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: Wayne Tyson
Date: Feb 07 2020 01:00:51
And GBS said something like: It should be like a dress--short enough to be
interesting, but long enough to cover the subject."

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 4:05 AM Michael Richardson <
richardsontreecare@xxxxxx.com> wrote:

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/