🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <32404948.5F27@compuserve.com>,
LDNPA <100063.3401@compuserve.com> wrote:

>The Lake District National Park Authority has produced a leaflet setting out
>the facts with regard the Rusland Beeches.  It is being sent to all who write
>letters of objection to the proposals to fell the trees.
>
>The Rusland Beeches - the facts behind the decision to fell.
>
<snip>
>
>3.    Since 1954, because they are so close to a road, the trees have
>      been regularly inspected by qualified specialists and work has been
>      carried out to fell individual dangerous trees or remove limbs on
>      their advice.  As a result of this continuing careful maintenance
>      there have been no accidents resulting from falling trees or large
>      branches during this time.
>
<megasnip>
>
>Guy Weller, LDNPA, Septenber 1996

>       the trees have  been regularly inspected by qualified specialists 

Sounds impressive, but what does "regularly" mean ? every year,5years,
20years?
If the inspections were done in 1984 and 1996 this is not regular (and
proactive ) but irregular (and reactive)

Derek Patch in his very detailed 1984 report for the LDNPA page 5 wrote

    "All retained trees should be inspected regularly - ideally annually -
to monitor their condition and prescribe remedial work. However I
anticipate that after the initial work there should be no need for major
felling for about 5 years by which time replacement trees should be
established and beginning to have an impact on the appearance of the road."

               _Where any regular inspections made as recommended ?_

Why did Derek Patch in his 1996 report page 3 state

    "However where repeated visits by the same consultant are possible a
picture of the condition of the trees should develop so that physical
defects can be monitored and their progress assessed.  *Unfortuneately this
has not been possible*  with this second visit to the Rusland Beeches
because the numbering has been changed since 1984 (75 trees) and there does
not appear to be a cross referencing system."
                                                             ?
Why was the numbering lost? and why was Derek Patch not  able to recognise
the trees he had inspected before so that a comparison could be made and
predictions checked out?

The actions of neither the LDNPA nor their "qualified specialists" do not
impress for their scientific rigour. Rather it seems that as Director of
the AAIS he was pushed for time and did not give the task the thorough
attention he gave his first report . I cannot believe that with all the
detailed observations he made in the 1984 report he could not then relate
them to the trees he inspected in1996.

The LDNPA statement is not as impressive as first impression implies.

 >      As a result of this continuing careful maintenance
>      there have been no accidents resulting from falling trees or large
>      branches during this time.

There have been no accidents but how do we know what would have happened if
no action had been taken  and there is no sign of the "continuing careful
maintenance".

Admit it, the LDNPA does not have the resources to maintain these trees
effectively and they want them "out of their hair".

It seems that a responsible charitable organisation with interested
volunteers is the answer.

Geoff Dellow