How do I ensure that there are no hornets on
the tree b4 I climb and what to do when I do
meet hornets, wasps or bees when I am uo there?

Reply to post by Kenny, on December 06, 2001 at 05:34:29:

Jeez, that's a painful topic for me. I remember using someone else's spurs to ascend a fifty foot palmetto and when I reached the skirt of dead frongs my head went into a paper wasp's nest. Ouch.
I tried to descend but the spikes were too sharp and long and kept getting stuck all the while I was getting dozens of stings. Halfway down I just pushed away, falling hard on my back and those suckers kept blasting me. When I asked for help trying to swat them off, everyone ran like hell away from me.
I made it, but in my truck I kept a syringe of benedryl (steroid), jamming it into my thigh. Even if there's no allergic reation to stings, I strongly recommend keeping at least benedryl pills handy - anaphalactic shock can kill.
Before ascending, look carefully around for flying activity and if there is a bit, take a spray can up attached to your scabbard like wound sealer. If not, just take the hits and keep your mind on escape and care doing it, you can always take the pills when you get down and also have a good story for the grandkids someday.
Here we have killer bees - one just needs to use an extra sense of caution before the climb.

Reply to post by Reed, on December 06, 2001 at 05:34:29:

Gosh Reed, that soiunds like a miserable experience.
Re escape, that's one more reason to use a ladder instead of spikes.
Benadryl is always good to have on hand, true, but if I know stinging insects are present, I try to dress for the occasion. Tops on the list (and on the body) is a beekeeper's hat, with mesh that falls from the wide brim to a drawstring on the neck. With that at least your eyes are protected so youi can safely descend.
Wearing that, and a double layer elsewhere, you can enter the insect's area and do what you have to do. I used to suit up when treating trunks with bacterial infections that teemed with insects in early summer (see Insects and Disease topic), but those mean-looking "Japanese hornets" and all the others never went for flesh or blood.
Follow the dress code and you can get in anywhere.

Reply to post by Guy Meilleur, on December 06, 2001 at 10:43:37:

I hear you Guy, but coastal Southeast U.S. and here in central Texas it gets pretty warm up those trees. I work both areas and minimal clothing seems to be the uniform of the day.

Of all the trees climbed and countless others treated, we've really had no problem other than that one unfortunate day, and the incident allowed me to go home before noon and kick back a bit although I looked like a manatee in a t-shirt. I look before I leap nowdays.

I also wanted to respond to your observations concerning adaquate treatments for pathogen removal. It's a very interesting approach, had success here as well but it runs counter to the science as practiced and advocated. I'm just back from a heavy few days and can't type or think right now, but sometime over the weekend I'd like to dialogue a bit on your work and what we've noticed here.

Reed

Reply to post by Reed, on December 07, 2001 at 15:02:53:

Reed, it's precisely because disinfection of wounds runs counter to some science that I posted the request for others' experience.
Extrapolation of research results, in an effort to make good general recommendations, is imo too generally done. The hope apparently is to enable tree work to be done with as little thought as possible.
Wrapping trunks to avoid sunscald, amending planting holes to aid root establishment, cleaning wounds to disinfect pathogens, and many other practices are considered "wrong" (or at best "experimental", which I can live with). The research cited often is done with species and materials and conditions very unlike what we deal with, yet we're told with certainty these practices are always wrong. Most often people don't bother reading the research but just repeat what they heard an "authority" say.
Well experience is the best teacher, so I'd like to hear yours.

Reply to post by Guy Meilleur, on December 07, 2001 at 20:09:37:

Guy,
in my work, firsthand experience with making the recommendations based on experience then having the fortune of "face to facing" the opposition (Dr. David Appel. etc.) in forums and seminars, I feel I've been blessed with opportunity -in real time sequence- to more closely examine the why's and how's "structured" science becomes gospel and dictates the industry.

In this state now we have laws and recent regulations that standing alone, force recognition that private industry concerns dictate the measures employed by practitioners in the field - what chemical label and trademark is promoted for use as oppossed to exact structurally similar formulas manufactured by other companies. Yet with this law, no one questions the obvious - that less expensive and proven less host-toxic formulations are available but with criminal penalties enforced by the state, options are none - people are either afraid to rock the boat or are incapable of thinking more precisely. I personally enjoy to err on the side of disobedience, inspired of course by clearly thinking first - what we advocate is to do neither the recommended treatments or break the law. We advocate saving the tree and practice accordingly.

Pathology is limited to published and practiced protocols, themselves limited to technology available. Limitations include restrictions in microscopy - who has the most precise equipment and who pays for it. Curiousity extends beyond that however, electron capabilities are new and expensive and the lab worker who compares tissue with published images deduces the first observation with comparison, end of diagnosis, send off the report. Years of this accepted prognosis yet the trees are still dying, the pathogen evades developed treatments, no one can explain the mutational responses to such and the disease becomes epidemic. Duh. At such times it's time to go deeper, look closer, trash the protocols and question the science, no matter how big a check they write and who's going to pay for the inquiry - inquisitive research should not be for sale to the highest bidder nor should the results be pre-designed to support a failing chemical sales' quarterly report. It's time to roll-up the sleeves and get dirty, inspired by the simple fact that what's being done isn't working well enough, damn the career ladder and butt kissing and promises for publication. People in the labs need to think for themselves, not for their bosses.
Isreal and it's response to terror - tell me, is it working? The ones who question this policy are called names or voted out, what harm could come of examination of root cause? What may it expose or better yet, is it harmful to actually rectify the future deaths or has it become "industry" to continue killing? I look at this situation as being very parallel to our disease work here both in plant science and human health. Commerce has indeed become more important an issue than reality in our eyes. Change the world to suit economy instead of economy to suit the world. Alamo injections instead of stimulation of aquired immune response. If alternative treatments just simply suggest reactions in the field over time, then why the hell not study them further? Is that not the job of academics...to be compelled to look further or have they become stagnant and swear by science established some time back, immune to innovation and discovery?

Paychecks make decisions here. How can you get a clandestine operative to kill another human? By giving him a check. I know this process intimately, trust me. What inspires me in oak wilt is twofold - one, the trees are dying at unprecedented rates, two, the labs are getting massive amounts of funds, all from private industry, specific industries and less than desirable abtracts are not being published. This is bad science, I don't care how revered the institution is or how many intitials follow the researcher's name.

More to come Guy, I just woke up here.

Reply to post by Reed, on December 09, 2001 at 08:28:30:

Reed, you hit several nails on the head!
Extension agents here readily advise which chemicals to use, but act skeptical about other treatments. Direct parallel with medical doctors.
See ASCA's Standard of Professional Practice 4.1.B.ii:
"Members may employ methodologies which are controversial, experimental or not generally accepted...the use of "cutting edge" methodologies may provide value to Clients(and Trees!)...and is necessary for the advancement and evolution of Arboricultural Consulting"
The hard part is to justify alternatives to a client who has heard a method is contrary to established practice, or a university associate bound to empiricism. (A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.) We don't have oak wilt in NC so I can't share any results on treating it.

One way to justify alternatives is to have a body of data to refer to--records of treatments and results, pictures before and after, witness by clients, etc. It's a chore to do this kind of research unpaid but what better way to broaden our options and work toward "advancement and evolution?"

Reply to post by Guy Meilleur, on December 09, 2001 at 11:32:08:

To follow the rules means the earth is still flat, Adam and Eve died 20,000 years ago, and you'll burn in Hell if you vote democratic.

Unfortunately, rules establish and obdience reins. Centralizing an industry with it's bylaws and standards (like Securities and Exchange Commission) force standard practices and repercussions if membership dares to deviate. Thanks for posting the ASCA subsection rule on alternatives, maybe people might notice it's specific wording and attempt some deviation to the norms. I hope so anyway.

Reed

Reply to post by Reed, on December 09, 2001 at 23:50:34:

Good discussion folks,

When in class or giving a talk, I like to start out by saying that what I will tell them is what I have experiened or read on a subject. It may be right for the trees I have experience with or it may be untested by myself. It is up to my students to try the idea out, in secret if need be to determine if on the tree they are concerned about, it works or not. At the end of this they have resolved any doubts and decided that old Underwood either knows something or doesn't know diddly squat. Either way they learned.

Trees will fool us in so many ways when we look for a specific response to our actions, that I seriously doubt that any reasearcher has tested their technique or product on all the species even in the US or all of the varieties thereof. Without this type of very conclusive data, we must say that we noticed these results on this species and variety, in this location, under these climatic conditions, for this period of time, but events may have changed just before or soon after that I haven't heard about. Therefore, if you can not find a similar example in your area, give it a try and see for yourself.

The students who do well in school and in life afterwards, are not the ones who know the answers, they are the ones who know the questions and how to ask them.

In my Intro to Forestry Class, I use a lot of videos. One think I like to point out is who made the video and get the students to recognize the "slant" of each. We see films from industry, USFS, WWF, Boulder Coalition to Save the Rain Forests, and from researchers. Each has an answer, except the one from the researchers. This one the students pick out quickly since it is so wishy-washy that they do not even get a good opinion on anything. All that is determined after a half-hour presentation on ozone and acid rain is that more research is needed.

The whiz kids of the early computer age did not wait for old researchers to tell them how to make games. The old folks knew it wouldn't work, but no one had told the kids that yet, so they did it. As ASCA says, be willing to try things, if even on a small scale and be willing also to share your findings with colleagues. This is the only way we learn the useful on the job info we need to service our customers and their trees.

My thoughts for the day. Bob U.

Reply to post by Bob Underwood, on December 10, 2001 at 08:35:05:

Two messages stand out in Bob's note:
1. Recognize the slant of the information by learning the bias of the information-giver!
Perfect Objectivity is the goal, but no one can reach it, due to experience and background.
Some don't come close because they only pay attention to the side of their bread the butter's on.
2. Be Willing to try things and share your findings! Who else tries to disinfect decayed wounds in trees? When/How/Where does it work/not work?
My feeble attempts are described in the Insect and Disease topic. Share your findings--use an alias if you have to.

Reply to post by Guy Meilleur, on December 10, 2001 at 08:58:37:

Okay, sounds real good.

It's refreshing to me (in these times of regimented behavioral responses) to know about people asking questions, even more so when a teacher's teaching inspires questions (instead of forcing "facts"). Thanks for putting-up with the tribulations and trials of the profession Bob, and thank you Guy, for trying to itch the sensation of curiosity. In my travels, you guys are the exception, not the rule.

I don't think it's necessary to adopt an alias for posting questions or observations, we shouldn't feel threatened by being inquisitive, it's a natural trait and it's quickly dying out. Innovation can and should be rewarded, like Guy said, it's "evolution" in it's purist form. Old Germans who taught me how to climb did so with ancient technique and equipment, they would sneer at the aluminum descenders and complicated knots being marketed today, but hey, I try new things all the time. Like chain saws instead of bow saws, much of the gear is developed by practitioners, not engineers.

I've got to run and fix some storm damage this morning, but feel inspired to post a bit on rotting organisms - opportunistic invaders secondary to initial pathogenic threats and how it's been affecting proper diagnostics here, leading to incorrect treatments. Thank you guys again, for at least being "open".

Reed

Reply to post by Bob Underwood, on December 10, 2001 at 08:35:05:

I'm glad to see the ASCA SPP being used as a reference and perhaps an inspiration. There are a couple of points to be stressed.

First SPP was written to guide consulting rather than contracting practice. This particular provision would apply principally to expert testimony where "cutting edge" has a particular meaning in various rules of evidence and civil procedure. It would apply secondarily to areas of investigation like hazard or risk assessment where there is liability for both client and consultant. It would also apply to PHC recommendations. But all of these relate to ethical practice.

The same considerations and goals can bee applied to contracting.

But in neither case does this provision allow in an ethical sense or override in a legal sense binding laws or regulations. Biased or not, objective or not, the law is the law. So you follow the law unless you are into civil disobedience.

The other key thing is that in ASCA practice any departure from "standard" methodology or application of cutting edge methodolgy MUST be defensib;e and explainable by the practitioner and the practioner must be knowledgable and experenced (to the extent possible with something new) or be supervised by someone who is. As Guy points out that does not mean mindlessly doing what you think some authority said but you can't quite recall where you read it or who said it.

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on December 10, 2001 at 08:58:37:

Scott, since the SPP govern PHC recommendations, they do seem to affect contracting. (Staying abreast of new techniques is easier to do if you actually practice them, which would seem to give an advantage to hybrids over "pure" consultants, but that's not relevant here.) Also, I only have the Jan '96 draft I got at the Academy; if it's changed a lot since I should know before I misquote. Yes the ASCA SPP are an inspiration, one more light shining on the murky path of Trying to Do Things Right.

Re bias and objectivity, that referred not to law but to published science and recommendations based thereon. Those of course need to be checked for applicability before being blindly followed, as you said.
Re civil disobedience, I had a state wildlife guy tell me I shouldn't build raptor nests in trees near deforested areas because of some code. I invited him to cite me. More to the present point, chemical sales are more tightly controlled than ever due to terrorism. Laws regulating Certified Pesticide Applicators are being enforced more, so I'll need to see if wound treatments I use fall under that requirement. If so, I'll stop or retake the darn test.
As laws get closer to dictating what not to do to trees, more than ever we need to share information that justifies alternative techniques.

No one's throwing money at our land-grant university to research shade tree maintenance. But if enough documentation from enough practitioners builds up to get funding from a private research trust, some techniques may get the scientific backing they merit.
Eagerly waiting to hear of Reed's and others' experience with decay treatment, and willing to share information with those who employ other methodologies that are not justified by published research.

Reply to post by Guy Meilleur, on December 10, 2001 at 17:39:31:

I think the changes from the '96 draft were minor. There were a few minor revisions last year. You can get a current version from ASCA, the web site is linked on this site.

A lot of the provision could apply to contracting, but your duties might vary by agreement or custom.

I think it was Reed's point that, at least in TX for the problem he's dealing with, the published recommendations have become law, biases and all. More generally the labels are the law as they govern application. At one time in some states you could vary from label based on university or government recommendations.... say a material was labeled for a pest but not a host or timing but a published recommendation makes the connection. I don't know if that is still the case.

Reply to post by Scott, on December 10, 2001 at 19:06:35:

I believe Scott's refering to use exemptions similar ro California's temporary suspension of federal regs or restrictions on Malathion or other limited use pesticides in times of epidemic or other anomolies. Here it's a new ball game insofar as ammending label restrictions for a compound not federally registered for this specific use but intrastate, is not only recommended for use - it's the only label allowed to be used for intravascular injection into oaks confirmed infected by wilt. What becomes suspicious is the fact that more than fifty formulations are marketed under dozens of trade names and several manufacturers formulate these compounds - yet application by severe penalty is enforced if use are any one of the forumlas not affixed with the ALAMO trade name. Many operators suspect political blackmail as most of our state employees involved in the wilt eradication program here have since left to work for this label's paycheck (re: Rainbow Tree Care, Inc.) In addition, pricing reflects preference in addition to observed success rates, many of which show marked less toxicity to the vascular cells than the "pushed" formulation.
Also suspiciously absent in the program supporting only the 'ALAMO" injections are the toxicity data that emplaces the formula in the class 4 range of carcingenic compounds - FIFRA details mandatory warnings and restrictions for all use irregardless of seperate state exemptions and in Texas that's being ignored and operators are in dangerous contact without informed consent, not to mention homeowners who by federal law are completely restricted from purchase and/or use but here enjoy complete freedom from those regulations. Again, absence of informed consent and this cancer surviver finds it necessary to ring the alarm on these practices.
If ALAMO simply worked as suggested, or if similar compounds were allowed for option of use, it would be a whole different ball game. Rather, it's become evident that the underwriter of ALL the published supportive data originating at Texas A&M Plant Pathology Lab is behind the recent legislation promoting the use of a fungistatic control for an epidemic calling for entirely different and more adaquate controls.
What rings significant in this debacle are the similar programs advocated in other areas for disease prevention or therapeutic measures - chemical industries dictate the programs and even questions about alternatives are being silenced before they can be asked by supplementing current control programs with sharp-toothed state laws enforced with tenacity.
I refer to the case of Monsanto vs. area seed producers who unwillingly allowed hybrid varieties to cross-pollinate with their innocent "unmodified" corn. Lawsuits appear to set policy, not rightousness or common sense.