Mystery of the sycamore

[The Woodman]

There were a group of Nobel and Grand Firs on the first estate I worked on that had been part ring barked to improve seed production. Apparently, this puts the tree under stress resulting in a heavy seed crop in order to survive.

The two semi circular rings almost met, there were two very slim diametrically opposed viable strips of cambium on these 150' trees which survived the experience. The seeds were collected and used in the commercial nursery.

[rangersarah2]

Eeyore - the first question that comes to mind is how far in would a secondary cambium layer be?

Not sure whether it's nice to hear that other people take delight in killing sycamore or not.

The people who ring barked the sycamore removed about a foot of the bark and cambium layer, and seem to have done it really well. The problem with felling the trees is that they are mature trees in a new woodland. Felling them would take out a bunch of the young trees. If I ring-barked lower down, and brushed herbicide on the new wound do you think that would do the trick?

It just shows how determined they are to survive.

[The Woodman]

Satisfying rather than taking delight in, rangersarah2, as all axework is.

[rangersarah2]

Originally Posted by The Woodman

Satisfying rather than taking delight in, rangersarah2, as all axework is.

Axework? Give me my chainsaw any day . Get your point though, I hate killing or hurting trees, but love the process.

[The Woodman]

Agreed.

I know you asked the question of eeyore and I hope you won't mind me saying this.

What you suggest will work with the herbicide. If you can let the tree stand without any liability issues, it will provide much useful habitat as it rots. As the branches fall naturally, damage limitation is much reduced for the young standing trees. In about five years there will only be the stumps of the larger branches left.

If and when the trunk needs to be felled accurate directional felling will be less damaging than felling a newly dead or live tree with a "hard" crown.

[rangersarah2]

We would like to leave the deadwood standing. Because the mature trees are in the middle of the woodland it gives us good opportunity without risking them landing on someone's head (unless they are tresspassing, in which case, tough). It's not good that we usually have to take down deadwood because of the risk of it falling on the footpath. Unfortunately H & S has to take priority. It's a shame that the woodpeckers lose out.

[fairplay]

Originally Posted by rangersarah2

We would like to leave the deadwood standing. Because the mature trees are in the middle of the woodland it gives us good opportunity without risking them landing on someone's head (unless they are tresspassing, in which case, tough). It's not good that we usually have to take down deadwood because of the risk of it falling on the footpath. Unfortunately H & S has to take priority. It's a shame that the woodpeckers lose out.

Just come across this thread and it's got me thinking.
There was a well-known case some years back where somebody (trespassing) fell down a well which had a flimsy wooden cover over it which had become rotten and covered in leaves over the years.
The land owner was heavily fined for not ensuring it was safely covered (and should have known of the risk to an unwary member of staff or a trespasser.)

The same surely must apply if you ring bark a tree/s and leave them for nature to take it's course. This is a very common practice and a nature reserve I regularly visit has this done to about 30 Syc's in a part of the wood well away from the marked trail.
There are no notices telling you not to leave the marked trail and the danger area is not taped off even.

I have seen (presumably) courting couples come from this area when I go this way to survey the fungi and also it is evident children must come this way because of the dens created.
Although I have been given permission to leave the marked trail, no one has ever told me of the tree danger - although it is clearly obvious to me, and I would only have myself to blame.

The trees were ring barked in 2006 and about 6 have already fallen with the rest only likely to fall when they feel like it.
This situation sounds very similar to that described above by RangerSarah and I am convinced in a court of law if a trespasser was to come to harm the landowner would be responsible as it would not be a natural event as human intervention (with landowners permission) had caused the tree/s to be dangerous and it was known they would fall sometime/prematurely.

Can anybody here confirm that my concerns are valid and that an owner would be on very dodgy ground as it seems trespasser or not, the owner has a "Duty Of Care" to the public.

Neil.

[Phil Dye]

Hello Neil,

I believe the act in question is the Occupiers Liability Act 1984, whereby you must do whatever is reasonable to ensure that your land is reasonably safe for whoever you may reasonably expect to be on your land. The emphasis as you may have gathered is the word 'reasonable' and that would be for the court to decide.

If there is a spate of burglaries in your area, you may reasonably expect a burglar to be on your land, which is within the scope of this act. If you ring bark a tree which is off the beaten track you may reasonably expect no-one to be sitting under it should it fail.

Hope this is of use.

Phil

[AshLee]

I wonder, if you post warnings round the boundary of your land (like at building sites) does that cover you?

[fairplay]

Originally Posted by AshLee

I wonder, if you post warnings round the boundary of your land (like at building sites) does that cover you?

I should imagine that would be the bare essential.
Regarding Phil's post and the word 'reasonable' - a landowner would be expected to look at his property at regular intervals, in this case, the Wildlife Trust, should be aware (as I am) that there are signs that the public (local children ?) are using this area, yet no measures are in place to keep public out.
When the Forestry Commission harvest their trees or carry out any operation that may harm the public, warning signs are always in place.

It seems to me the Wildlife Trust are merely crossing their fingers which would not be a defence in law.
On the other hand, Wildlife Trusts or anybody else must be allowed to manage their land (in this case for the benefit of wildlife) how they want - BUT adequate safety measures should always be in place.

Neil.