UKTC Archive

Re: Monetary Value of Minor Damage to Trees

Subject: Re: Monetary Value of Minor Damage to Trees
From: Wayne Tyson
Date: Jul 13 2019 22:24:01
I believe that all cuts (wounds) larger than, say(?), an inch (depending
upon the circumstances), should be immediately given a coat of orange
shellac (OS) or approved equal/superior, followed by bridge grafting as
soon as possible. The OS can be removed as the bridges are inserted and
flattened (sapwood to sapwood and cambium to cambium) as soon as possible.
Some chiseling might be required, and some chiseling of bark on the lower
side of the wound may require one or more "V" cuts to drain the cavity. A
rubber strip that will soon disintegrate should be wrapped around the
treatment site (leaving spaces for air circulation) and the tree or branch
to ensure complete contact of all living cells (dead cells can do more
damage than good). The goal should be to achieve complete mending in one
season. OS might need to be reapplied to some of the small places between
chiseled areas between the bridges.

If other means can be found that are superior, they could, of course, be
used, and I hope this esteemed collective will educate me accordingly. No
doubt better practices have been discovered since this "ancient" technique
was commonly used, and I look forward to receiving information on same, as
well as links to the disciplined research that established their
superiority.

The work is not done until *all* necessary steps are taken to restore tree
integrity. More money in your pocket, and the client (not to mention the
public) gets far *more* than her (or his) money's worth than the low
bidders who ignore such steps. Need I mention that the tree patient also is
far better off?

*Here in the USA* there are two kinds of professional: One puts the buck
($) first, and the other puts *the work* first. There is a term for the
former, but we won't mention that here. It is imperative that "we" live up
to our highest standards. Practitioners who don't do professional (in the
latter sense) work should be held liable for the consequences in cases of
induced failures caused intentionally or through indifference or greed (to
under-bid the job--specifications writers please note).

I hope that this statement does not apply to any of this esteemed
collective, who I can tell from their posts that they are far more
knowledgeable and professional that just every yahoo who runs a chain saw
that pop up/off in this country. If there are respectable chain-saw owners
or operators who are learning more and more about trees and their
management, I hope they will follow the M. Mead dictum that continues to
serve me well: "The most important thing to know is what you don't know."
What I fear the most is the "expert" who knows everything.

Wayne

On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 12:08 PM Pedro Calaza Martínez <calaza@xxxxx.es>
wrote:

        Dear Ivan, In Spain we use “Norma Granada” as a method to
calculate the value of trees (obligatory in Madrid, Barcelona, A Coruña and
more cities…). This method offers a section to calculate partial damage
(for example in trunk or roots). If the damage is over a determined % of
total damage, the value is total. Now We are working in a new version (the
last one is 2006) and we are including more services and disservices.
        Other option could be to calculate the value before and after the
damage and the difference between them is the lost value. Best wishes.
Pedro.




El 13 jul 2019, a las 18:02, Ivan Button, Crown Consultants <
ivan@xxxxxxxxxxx.co.uk> escribió:

Can anyone point me towards any precedent whereby a diminution in value
has been ascribed to trees that have been damaged but not written off?
Damage such as bark wounds and broken branches caused by a neighbours
Bobcat for example.

Or does anyone have any suggestions as to how a diminution in value
might be ascribed to a mature tree with a small bark wound that is likely
to heal in 5 years or so (for example), or a larger one that might heal
over in 10 or 20 years but not without some decay setting in, or to a
branch that should be removed as a consequence of the damage.

I know that CAVAT, Hellliwell and itrees can be used to calculate the
value of a tree. I also know that a value can be attributed to the work
necessary to replace a tree or to prune out damaged branches. But what
about damage to part of a tree; damage that does not really require
additional maintenance costs; damage that might not even shorten the life
expectancy; but damage that upsets the aggrieved owner of the tree
none-the-less.

How might a court value such damage?

Any suggestions and pointers will be greatly appreciated.

Ivan



--
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/