UKTC Archive

RE: ISA Best Management Practices - Tree Risk Assessment & TRAQ

Subject: RE: ISA Best Management Practices - Tree Risk Assessment & TRAQ
From: Alastair Durkin
Date: May 27 2014 08:28:00
Tony, what does this mean?

" And it winds me up that the AA dont recognise the VTA method"

The SE Branch ran a one-day VTA for arborists course last year and are 
organising another this year. I'm certainly not aware of any anti VTA policy 
within the AA on a wider scale, and I'm pretty sure that many AA members that 
inspect trees do so using VTA. Are you involved with your regional branch? If 
so, perhaps you could help organise a VTA course. I'm sure it would be 
excellent with the skills that you have. If not then why not get in touch 
with the branch Secretary (contact details on AA website) If you want to 
change something, the best way to do it is from the inside!

Alastair

adurkin@xxxxxxxxxx.gov.uk
www.tandridge.gov.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: Antony Croft [mailto:treewisperer@xxxxxxxx.co.uk]
Sent: 23 May 2014 23:06
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: RE: ISA Best Management Practices - Tree Risk Assessment & TRAQ

And it winds me up that the AA dont recognise the VTA method

From: treewisperer@xxxxxxxx.co.uk
To: uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
Subject: RE: ISA Best Management Practices - Tree Risk Assessment &
TRAQ
Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 22:58:04 +0100

I will continue to use the VTA approach, everything else is going into that 
grey area around the word reasonable.
and it is not reasonable to be all bar forced by coercion into a method, 
maybe I am unfit to be an assessor because I don't feel I need it to be 
effective.
Maybe the industry is unfit to asses others just because they choose a 
different system.

maybe there is a little race going on to get enough case law behind one or 
the other?
tony

Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 22:15:30 +0100
From: jdflannigan@xxxx.com
Subject: RE: ISA Best Management Practices - Tree Risk Assessment &
TRAQ
To: uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info


It's interesting how things develop in UK arb. Due to the lack of any 
strategic direction or concerted attempt to achieve a standardised 
approach to even the most the basic aspects of arboriculture we are 
forced to rely on approaches that 'emerge' from a variety of places and 
based on a range of abilities.

Tribes develop supporting their favourite and the industry fractures that 
bit more.

The trouble is some ideas are utter rubbish, but occasionally something 
comes through which is groundbreaking and should be an industry standard 
and QTRA is one of them. Focusing on risk of harm by applying an 
objective analysis deserves respect.

Acer's deconstruction of the ISA nonsense should be applauded and to 
criticise it because it is well thought through is staggering.

By the way I have no financial interest in QTRA. Although the residents 
in my area benefit from reduced inspection costs and reduced tree surgery 
costs and sustained tree benefits because of QTRA.
John



------------------------------
On Fri, May 23, 2014 8:53 PM BST Antony Croft wrote:

Applause, a very fine statement.
I dont like the way it is force fed or sold to the sheep or worse those 
that know less about trees and are susceptible to superior flannel.
its gaining momentum because its being sold harder than Zenith double 
glazing, prepare for it to be demanded soon, or youll be out of this 
business.

From: jamorris@xxxxx.com
To: uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: ISA Best Management Practices - Tree
Risk Assessment & TRAQ
Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 13:57:48 +0200

[Text converted from HTML]
Dear Paul The difficulty I perceive is that David Evans has not
to my mind asked anything other than rhetorical questions. Lest
there be any doubt about what I mean by that, he always seems to
have the answer already. This seems like drawing people to reach
a conclusion that he has already reached. It may suit the
industry but you can be sure from the outset that it is going to
suit QTRA too, and in so doing will suit David Evans. I would
like to make a possibly useful general observation on research
and debate. In the past, before mass communication with people
you have never met was possible instantaneously on the internet,
research was taken forward probably in a considered way and
published for critique. The old copies of the AJ are for me a joy
to read because they have been written usually in clear crisp
english and follow a scientific approach which goes - here's the
current state of play, I think the understanding can be advanced
by exploring this subject, I have a theory, I have designed
research to test it, I have carried out the research or experiments, 
here's the findings, here's what I think it means and that it 
proves/disproves my theory, here's what I think should be done next...
And implicit in all this is - what do you all think? All
presented in a single article, to be digested at the reader's
convenience, not debated in real time as things are these days on
the internet. But clearly we are unlikely to relinquish our
computers (nor should we), and I think it leaves a gap in the way
better mutual understanding is promoted. We all know that drug
companies, for example, don't spend millions finding cures for
diseases because they are sad when people are sick. But it is rare to 
find pure research with no motive of gain, financial or reputational.
Somewhere in the middle there has to be something in it for the author.
The internet seems to be a cheap and quick alternative to the old
slow way, but to consider it a suitable replacement is to my mind
naive. If nothing else, there is rarely anything coherent to show
for it. Thus we see occasionally a thread on UKTC, someone asks a
questiion that they don't know the answer to. A couple of people
have a go at answering. That raises some important side issues,
which get debated. An answer may emerge to the original question,
and a few people have learned from it, all to the good. Pragmatic
solutions are also offered, avoiding the need to answer the
question at all. Meantime the original poster has probably
embarked on a pragmatic solution and may not even bother to
acknowledge the help he has had or say what he has done and how
it worked out. The posting fizzles out in some entertaining and
witty chit-chat. What have we actually established for the next
man/woman to act upon in the next similar scenario? Well,
occasionally a range of opinions to consider, and occasionally
nothing. It's not science, it's uncontrolled and unresolving. Yet
there seems little alternative. Arbtalk is a much better format
for structured debate. It is easy to review previous comments and
to quote them for specific response. But it is not any more
scientific, in other words it's not scientific, it's not
controlled and things are unresolved. If you would like to see an 
example of one of my attempt at using Arbtalk to get peer input to a 
very simple thing, have a look at 
http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/tree-health-care/72058-reaction-wood.html .
The key thing is, I didn't know what the ansewr was before I
started, and what I did int eh end was a synthesis of the
comments and inputs I received. It took me hours and hours. Just
to change part of a Wikipedia page to make it right. So back to
ISA/QTRA. The recent discussion in my opinion lacks rigour and
any criticism of it was not tolerated. I maintain that is more
likely to serve the interests of QTRA than to advance better
understanding. That's my opinion. And when we are not allowed to
express opinion, all is lost. David Evans clearly has some
reputation, and just as clearly I have none. That in itself makes
neither he nor I right nor wrong. A happen to agree with much of
what he is getting at, but I don't think that having trotted
through what looks like pre-prepared tutorial before a handful of
tree surgeons on Arbtalk proves anything. From the outset he has
said (I am paraphrasing) that Australia has ordained that trees
must be risk assessed by ISA or QTRA. He has just shot ISA, and
even before he did I felt like ISA was a wildebeest walking among
lions anyway, waiting to be taken down. So where does that leave
the competition for QTRA in Australia? I think the word
'monopoly' could be made fit. That's a good result for an
accidental side-benefit of altruistic debate. Well played, if it
was intended. My apologies if it wasn't. Yours fallibly Julian A.
Morris Professional Tree Services jamtrees.co.uk
highhedgesscotland.com
0141 XXX XXXX - 0778 XXX XXXX Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 at 8:11
AM
From: "Paul Muir" <PaulMuir@xxxxxxxxxx.co.uk>
To: "UK Tree Care" <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: RE: RE: RE: ISA Best Management Practices - Tree Risk
Assessment & TRAQDear Julian

I have to say that I think the accusation that you make in this
post is incredibly unfair. I know that David has integrity and
that his intention, in presenting the information that he has on
public forums, is for the benefit of the industry. I also know
that he has put a great deal of work and effort into assessing
the way that the ISA treats risk in the BMP.

The fact that David has a history of developing QTRA puts him in
a great position to make this criticism of the BMP - he understands 
risk.

That David has presented a "well-prepared" and "systematic 
discrediting"
of a system should be applauded. Certainly it should not be
criticised just because he hasn't posted a rambling,
off-the-cuff, casual, Friday afternoon musing on a subject with
no real basis in fact. To interpret his thorough and
well-presented argument as an advert is really disappointing.

You may have satisfied yourself that the ISA risk matrix is
flawed. For those that haven't, David has tried to clearly
present the problems with it. If this isn't what the forums are
for then I am certainly under a misapprehension.



Paul Muir
Arboricultural Consultant / Contracts Administrator Treework
Environmental Practice, Monarch House, 1-7 Smyth Road,
Bedminster, Bristol, BS3 2BX

M: 07966 XXXXXX
T: 0117 XXX XXXX (Head Office)
www.treeworks.co.uk

Treework Environmental Practice has moved offices.

Our new address is:
Monarch House, 1-7 Smyth Road, Bedminster, Bristol, BS3 2BX


We are recruiting, see our jobs page:
http://www.treeworks.co.uk/jobs_at_treeworks.php

Treework Environmental Practice is the trading name of Treework
Services Ltd.
Registered Office & Place of registration: Treework Services Ltd,
The Old Rectory, Chew Stoke, Bristol, BS40 8TT Reg No.: 1621606
VAT No.: 397 XXXX XX

This email including attachments is intended for the addressed
recipient only. It may contain confidential information and may
be subject to legal, professional or other privilege. It must not
be copied, disclosed or used by any other person. If you are not
the intended recipient, please notify the sender and then delete from 
your system immediately.

Treework Environmental Practice does not guarantee the
attachments or enclosures are secure or virus-free.

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Morris [mailto:jamorris@xxxxx.com]
Sent: 23 May 2014 07:33
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: Re: RE: RE: ISA Best Management Practices - Tree Risk
Assessment & TRAQ

[Text converted from HTML]
For the bnenefit of everyone else, I shoudl explain.1. I PM'd you
on Arbtalk to see if you were interested in the subject other
than as an advert for QTRA. The 'in-confidence' offer was to
allow you to say what you think rahter thanwhat you have ot say
publically. How odd that you should even mention it. I guess we
won't be corresponding.2. The Arbtalk posting is not discussion,
it looks incresingly like a well-prepared systematic discrediting
of the ISA method, with QTRA waiting to step ito the breach to
save us all.3. You really haven't established anyhting except
that a numerical interpreatation of common probability words
suggestst that the ISA method is bunched around the high risk end
of any scale you want to choose. Fine, I have already satisfied
myself on this point some time ago.I personally don't think that this 
sort of discussion is in the spirit of either UKTC or Arbtalk. Over 
and out. Julian A.
Morris
Professional Tree Services
jamtrees.co.uk
highhedgesscotland.com
0141 XXX XXXX - 0778 XXX XXXX Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 at
4:18 PM
From: "David Evans" <david.evans@xxxxxxxxxxxx.co.uk>
To: "UK Tree Care" <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: RE: RE: ISA Best Management Practices - Tree Risk
Assessment & TRAQ<Sorry, but I don't think you've established the
risks at all. Just because no-one questioned your figures doesn't
mean they agreed with them. Most recently I have expressed some
specific concerns that haven't been addressed. I found your
approach and conclusions somewhat partisan.>

Hi Julian

My approach could not be less partisan. The working out behind
the risks for a fatality are all nakedly laid out there on the
thread in tedious detail for anyone to examine. It's entirely
about checkable maths. The inputs and resulting outputs as
probabilities are the best efforts I can make from the contents
of the ISA's Risk BMP and TRAQ Training Manual, and having had
exchanges with a number of TRAQ accredited arborists. I've
explained how I derived each and every input and the conclusions
about the levels of risk for a fatality are the logical end
product of what is transparently laid out. If anyone disagrees
with any part, well, that's largely the point of the exercise. To
that end, I've painstakingly set the thread up, along with many
images of the matrices in various stages of construction, into
sections so anyone can do just that and point out where and what
the disagreement is. If anyone can persuade me the inputs or
outputs are incorrect with an explanation, on a forum for everyone to 
see, or by an email privately, then I will amend them and explain why 
on the thread.

Notwithstanding misquoting my post where I actually said
"tentatively establishing the risks for a tree causing a
fatality", I won't be persuaded by you merely saying "I don't
think you've established the risks at all", without any
additional explanation as to why. The risks for tree failing and
causing a fatality are what they are. They're not my opinions.

To the best of my knowledge I've addressed any of the few
concerns raised so far, and can't think of any of yours that are
outstanding. Please let me know what they are on here, or
probably better on Arbtalk if they relate to the thread, and I'll
see how I can help. Just don’t expect instant replies.

<I have pm'd you on Arbtalk without reply.>

I see you pm'd me on Arbtalk yesterday. I've only just read it. I
didn't realise there was a deadline to reply. There's no specific
concerns in there that relate to the thread, so I don't see why you 
raise it here.
Particularly, as it's a pm where you say I can "reply in complete
confidence".

Cheers

Acer ventura

PS Didn't you describe the Arbtalk thread as "interesting and thorough"
in your last post this morning?




--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/



--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/



--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/



--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/



--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/




--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/



--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/



--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/


Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. Save paper.

Visit http://www.tandridge.gov.uk for information about services, online 
forms, payments and much more.

________________________________
IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. 
They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this 
email in error, please inform the sender immediately and do not disclose the 
contents to anyone or make copies thereof.

This message has been scanned for viruses.


______________________________________________________________________
   Pear Technology - Tree Mapping and Management Software 

Easy to use and gives professional results. Full Training and Support. 
- BS5837 surveys, reports,mapping. plots crown spread, RPA,shading arc -
   - http://www.peartechnology.co.uk    Tel: 023 9XXX XXXX -

   **** VISIT US AT THE ARB SHOW,6-7 June STAND T1 ****
______________________________________________________________________
-- 
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info