UKTC Archive

Re: VETERAN TREES Re: Tree Risk Management - Taking the defect out of it

Subject: Re: VETERAN TREES Re: Tree Risk Management - Taking the defect out of it
From: Julian Morris
Date: Feb 06 2020 13:24:52
I agree entirely about clarity of terms. As Quintilian so beautifully put it 
centuries ago -

“We should not write so that it is possible for the reader to understand us, 
but so that it is impossible for him to misunderstand us."

BS5837 is not blameless, however. Mike has mentoned that in it the 
categorisation is about quality, which includes conservation value. And 
there's a minor problem, before wr all spoke of habitat and biodiversity 
conservatio was the word that covered the preservation of these things. 
Tehre's therefore a legitimate argument that BS5837 categorisation should 
reflect habitat i.e. the deadwood, beetles, bryophytes etc.  BS8596 doenst 
really help because it adds that BS5837 categoriswtions should reflect bat 
potential (not that anyone bothers their @&$£). And I would suggest that the 
Ancielt Tree Forum's guidance that RPAs should be ncreased to 15x DBH is 
based on preserving habitat for as long as possible. After all, the hukered 
down ancient tree or battered veteran usually provides a fraction of the 
amenity of an equivalent non-ancient/veteran but the latter get boosted to 
cat A. 

Julian A. Morris - Professional Tree Services
jamtrees.co.uk  and  highhedgesscotland.com
0778 XXX XXXX - 0141 XXX XXXX


Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2020 at 12:50 PM
From: "Michael Richardson" <richardsontreecare@xxxxxx.com>
To: "UK Tree Care" <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: Re: VETERAN TREES Re: Tree Risk Management - Taking the defect out 
of it

That is quite good Mike.  A very reasonable approach.

I note that many arborists do not distinguish between biological health and
structural integrity.  Again semantics are important.

I have been dealing with the largest English Oak I have ever seen in
eastern Canada.  It is growing extremely well but is full of cracks and
decay.  The large green canopy is incredible and causes many to overlook
the structurally compromised trunk.

Michael Richardson B.Sc.F., BCMA
Ontario MTCU Qualified Arborist
Richardson Tree Care
Richardsontreecare.ca
613-475-2877
800-769-9183

  <http://www.richardsontreecare.ca/images/Tree_Doc_logo_email.png>



On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 7:41 AM AV Arboriculture <mike@xxxxxxx.co.uk> wrote:

This debate just shows why these terms are not that useful and simply
confuse matters.  Better to be clear and distinctive about why a tree is
worth preserving (eg it provides good ecological habitat).  The BS5839
distinctions lead the surveyor to be clear about the tree's qualities (ie
arboricultural/landscape/cultural & conservation).

Regards,

Mike Charkow
Principal Arboriculturist
______________________
Arbor Vitae Arboriculture Ltd

Planning surveys, Tree inspections, Bats in trees inspections,
Arboricultural consultancy, Soil de-compaction, Root Investigation,
Woodland Management.

[ mailto:info@xxxxxxx.co.uk | info@xxxxxxx.co.uk ]
[ https://avtree.co.uk/ | www.avtree.co.uk ]
07917XXXXXX
Company Registration Number: SC413171

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Moya" <tim.moya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.co.uk>
To: "uktc" <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Sent: Thursday, 6 February, 2020 12:26:03
Subject: RE: VETERAN TREES Re: Tree Risk Management - Taking the defect
out of it

Ancient trees are those which achieve exceptional longevity for the
species. Veteran trees are those which display the characteristics of
ancient trees.
That's 22 words
Tim Moya


-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
<uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
Sent: 06 February 2020 12:05
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: Re: VETERAN TREES Re: Tree Risk Management - Taking the defect
out of it

As Alex Shigo said:I believe if a person cannot define a term in 25 words
or less, they should not use it because they probably do not understand 
it.

Michael Richardson B.Sc.F., BCMA
Ontario MTCU Qualified Arborist
Richardson Tree Care
Richardsontreecare.ca
613-475-2877
800-769-9183

  <http://www.richardsontreecare.ca/images/Tree_Doc_logo_email.png>



On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 6:52 AM Wayne Tyson <wt750mv@xxxxxx.com> wrote:

A limber pine could be thought of as a "runt" throughout its life. No
need to split hairs, particularly general, semantic ones. That's why
assessments need to be individual, and based on facts, not on vague
labels of questionable foundation. But the quest for "accurate" terms
is a fascinating one. Clarity in the language is sometimes elusive.
And sometimes, mere terminology may not be up to the task. Meaningless
terms might simply be tossed into the dustbin.

Wayne

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 3:33 AM Ben Oates <b.oates@xxxxxxxx.co.uk> wrote:

Hi Tom,

Good to hear from you.

I mentioned in my previous email that it is all in the word which
originates from the Latin vetus meaning old.

In my mind, it follows then, therefore, that a tree which is not
vetus, old or reached full maturity is not a veteran in the true
sense of the
word
unless one is anthopomorphasising the term for trees, which is what
I disagree with, i.e. calling young trees with ecological features
veterans.

The value of veteran trees is in part to do with the irreplaceable
habitats that form over a long time. The younger the tree, the
easier it may be to replace the habitat because it hasn't taken
hundreds of years
to
form.

A non-mature tree with important ecological features might be a
'runt' or 'sickly tree' and likely to merit the BS 5837:2012
category of C or U
(low
value). Whereas a veteran, in the true sense of the word, would
likely be an A (high value) category because it truly has acquired
great age and
all
those things that flow with it along the passage of time.

Young sickly, runts often have features similar to but not on a
comparable
scale with those found on the same species but of great age and
those
young
runts might well be as important ecologically but on the balance of
probabilities sickly trees are unlikely to achieve the great age of
a
true
veteran.

To me, the most significant feature of trees is their ability to
achieve great age and all that flows from it is what makes true
veterans so precious.

The implication of naming young runts as veterans undermines the
values
we
place on true veterans.

Based on my reasoning I do not make a distinction between veteran
and ancient, to me the word means the same thing, old, and is
regardless of habitat features.

I am open minded and not stuck in my ways but this is where I stand
for the time being.

Best regards,

Ben Oates

________________________________
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info <
uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
on behalf of Tom Thompson <admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.co.uk>
Sent: 06 February 2020 00:33
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: Re: VETERAN TREES Re: Tree Risk Management - Taking the
defect out of it

Ben

Are trees not classified as veterans due to their defects, sorry
features,
so they do not have to be old.

Ancient trees are old.  I thought that this was the distinction.

Sincerely Tom

I S Tom Thompson (known as Tom) BSc (Hons) Arb, MSc eFor, MArborA

Principal Arboricultural Consultant
Arbor Cultural Ltd

36 Central Avenue, West Molesey, Surrey, KT8 2QZ

T   0333 XXX XXXX
M  07899 XXXXXX
E   Admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.co.uk
W  [X] www.arbor-cultural.co.uk<http://www.arbor-cultural.co.uk>




On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 17:36, Ben Oates <b.oates@xxxxxxxx.co.uk> wrote:

Kevin Slezacek wrote: "I'm seeing an increasing number of cases
where trees with simple storm damage are being classed as veterans
and using
this
to object to planning applications."


I have also experienced an LPA classing an early mature sweet
chestnut (less than 1m dbh) with woodpecker holes and die back,
likely due to on-site evidence of old root damage, as a veteran
and invoking the
NPPF.


Don't get me wrong, I love veteran trees.



I agree that a middle aged soldier or younger having seen active
service
makes them a veteran but I do not agree with anthropomorphising
the
term
for trees, especially for the purposes of invoking the NPPF.



For a tree to be a veteran, in my mind's eye, it must have great 
age.



The term ‘veteran’, from the Latin vetus, means ‘old’.



So I say a veteran tree is one that has considerably outlived the
typical
life expectancy of the species found in a similar environment
regardless
of
size and habitat potential etc.


Authoritative written guidance is helpful but should be backed up
with knowledge.

Ben Oates



________________________________
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info <
uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
on behalf of Kevin Slezacek <KevinSlezacek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.com>
Sent: 05 February 2020 16:33
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: RE: Tree Risk Management - Taking the defect out of it

Please lets not start introducing terms like early veteran or semi
ancient. I'm seeing an increasing number of cases where trees with
simple
storm damage are being classed as veterans and using this to
object to planning applications. I appreciate fully the benefit of
"true"
veterans
and also understand how many mature trees can have certain
characteristics
that may have benefit to other organisms but I think arbs know a
proper veteran when we see one and Id like to see some more
distinct
recognised
terms rather than woolly definitions. When NPPF specifically
mentions veterans (quite rightly) I don’t think it meant every
mature tree with
a
woodpecker hole or bit of deadwood! Semi Ancient - what would
define
that!

Kind regards,

Kevin Slezacek



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

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy
[X] 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 arboricultural consultancy
[X]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 arboricultural consultancy
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 arboricultural consultancy
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 arboricultural consultancy
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 arboricultural consultancy
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 arboricultural consultancy
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 arboricultural consultancy
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 arboricultural consultancy
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/