UKTC Archive

Re: Tree inspection systems

Subject: Re: Tree inspection systems
From: Wayne Tyson
Date: Feb 28 2020 05:12:49
Jerry: Not me. I'm immoderate--in my fashion. It's fine with me if others
want to be immoderate in their own ways. "Consider the source," my
grandmother counseled. None of us is perfeckt. ("'Tis friction's brrisk,
rough rrub, that provides the vital spark!" A.R. Martin).  Personally and
professionally, we are, *if* we are open to it, polished and refined by
experience--even, sometimes, the shared experiences of others. As Jerry
says, all it takes is confining our words to issues, not personalities. But
the reality is, that some folks are so insecure that they must strike out
at ideas that differ from theirs. Better not to take the bullies' bait.
Just go on with discussion relevant to the issue(s) at hand--and help, not
hurt.

Back to the relevant stuff. If we all agree that there is room for
improvement, any number of "systems" are likely to have merit--and are
perhaps just as likely to have defects. Refine, refine, refine (to
paraphrase Frederick Douglass)!

I know this much. Even at this late stage in my life have learned much
since I embarked upon my present study of tree failure potential
assessment. I learned, for example, right here in this Forum, to drop
"hazard" in favor of "failure." Thanks to all for setting me straight! I
look forward to more corrections. And to even the immoderate
statements--especially when they are relevant to the subject rather than
the persons.

Respectfully,
Wayne




On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 10:02 AM Jerry Ross <trees@xxxxxxxxxx.co.uk> wrote:

By way of a final (perhaps)word on this, here are some words from the
UKTC posting guidelines
( http://www.tree-care.info/uktc/postingguide )  -
"  Email discussion groups like the UKTC are not like real life. Email
is a harsh medium. It cannot convey the subtleties and nuances of body
language or tone of voice. [...]  It can also be impersonal and makes it
easier to be rude or confrontational in a way which we would not be if
the person we were addressing were stood in front of us. All this can
make internet discussion groups seem like intimidating and unfriendly
places to some users. We don’t want the UKTC to be like that. We want
everyone to feel welcome and to feel that their point of view is valued
and respected [...so...]  Please be polite when posting to the UKTC and
respect others' points of view and differing levels of knowledge. The
intention of the list is the dissemination of tree related knowledge for
the mutual benefit of members. It should provide for informed debate and
not be a forum for bickering."

Discuss anything.
Keep it friendly (or at least polite!)

Regards
Jerry

PS - Anyone else want to be a moderator ;-)?



On 27/02/2020 10:29, AV Arboriculture wrote:
Jerry,

I have not mentioned any tree system since we were told not to, but I
have serious questions regarding a certain methodology and am not receiving
any specific answers.  Don't you think it is important that us, as tree
professionals, understand the rationale behind any tree inspection system?
We should be the peer-reviewers of anything that affects us as
professionals.  I am all for discussing tree inspection systems in general
but this current topic is a new and salient issue.

Wayne, I broadly concur with your views.

Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wayne Tyson" <wt750mv@xxxxxx.com>
To: "uktc" <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Sent: Tuesday, 25 February, 2020 18:24:34
Subject: Re: Tree inspection systems

"While some basic principles need to be applied to tree risk assessment,
and while a systematic approach (in the broadest sense) is certainly
helpful, one's mind must be kept open and receptive to the exceptions
and avoid becoming subservient to a system that demands one corrals
every tree into some category or other." --Jerry Ross

VERY well stated!

This is why I cringe every time I hear the term "BMP" (Best Management
Practice) bandied about. The *use* of checklists is a good idea, but
mindless *reliance* upon any cast-in-concrete system ignores the most
valuable "tool" in management--feedback and refinement. BMP's are, in my
view, BSMP's. They may make it easy for the marginally competent to
*minimize* screw-ups, but in exceedingly complex, imperfectly known
living/dynamic systems, trees, and, for example, their stability, need to
be considered anew in each (assessment) case, particularly when it comes
to
the most difficult decision of all: to wait a little longer until the
tree
fails, or to understand and evaluate all relevant factors. When a
"veteran"
or "historic" tree, for example, falls, it is a tradegy--a valuable tree
is
lost. It is an even greater tragedy when injuries and deaths, not to
mention property damage/loss occurs because of the failure. This holds
true
for any tree which fails, not just the most highly valued ones. *Either
way, the tree is lost. *

Prediction of just when a tree is going to fail is, as a practical
matter,
impossible. But under a variety of "systems," the world is full of
neglected and abused trees that do fall and do kill and maim. There is
clearly room for improvement--even though perfection will probably never
be
achieved. Where does that leave the tree professions?

We all need to keep on learning. Rigid systems tend to turn off learning,
and worse, create a false sense of security. That does not mean that they
should be abandoned--*provided* that they are recognized only as a tool.
Things like relying *only* upon "the most obvious" evidence is a serious
mistake. It's a matter of life and death--including the tree's.

Thanks, Jerry!

Wayne

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 2:44 AM Jerry Ross <trees@xxxxxxxxxx.co.uk>
wrote:

On 25/02/2020 10:06, AV Arboriculture wrote:
   Is this not the perfect place to have a debate about tree inspection
methods?
Regards,

Mike Charkow
Yes, but let's broaden things out: rather than go on about any specific
tree inspection system, how about questioning whether such systems are
actually necessary or valuable, or whether perhaps they are all capable
of leading one to inappropriate conclusions.
We all use methodologies of one sort or another, and they're all open to
question. The problems arise when one attempts to systematise things.
Any system, it seems to me, WILL fail. By definition they try to impose
a structure on what is, essentially, a chaotic situation, a situation
where butterfly wings abound. Sooner or later chaos will triumph over
any system.
While some basic principles need to be applied to tree risk assessment,
and while a systematic approach (in the broadest sense) is certainly
helpful, one's mind must be kept open and receptive to the exceptions
and avoid becoming subservient to a system that demands one corrals
every tree into some category or other.

And of course one needs to bear in mind that,based on the number of
serious tree-related incidents, the present rather haphazard situation
seems to work pretty well: not only are incidents of harm pretty
uncommon, occasions where inspectors have been found to be negligent are
even rarer.







--
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/