they slowly go down.

If they have a target, they should just be removed. One of the big problems with many tree mitigation measures is that they depend on follow up care. And follow up care can rarely be guaranteed. Sure the tree owner swears he will have the arborist back to adjust the cables, remove or reduce the epicormic growth (watersprouts) before it they get big and fall out. But circumstances change. People move an average of once every 6 years. People’s financial

situations and priorities change. And even arborists change professions, move, or lose track of their clients.

Habitat Trees A final example of exception to the no-topping, no crown reduction rule is when a tree is being retained as a habitat tree for wildlife. I got a call early last year from a semi-hysterical woman who claimed that a park tree had been butchered by the City. No it wasn’t under a powerline, and no it hadn’t been topped. But she assured me that what had been done was horrible. I drove out to see it. It was an old bigleaf maple on park property, not far from the sidewalk, and clearly visible to all who walked or drove by. I was puzzled by what I saw. It was falling apart like old BLMs do.

The top was busted, a limb was shattered, but then there was a proper collar cut used to remove a giant limb which would have reached over the sidewalk. The cut was good, but vastly too huge to be good for the tree. There was a stubbed off branch elsewhere. What the heck? An arborist acquaintance of mine filled me in. This was the latest from the arboricultural profession—the creation of a living habitat tree. I’m used to seeing dead topped trees used for wildlife habitat, but I had never seen this. It turns out that the top had not busted out but had been skillfully removed with a ‘coronet cut’ (looks like a crown) that was jagged and mimicked a natural break. Such jagged cuts are not good for the tree, but great for creating habitat—helping it to become all rotten and buggy just right for the birds. The big collar cut had been made to reduce the hazard to pedestrians, and other cuts were made to encourage rot. This was of course done to a tree that was already in failure mode. Again I didn’t know quite what to think. I had vague concerns about follow up care for a living tree that might well regrow weak limbs.

And also I wondered about my tax dollars. Trees are so underfunded I think that most all the time should be spend on must-dos rather than niceto-do projects like this. I don’t think we are in any danger of habitat topping becoming the norm in tree pruning anytime soon.

I couldn’t resist the temptation of leaving a message on the arborist’s message machine, “What is the difference between habitat pruning and common tree butchery? Answer, not much. ”

NEW ROLE TO DEVELOP PLANT EXPERTISE AT WESTONBIRT, THE NATIONAL ARBORETUM

A new role has been created at the Forestry Commission's National Arboretum at Westonbirt to help develop and share expert plant knowledge.

The National Arboretum's new dendrologist, Dan Crowley, will support the mapping, archiving, identification and verification of plants in the 16,000 specimen tree collection.

Using the arboretum's network of contacts, Dan will also exchange information with other plant specialists to help raise the profile of Westonbirt's expertise.

Dan commented:

"Undertaking this important work will be of great value to Westonbirt. Improving the standard of curation will be of benefit to the arboretum as a place to connect with and learn about trees."

Curator at Westonbirt Arboretum, Mark Ballard, commented: "The National Arboretum has a responsibility to be a leader in tree and plant information. This new position will help us to be-

come a more developed reference point for this expertise. “By working with partners to utilise herbaria and plants of known origin and identification, Dan will help to verify specimens we have previously had little information about."

Work will start with prioritised groups of plants that are of particular value to Westonbirt, including the National Collections and other key genera. The arboretum hopes that the role, initially a six month post, can be extended to become a long term addition to Westonbirt's tree team.

Dan will be recording his progress through the new Westonbirt Dendrologist's Blog.

The Westonbirt Project will make a big difference to everybody who comes to the arboretum. The project will mean a better welcome, a better visit and a better understanding of the heritage and importance of this world class tree collection. More information can be found at ww.westonbirtproject.co.uk.

Visit www.forestry.gov.uk/westonbirt-trees to find out more.

Dendrologist Dan Crowley at work in Westonbirt Arboretum.

Credit iworkfilms 20112013.

Representing your country at the world championships is a huge honour, particularly when you arrive there after a long flight and see the sheer level and amount of preparation and time that has gone into setting up and running the competition for the benefit of the climbers. It really brings it home to you how much the volunteers do, and it struck me that in the past, I have maybe been just as guilty as many others in not fully appreciating what it takes to organise competitions, at any level, and the sheer amount of work and commitment that people put into it.

So before I start on ‘how it went’, it seemed a good time to say something about the people in our UK & I Chapter.

There are climbers who turn up to every competition, often not being placed, but who carry on supporting those events year after year, just for the buzz of being there. A ‘thanks’ to all the Chapter volunteers, some of them giving time and effort since before I was climbing, who for many years, have made sure we, the climbers, get the chance to meet, discuss stuff and climb together. Without these people, the ITCC experience would not happen, and my experience

26

Joe Hedger

in Oregon was well worth the journey, not one I would have missed.

Cold in the mornings and 100° by lunchtime, Laurelhurst Park was spectacular with some great trees and some great climbing.

The male and female climbers from each country were placed in the same group, which worked well in having support from people you knew. Jo Hedger and I started our ‘tour of events’ with the Work climb.

The tree had some good swings in it, which I enjoyed; all going well, in a good time, even starting to feel I was doing okay, then, going for the landing, I found dead air as a glove snarled in the rope and left me hanging. Duhhh! I had only worn the bloody things because the Throwline came after the ‘burn’ events. Won’t be wearing them again.

Coming back down to earth, the Speed climb was next and although short and without any extra bells, proved difficult with a slippery tree and strangely threaded ropes up the stem, nothing like the Speed climbs set up in the UK. Missing two frames in the Footlock did nothing to improve my placings, and my usual confidence at the Throwline was dented as two lines got totally stuck and I had to settle for a low throw to make a score.

The Aerial Rescue included a hanging log, which didn’t come into contact with the dummy, but needed moving out of the way. The dummy was in an odd position, very close to the ground and could really have been reached with a table to stand on. However, up we all went above the dummy, bringing it down within time and although others seemed impressed by my efforts, unfortunately, the judges weren’t and although

my overall placings didn’t qualify me for the Masters, Jo Hedger had a great day, creaming the Work climb and scoring really well in the other events. So the UK & I had their moment with Jo in the Women’s Masters.

First to go, she put in a nice line, but for whatever reason the technicians and judges couldn’t decide if they were good with it and a lot of time was wasted whilst they dithered. Eventually she got the go ahead and SRT’d up to the top

very clear winner and a great climb.

I stayed on in Oregon for a few days, to see something of the mountains and it is a stunning place to be. Densely forested to the timberline, with snow above it.

Thinking back over the competition, yes, I was disappointed not to do better, but from a distance, the buzz of being there and seeing some different takes on how to do things became just Beddes and Veronika Ericksson as important as competing. Talking with other climbers of different nationalities made me realise that our UK Tree Care industry is envied.

Here, we have an industry, well regulated, with professional people providing a high level of service, good safety - with best practice. Of the sixteen countries represented at the competition, there won’t be many who can feel their national industry equals the regulated standards of ours.

Whilst this time Jo flew the flag, high and bright (for both of us), I hope to nail my end to the mast – next time.

bells then descended, just leaving herself with one low level bell to get to complete the event.

1st line & SRT gear retrieved, she threw into the last limb, got her rope in and reached the bell in a few footlocks. As she went to ring the bell, the time gave out. She could only have been a minute or so from completing and retrieving her second line, but it wasn’t to be. That cost her 10 points for not completing the station and a further 20 for leaving gear in the tree. The Womens title went to Veronika Eriksson from Sweden, who completed her climb with all stations and with a minute or two to spare.

Jo went on to win the Head to Head Footlock in fine form against the present WR holder, Nicola Ward-Allen.

In the Men’s Masters, it was quite clear why Beddes has won this championship so many times; his timing and balance, planning and execution all showed what a world class climber he is.

Finishing with plenty of time to please the crowd with the slow retrieval of his gear direct into his bags, the showman was back on form, collecting his 9th career World Championship Title. A

Alistair Magee

In Search of the Perfect Report

By Jeremy Barrell Part l

The Importance of Experience, Getting Started and establishing fees.

Writing legal reports is probably the most challenging aspect of all professional practice and very few ever manage to truly master it. In addition to requiring the highest level of technical expertise in your chosen field, effective writing also requires a deep understanding of the psychology of communication, much of which is more about an individual’s natural ability to interact with other people rather than any specific discipline that can be discovered from the classroom. And, if that wasn’t enough, integrating these intuitive and academic skills to create an effective report requires practical experience, and lots of it. In this article, I reveal how I approach legal writing and explain why the perfect report is so elusive.

Introduction

Writing is a very personal means of expression, and what works for one person may not benefit another in the same way.

There are many easy-to-access references setting out the mechanics of grammar and the detail of how to write effectively, but to explore those aspects is not the purpose of this article. Instead, I will focus on the practicalities of what I do, from seeking work, to instruction, to report delivery, and then defending that document under the toughest of interrogations, in the courtroom cross-examination.

The Importance of Relevant Experience

Experience really does matter; ‘the more you have the better you will be’ has held true for me and that is likely to be the same for most others too. Although I write a lot now, that is not how I started professional life; I was a practical person working every day with trees, and writing very much evolved as a necessity for developing that business. I moved from contracting to solely relying on consultancy income in 1995, which meant I had to learn to write quickly or be out of business. In those early days, the bulk of the reports were mortgage/insurance

orientated, so primarily about managing the risk from trees.

Not surprisingly, this led to my first legal reports, which were subsidence related, but I also started getting instructions relating to accidents at work because of my contracting background.

However, by 2005, I hadn’t commercially climbed trees for 10 years, practical arboriculture had moved on in leaps and bounds, and it became increasingly obvious that accidents are work were becoming beyond my area of expertise, so I stopped doing them. Around the same time, I was rapidly losing enthusiasm for subsidence cases, and gave them up as well. Since then, I have concentrated on cases dealing with harm from tree failures and that is now the bulk of my writing work. The majority of these are civil cases because they are the commonest types of legal actions, but I have been involved with two criminal cases, which are relatively rare by comparison.

This background is important because it represents the best part of 20 years of experience, which has revealed some fundamental truths about writing:

Firstly, unless you are a natural, and I was not, then there is no quick route to getting it right.

For the bulk of people, an expectation to sit down and spend a few years learning to write is simply not going to deliver; this is a long term aspiration and there is no quick fix.

Secondly, as an expert working within an essentially legal framework, you are going to be seriously vulnerable to criticism if you don’t practice what you preach, i.e. you actually do what you talk about. Claiming to be an expert implies a thorough understanding of your subject, and the reality is that cannot be pulled off without considerable practical experience.

Finally, the legal framework is not peripheral to your work, it is central, and it can throw up some surprises. In the field of tree risk management, there is a common perception that calculating or estimating the level of risk is of primary importance, to the extent that much of the sector is preoccupied with how to do it. A handful of court appearances, a few hundred reports and nearly two decades of thinking about it has led me to conclude that it is impossible to do reliably and is effectively irrelevant in the courtroom. The courts seem to be much more interested in whether the harm arising from a tree failure was foreseeable and what the duty holder did about it,

i.e. was the response reasonable and proportionate in all the circumstances.

It is quite right that experts and specialists should know about the detail of their work, but that in isolation is not enough to be an effective expert witness. Distilling that complexity into simple explanations and communicating those ideas to non-specialists is where the skill really lies. The problem for arborists is that achieving this requires a full awareness of the wider legal and social framework that the detail sits within. In short, the most successful expert witnesses have a good grip on the wider context, as well as knowing the detail about trees.

Getting Started

It would be unrealistic to decide one day that you wanted to work as an expert witness and then expect to secure a work supply in the conventional way of advertising what you do. Being on lists and placing adverts may secure a dribble of work, but not nearly enough to survive on, and I have doubts about whether it even covers the costs! In all honesty, I don’t have the answer, but I do know that it’s subtle and no one single element of a promotional strategy seems to stand out as being important above all else.

Instead, everything matters, and the better you are at all the little things, the better chance you have at succeeding in the overall task.

I always had a simple promotional objective, from contracting in the past through to consultancy now. If a consumer wants a service of any kind, it is

good if they find your name from one source, it is a real result if they find it from two sources and it is the jackpot if they find it from three different directions. Although it may seem an unrealistic expectation, our objective is that every time a consumer wants the service we offer, no matter where they go to find it, our name consistently pops up. Of course, whether we achieve that and how we do it is our trade secret, but that is the target.

An enquiry can come as an exploratory phone call to discuss a case or simply be a mail delivery of a legal bundle with an instruction to get on with it.

Either way, the protocols are the same, with the first priority being to establish whether there is a conflict of interest.

In broad terms, a conflict of interest occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other.

In practical terms, that translates to ‘does knowledge you already have give you an unfair advantage’, or more importantly, could there a perception that you have an unfair advantage, if you take the work. Knowing personally the parties in a case, acting or having acted for other parties in the case or even having discussed the case with a party in it are all ways that conflicts of interest can arise.

On the phone, the first question must be to get the names of the parties and the location, to make sure we are not already involved in the case. If a bundle is mailed to us, our administrative staff open it first and identify those details before I

have sight of it. By even reading a letter of instruction, an insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a case could be gleaned, and if you are already instructed by another party on the same case, then even the perception that you had such knowledge could compromise your position later in proceedings. The second point to establish is whether the work is within my area of expertise, i.e. in my case, harm arising from tree failures, and quite often it is not. It is only if there is no conflict of interest and the issues are within my expertise that the focus moves on to fees.

Money matters and lawyers can be the slipperiest of the lot when it comes to paying up, so you need to get this right if you want to avoid losing out. For each and every case, we have a specific contract document with detailed terms and conditions that are posted to the instructing lawyer. We will not release any work until the signed hard copy of the agreement is back in our files, and there has never been an exception to this during our trading. The proof that this works for us is that we have never failed to get full and prompt payment for every legal case we have ever done. Of course, this runs parallel with a rigorous debt collection policy and documented detailed time records for every minute spent on the case. We have never compromised on this; the client has to sign before we release anything, and pay up on time or recovery proceedings will start immediately.

In part two, I will look at the importance of collecting and managing key information, and starting to write the report.

All Ground Based & Aerial Training Delivered

Experienced Trainers, Friendly Service, Exceptional Results 1 Day - Emergancy First Aid 3 Day - First Aid at Work

Fund4Trees

Ride for Research (RfR) Glasgow: 30th April 2013 A Personal Perspective

For me, the ride began at 5.30am, stirring to ponder how to engage pupils on the subject of trees and their environmental importance. Since the Trustee’s drafting of the Fund4Trees Charity Commission application, this educational focus on trees has now become a central objective. I wanted to ensure we delivered this on the day. After sketching out a bubble-diagram with ideas surrounding a stick-type tree, my mind was set to road-test an impromptu talk with the three RfR schools.

The morning was bright with a cloudless sky that provided a perfect back-drop to the iconic Glasgow Botanic Gardens Kibble Palace (built in 1872). This was our meeting point for the ride risk briefing, rider introductions and distribution of the customary canary yellow t-shirts. On the previous day, I had ridden the route as part of the risk assessment and knew the riders were in for a treat. The route had been designed by the City Council's Cycling Officer and was mostly off-road taking in great river and canal-side views of the city.

After a team photo, we set-off out of the gardens via the arboretum to join the undulating cycle path that runs along the babbling River Kelvin. The 25 mile circular ride had begun. Within minutes the city was left behind as the river bankside woods gave an in-

stant rural feel. After a quick dash through the University School of Veterinary Medicine, we joined the Forth & Clyde Canal. This landscape was more open with flanking flatted developments punctuated with occasional parkland views. The numerous series of lock gates was very reminiscent of the Birmingham Ride of 2012. Having reached Yoker, the most westerly point of the ride, we turned south off the canal to join a disused railway line. This was peppered with tower-like gun-turrets that we later found out were old pigeon lofts (apparently a favourite hobby for locals in days gone by). Making good time, the yellow snaking stream of cyclist entered St Paul's Primary playground to be met by the whole school and teaching staff (310 of them to be precise): cheering and waving in anticipation. Glasgow City's Lord Provost (LP) started proceedings with an enlightened speech on trees donned in her council chains with body guard in-tow (the latter not for the LP’s protection but to ensure safekeeping of the chain!). It was then my turn to road-test the talk beginning with global climate change and relating this to the tree to be planted with reference to CO², leaves, photosynthesis and carbon storage in trunks. Tree benefits were then discussed all the while eliciting key words from the attentive crowd of pupils. Having a captive audience with eager eyes gave me such a buzz. With the hornbeam planted, ably assisted by the LP, a gaggle of pupils and Frank McMaster of the Dumbar-

31

ton Environmental Corridor Trust - it was time for the head teacher to thank us by prompting the whole school to sing the (ode to) Glasgow Song. I turned to see Mick Boddy's eyes misting up and quickly pulled down my sun-glasses to hide my eyes that were doing the same. Looking around I could see this was a special moment for all the on-looking riders, most of whom were spell-bound. “Top that!” I thought as we mounted up and left for the second school. We followed the old railway line into the city joining a road section to arrive at a dockside tall-ship (a tea clipper “Glenlee”). Here we had a brief break and few group photo-shoots. At this point the Clydebank’s impressive river-side architecture could be seen in the distance. With a quick call to the Bellahouston Academy to confirm our ETA, we set-off for a short ride that took us over the River Clyde and passed the modernistic glazed BBC Scotland building before arriving at the Academy. We had been advised that only a few classes would attend the Victoria plum planting but on greeting the deputy head teacher, we learned that much of school would be in attendance.

Many would be young teenagers: a difficult audience to engage with on geeky trees!? “Time to up your game” Martin Gammie advised. Over the next few minutes the crowd grew and grew until I was surrounded. Standing on a mound of excavated tree-pit soil to gain some height advantage, I asked the 250 plus crowd to gather in. Oh and how they did! A shot of claustrophobia set-in but this gave me a jolt to get into gear. This time career opportunities in arboriculture were explained and I up’d my game on the environment all the while taking prompts from the audience who I could see were certainly (and thankfully) engaged. Chaos ensued as pupils lined up for a

turn on the spade. At one point Mick Boddy almost got crushed as he crouched down to take photos.

With two trees planted it was time for the packedlunch (sponsored by Russell Horsey) washed down with tea from the school trolley that had been wheeled out across the grass for the occasion. This was time for reflection and to take stock of the morning events. I was surprised at the level of awareness and interest of the pupils. It seems by scratching the surface and entering in to dialogue with children reveals a wealth of knowledge about trees and their environmental value, bringing it to ‘front of brain’ as described by psychologists. A worthwhile legacy would be that some pupils will remember our RfR visit for years to come: engrained in their memory by the hands-on tree planting experience.

During lunch Alan Motion (one time Glasgow City Council Tree Officer) suggested that we stop-off at the en route Pollock Park to visit the ancient Pollock Beech. The tasty lunch now consumed, we mounted bikes once again and headed off to the said park.

Throughout the day the sun had shone and it was great to see all the riders, many of whom had never met before, chatting away. Such is the social gelling effect of our rides.

The Pollock Beech was well worth the stop. This large diameter, enormous coppice type, tree atop a mound was decorated with a multitude of tiny ribbons. These are likely tokens of good health and luck for friends and loved ones. The last school on the tour, St Albert’s Primary, awaited as we meandered through the remainder of the park passing shaggy

red-coated highland cattle. Once out of the park the route snaked through a residential district full of fine terraced sandstone properties (this stone effectively defines the city’s architectural past). As with St Paul's, the whole school (288 pupils and staff) greeted us with cheers. Having fully road-tested the talk it was time to relax and engage once again with a wiling audience. At one point, the head teacher added an interesting Harry Potter fact: magic wands can be made with ash twigs after sealing the ends with wax (of course!). The silver birch planting took on a much welcomed twist: pupils planting by hand. They just loved this 99% Dettol free activity! With the tree pit rapidly backfilled, “job done” I thought. The fourth and final tree to be planted, a swamp oak (Quercus bicolor) back at the Botanic Gardens, would be presided over by the Curator.

Just the final leg of the route remained with the riders pumped and inspired by the schools turn-out and response in appreciation of our concerted efforts.

Heading north out of the school and passing through a ‘could-be-anywhere’ type entertainment park we crossed the locally known wibbly-wobbly bridge over the River Clyde. After a brief photo-shot under the 150ft high and amply named dockland crane "Titan" (built in 1907), we entered the city centre via the picturesque Kelvingrove Park. Once again we were on the track-way alongside the River Kelvin. It’s an inspiration to see this wild river with its natural banks neither sanitised nor canalised by engineers!

For the most part the whole ride had been flat or gently undulating but ironically, the very last stretch into the Botanic Gardens was a steep climb that left most riders panting. We were greeted by Emma Thomson (ICF) carrying bananas and caramel bars that were most welcomed. The Garden’s Curator Steven Herrington gave a brief history of the site that was founded in 1817 and located outside the city to escape the historic smog. “Time for the ICF to do the planting” I thought and prompted Russell and Emma to get on the spade.

All that remained was to thank the riders for their efforts and our very own mobile tree team Joe McCulloch (Assistant Manager at Glasgow Botanic Gardens) and Chris Murray (an apprentice with the City Council) who had ensured the smooth tree delivery and pit preparation throughout the day.

With the ride concluded, thoughts quickly turned to liquid refreshment. We retreated to a pub, converted from a former church, for a quick pint and to mull over the day’s events. Relieved, I felt the day had gone to plan and was very satisfied that we had

planted the trees with an audience of 840 plus children. The concerted efforts of all the riders and the bubble diagram had certainly done the trick!

Many thanks to the riders: Lesley Adams; Mick Boddy; Mike Charkow; Matthew Cooper; Sharon Crawford; Martin Gammie; Paul Hanson; Russell Horsey; Sammi Jones; Alan Motion; Will Ritchie; Rob Sim and Pete Wharton. We raised over £1,500. Enough for three Fund4Trees (F4T) student bursaries or a substantial contribution towards a F4T £5,000 award for research project.

Thanks to our sponsors, Capita Symonds and City Suburban Tree Surgeons and of course the continued support of Barchams for their trees. In terms of the ride logistics, thanks also to Graeme Golding (Glasgow City Council Tree Officer), Stephen Herrington (Curator at Glasgow Botanic Gardens), Will Ritchie (Assistant Curator at Glasgow Botanic Gardens), Louise Henderson (PA to the Lord Provost), Dr Collin Little (Glasgow City Council Sustainability Officer), Allan Maclean (Glasgow City Council Cycling Officer) and Mark Irwin (Glasgow City Council Education Officer) who helped to make the ride possible. Last and by no means least thanks to Emma Thomson ICF Marketing Officer for her support.

Next ride: Oct. 23rd in London. The start and finish will be Kew Gardens with a route along the Thames Path (so will be flat!) planting trees in inner London schools.

Russell Ball Ride for Research Ride Leader May 2nd 2013 http://fund4trees.org.uk/

33

Laying the Track for TRAQ Background

Tree Risk Assessment has grown in importance over the last decade or two as incidents of tree failures have taken prominence in the media.

Although injuries and fatalities associated with tree failures are extremely rare in comparison with other risks in urban and suburban environments, they tend to capture the attention and concern of society. In some cases, the law has sought to determine whether there is liability to be placed.

The essential question usually comes down to, “Was the failure foreseeable?”

To judge whether tree failure was foreseeable is difficult.

Until recently, in most parts of the world, there was no standard of practice for tree risk assessment. Many approaches have been adopted over the years and around the world, and there has been little clarity about what a visual assessment entails. Germany has been a leader in passing laws and requirements, and in the United Kingdom, tree risk management is certainly a rapidly evolving area of practice. But standardization of practices and expectations is still lacking in most parts of the world.

34

In the United States, the ANSI A300 Standards Committee developed a national standard for tree risk assessment, which, among other things, defined three levels of assessment. Establishing these levels was a significant step forward because it recognized different circumstances of assessment,

By Sharon Lilly and it clarified expectations for what is included in each level of assessment.

ISA published the Tree Risk Assessment Best Management Practices (BMP) at the end of 2011, expanding upon the standards and establishing a new methodology for assessing the risk of tree failure.

The BMP recognized that there are many valid and acceptable approaches to risk assessment—both quantitative and qualitative—each having its own advantages and limitations. The authors consulted a risk scientist, the ISO 31010 Risk Assessment Standard, and many scholarly papers to compare and contrast various approaches. In the process of researching methodologies, it became clear that there were some significant flaws and/or limitations in many of the most commonly used systems.

Based on extensive review of research and in consultation with the risk scientist, the authors developed a new methodology for inclusion in the BMP. The BMP development and review process took more than four years, included the review of more than 75 experts from around the world, and underwent several major revisions prior to reaching consensus.

Meanwhile, in British Columbia in 2000, a tree failure lead to a fatality, leading WorkSafeBC to focus attention on worker safety on golf courses and in urban areas. The Pacific Northwest Chapter of ISA (PNW-ISA) worked with WorkSafeBC to explore ways to de-

sign and implement a training course for the assessment of trees in urban areas and in the urban/rural interface. These discussions resulted in a project lead by Dr. Julian Dunster to develop the Tree Risk Assessment Course and Examination (TRACE).

As demand for TRACE grew, the PNW-ISA began talks with ISA to adapt the TRACE program and expand it to an international qualification. An international panel was formed and a needs assessment was undertaken. The needs assessment showed that there was not strong interest in more certifications, but that a need was seen for advanced certificate-based programs and, moreover, tree risk assessment was identified as the greatest need.

Why a Qualification?

Before we can address the reason for developing a qualification, the first question to answer is, “What’s the difference between a ‘certification’ and a ‘qualification’?”

Certification is a voluntary process by which a non-governmental body grants time-limited recognition and use of a credential to individuals who have demonstrated that they have met predetermined and standardized criteria for required knowledge, skills, or competencies. Learning event(s) are not typically provided by the certifying body.

Instead, the certifying body verifies education or training and experience obtained else-

where through an application process and administers a standardized assessment of current proficiency or competency. Also, certifications have requirements—such as acquiring continuing education units—to maintain the credential.

With a qualification, in contrast, the learning event(s) and the assessment(s) are both developed and administered by the certificate issuer, and there is an essential link between them. The primary focus of a qualification is the provision of education/training, with assessment(s) being used to confirm that participants have achieved the intended learning outcomes. Qualifications do not have ongoing maintenance or renewal requirements and, therefore, cannot be revoked, though they can expire.

Because of the specific body of knowledge involved, the new methodology established in the BMP, and the clear direction provided by the needs assessment, ISA decided to develop Tree Risk Assessment as a qualification. The ISA Certification Board adopted ASTM International’s E2659 – 09 Standard Practice for Certificate-Based Programs as the standard for development and administration.

Purpose

The ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) program provides an opportunity for individuals in the arboriculture industry to expand their knowledge through education and training in the fundamentals of tree risk assessment.

This qualification promotes the safety of people and property, and provides tree owners and risk managers with the neces-

sary information to make informed decisions to enhance tree benefits, health, and longevity.

Course Objectives

Through education and training, arborists will learn strategies to systematically identify and assess tree risk. The qualified professional will: be proficient with the fundamentals of limited-visual and basic tree risk assessment, as defined in the ISA Best Management Practices: Tree Risk Assessment; understand the principles of advanced diagnostic techniques for assessing tree risk; gather and synthesize information needed to assess tree risk; and make reasoned judgments and recommendations for mitigating identified risk.

The Format and Scope of TRAQ

The ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualification consists of a 2-day course followed by a ½-day examination. The course’s instructional design is based on best practices for adult education. Learning activities include interactive lectures, discussions, smallgroup activities, applied case studies, an instructional game, and field activities. These activities are intended to cater to a variety of learning styles and foster adult learning and application.

The examination consists of two parts: a 100-question, multiple-choice written exam and an outdoor, performance-based exam. Participants are required to pass both parts of the exam to pass the qualification. The passing score for the written exam is

75 percent and the passing score for the field assessment is 80 percent.

The course content is based on the new Tree Risk Assessment Manual, and is divided into nine modules: 1. Introduction to Tree Risk Assessment 2. Levels of Assessment 3. Target Assessment 4. Site Assessment 5. Tree Biology and Mechanics 6. Tree Inspection and Assessment 7. Risk Assessment and Categorization 8. Mitigation 9. Reporting

All course registrants will receive a copy of the Tree Risk Assessment Manual and a course workbook.

Eligibility

Success and competency in practicing tree risk assessment depend on a strong foundation in arboriculture education and experience. The TRAQ qualification focuses on systematic tree assessment and application of risk assessment methodology. The following educational requirements (core competencies) have been established to maximize learning potential and promote effective participation in learning activities to achieve the learning objectives established for the Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ).

A basic knowledge and comprehension of tree biology, especially as it relates to basic tree anatomy, wood structure and function, and wood decay; The ability to identify the major tree species in the local area; A fundamental knowledge of arboricultural practices, including

35

pruning and tree support systems; The ability to assess tree health and diagnose biotic and abiotic disorders common to trees in the local area; and A basic understanding of soil science and local soil conditions.

A credential or program of study that can be shown to include at least four of the five core competencies listed above shall be considered sufficient to meet the program prerequisites.

The following credentials have been deemed sufficient: ISA Certified Arborist ISA Board Certified Master Arborist

36

European Tree Worker

ation Certified Arborist

European Tree Technician

SAF Certified Forester

Fachagrarwirt Baumpflege

UK: A minimum of a QCF level 2 certificate or diploma in arboriculture (RFS Certificate, Technician's Certificate, or National Diploma in Arboriculture)

AHC30810 Certificate III in Arboriculture (Australia) NZ National Certificate in Horticulture (Arboriculture) (Level 4) Connecticut Arborist License Louisiana Arborist License Maryland Tree Expert Massachusetts Certified Arborist Rhode Island Arborist License New Jersey Certified Tree Expert New Hampshire Arborists Associ-

An arboriculture or urban forestry degree that is part of a national qualifications framework or is from an accredited college or university.

For more information consult the ISA website (www.isa-arbor.com) for more information about the TRAQ program.

Watch your Chapter newsletter and website for upcoming TRAQ courses in your area.

UK&I Tree Climbing Championships a summary by Charlotte McDermott

Having gone to this year’s TCC at Highclere Castle, manning the ISA stand with my old man, I am proud to say I witnessed some first-rate climbing skills. The full write-up and results, including the photographs, of the competition will be in the next edition of Treeline, so here is the final placings of the Masters: Sixth place, Tom Bunday; Fifth place, Jo Hedger, who competed alongside the men due to her being the only female competitor; Fourth place, Rhys Brace; Third place, Steve Gale; Second place, Stefan Kowalczyk; and finally First place, Jon Turnbull!

The weather for the event was fantastic, blazing sunshine, spoiled only by the gale-force winds that blew down our tents on the stand... not to mention the freezing cold nights in a Lidl tent.

Well done to all of the climbers that competed, and congratulations again to Jon for becoming the UK&I Champion once more! Here he is:

Left: Stefan Kowalczyk, second place. Above: Jon Turnbull, first place.

37

ARBOR CAMP

What’s at ArborCamp this year?

Throw line workshop; ' it's more than just getting it up there' Aerial Rescue refresher; ' how prepared are you?'

Access 101 Foot lock SRT 'the only way is up' Leading the workshops will be:

Jo Hedger, UK&I Chapter 2013 TCC winner, former World TCC champion!

Steven Gale, UK&I Chapter 2013 ETCC team member Tom Bunday UK&I Chapter 2011 ETCC team member It doesn’t get better, well it does - it’s free!

Date; Friday 26th - Saturday 27th July Location; FR Jones, Arb Show, Kent http://www.frjonesandson.co.uk/show/

38

Bartlett Tree Research & Diagnostic Laboratory Because Pests and Disease are a growing problem

We are Bartlett Tree Research and Diagnostic Laboratory, with over 100 years of experience there isn’t a plant disease or insect pest we haven’t indentified, researched or managed. No matter the size or scope of your needs our diagnostic experts can identify and treat any pest or disease that threatens the health of your trees and shrubs. Every step of the way we bring a combination of local service, global resources, and state of the art scientific practices to make your landscape thrive.

B A RT L E T T S C I E N C E Disease & Insect Control | Pest & Disease Research | Product Trials Soil Nutrient Analysis (Heavy Metals, salt) | Soil Compaction Analysis | Plant Identification

For the life of your trees.

Prescription Fertilisation | Plant Health Testing | Phytophthora Testing | Scientific Advice

Head Office: enquiry@bartlettuk.com | 01444 892 900 Research Labs: research@bartlettuk.com | 0118 988 3032

www.bartlett.com