UKTC Archive

Re: Vancouver storm

Subject: Re: Vancouver storm
From: Jerry Ross
Date: Nov 17 2021 14:06:17
What can one say? Whatever, it would be inadequate.

But perhaps what one shouldn't say are what that nice Justin Trudeau said to a bunch of oil & gas executives, that ‘no country would find 173 billion barrels of oil in the ground and just leave them there.’




On 17/11/2021 13:44, Michael Richardson wrote:
For those that do not know the west coast of Canada has had the largest
downpour of rain ever known to the area.  Over 2 m of rain fell in a day.

Highway, roads, railroads, infrastructure etc., have been washed away,
homes and buildings flooded, and landslides have trapped people on highways
etc.  Vancouver has been cut off from the rest of Canada and the main
trucking routes and the rail lines from the port are gone.  People are
being rescued by boat, helicopter and others wading through water.

I know that Julian Dunster is fine but lives have been lost and homes and
livelihoods destroyed.

M

Michael Richardson B.Sc.F., BCMA
Ontario MTCU Qualified Arborist
Richardson Tree Care
Richardsontreecare.ca
613-475-2877
800-769-9183

   <http://www.richardsontreecare.ca/images/Tree_Doc_logo_email.png>



On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 2:59 AM Jim Quaife<jq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.co.uk>
wrote:

A long way from you Michael but this type of event is no longer a rarity.
For those with resources it is bad enough, but for those who are
struggling anyway it is a disaster.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From:uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info  [mailto:
uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info] On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
Sent: 15 November 2021 23:01
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: Re: Appraisal of Trees for Cultural Values

An amazing statement as appraisal of trees has been occurring for 6 decades
in NOrth America and there are methodologies developed in multiple
countries.

Wayne, for once why don't you do some reading before telling all arborists
they are drawing conclusions on little or no objective evidence.


Michael Richardson B.Sc.F., BCMA
Ontario MTCU Qualified Arborist
Richardson Tree Care
Richardsontreecare.ca
613-475-2877
800-769-9183

   <http://www.richardsontreecare.ca/images/Tree_Doc_logo_email.png>



On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 3:41 PM Wayne Tyson<wt750mv@xxxxxx.com>  wrote:

A careful rereading of what I said ( I quite agree that it is the job of
   the tree professional to make a determination of relevant facts, and
leave
   it to those involved to decide about the monetary value. The same is
true
   in the realm of tree condition assessment.) should establish that I was
making no such point. That is, the tree professional who strays into the
swamps of placing a monetary value upon a tree is drawing a conclusion
based on little or no objective evidence is speculating as is one who is
declaring a tree's condition to be "safe."

WT

On Sun, Nov 14, 2021 at 10:06 PM Russ Carlson<thearborist@xxxx.com>
wrote:
[Text converted from HTML]
No, Wayne, tree valuation and tree condition are not the same, and the
assessments are not much alike beyond that they are both subjective
(but
not arbitrary, when done properly).

Valuation or appraisal is a process of approximating a monetary value
for
some object (or concept) that provides benefits of some sort to the
owner/user. In cases of manufactured or created objects, such as
buildings, machines, artwork, and even businesses. We have various
methods of estimating that value, the purpose being to reduce those
sets
of values to a common monetary unit. How many loaves of bread is that
well-driven luxury car worth?

Dealing with tree condition is a quite different situation. It is an
analysis of physical factors, guided by the science we know of how
trees
grow, live, die, and decay. While we don't know everything as well as
we
would like, our current knowledge is sufficient for the task, albeit
far
from perfect at this stage.

Both processes are fact based, but the similarities diverge after that.
One attempts to estimate the worth of an object to people who use or
enjoy intangible benefits, the other assess an overall condition based
on
physical condition that can be measured directly. As arborists, we can
discover the factors that affect tree structural stability and risk,
but
we cannot do more than opine on the worth of objects to others with
vested interest in those objects.


---
Russ Carlson, RCA, BCMA
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #354
ISA Board Certified Master Arborist PD-0008B
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualification

Tree Tech Consulting
114 Grand Canyon Court
Bear, DE 19701
302.832.1911 phone
thearborist@xxxx.com
www.tree-tech.com

Note: The information contained in this email and any attachments is
confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the
use of the individuals(s) named in this email. If you are not the
intended recipient, you must not read, use, or disseminate the
information contained herein or in any attachments. If you are not the
intended recipient, please delete this email and all attachments now,
and
notify the sender. Thank you.




On 11/14/21 11:36 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote:

   Good elucidation, Russ, especially in considering the fact that
elucidation
   ain't really feasible; one is confounded by the great herds of "buts"
that
   stampede over any reasoned attempt. This, as you imply, ends up
being a
lot
   of hocus pocus rather than substance. I quite agree that it is the
job
of
   the tree professional to make a determination of relevant facts, and
leave
   it to those involved to decide about the monetary value. The same is
true
   in the realm of tree condition assessment.

   WT

   On Sun, Nov 14, 2021 at 1:43 PM Russ Carlson<thearborist@xxxx.com>
  wrote:


     [Text converted from HTML]
     Hi, Michael.

     I'll offer my thoughts, but they may not apply to what you are
looking
     for, being as you asked on UKTC.

     I've done a few appraisals dealing with historical and cultural
     significance, but these were under the CTLA methodologies. As I see
it,
     it doesn't matter which system you choose, the problems are
similar.
We
     are trying to assign a rather arbitrary monetary amount to a living
     organism. I say arbitrary because because there are few, if any,
actual
     standards that can consistently and reasonably make the connection
     between the benefits received and some amount of money. How much
is a
     canine lifetime companion worth? How much is a child worth? A
father
or
     mother? We are dealing with things that cannot be directly bought
or
     sold, although with trees we are closer to that and often use a
     comparison method as representative.

     Here's the problem when using any cost measure of valuation: We can
start
     with an estimate of replacement/restoration cost, however that
might
be
     determined. Usually that will give us a maximum for the cost. We
then
     depreciate that amount for known deficiencies, detriments,
impairments,
     etc. How that depreciation is applied is a matter of method and
protocol,
     whether as direct monetary amounts (reduce 'value' by £$xx for a
weak
     crotch, £$yy for trunk cavity....), or as percentages (as in CTLA)
or
     some other technique. So we start with a maximum cost amount
     (representing 100%), then depreciate to reduce that amount to
account
for
     known deficiencies.

     But here's the problem: None of this accounts for the intangible
benefits
     that people derive in some cases. These are the things like
historic
and
     cultural desirability, but can also include the more personal
things
     (remember poor Fido from above– your pets holds no special value to
me,
     but a whole lot to you). While known deficiencies can be reduced by
some
     amount from 100% to 0% (whether you calculate as the amount to
reduce
by
     or the residual after depreciation), the amount of these intangible
     benefits are open-ended. We don't subtract from the maximum amount,
we
     add to it to account for the special benefits and attributes.
Instead
of
     working within a finite set of boundaries (0 to 100%), we are now
dealing
     with a range that has no limit. And the amounts are entirely
subjective.*

     So the quandary is there: how much is enough? How much is too much?
And
     is it the place of the all-knowing arborist to make that decision?
(I
say
     it is not.) In cases of this type, I do what research I can, but
posit
     the final decision back to the decider/trier of fact for that final
     amount. In several such cases, I have suggested some amount that
seems
     reasonable (to me) based on similar cases that have settled or been
     decided. Often I represent it as a multiplier of the appraised
value
I
     present. US state laws often allow double or treble damages in tort
     cases, so that might be an option. Other cases might use different
     measures. But ALWAYS present this as an additional amount to be
added
or
     multiplied, not as part of the appraised amount. And make it clear
that
     you do not necessarily endorse it, that it is only a suggestion.

     * The only case where the additive amounts might not be subjective
is
if
     you can find some comparative situation. And that might have been
     entirely subjective in itself.


     ---
     Russ Carlson, RCA, BCMA
     ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #354
     ISA Board Certified Master Arborist PD-0008B
     ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualification

     Tree Tech Consulting
     114 Grand Canyon Court
     Bear, DE 19701
     302.832.1911 phonethearborist@xxxx.com         www.tree-tech.com
     Note: The information contained in this email and any attachments
is
     confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for
the
     use of the individuals(s) named in this email. If you are not the
     intended recipient, you must not read, use, or disseminate the
     information contained herein or in any attachments. If you are not
the
     intended recipient, please delete this email and all attachments
now,
and
     notify the sender. Thank you.




     On 11/14/21 1:37 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:

       I am wondering if anybody has experience or references for
appraising
     trees
       that have a cultural significance.

       I know of increasing the value within the CAVAT system but this
does
not
       provide me with the detail of how and why to increase the value.

       Any help is appreciated.

       M




       Michael Richardson B.Sc.F., BCMA
       Ontario MTCU Qualified Arborist
       Richardson Tree Care
       Richardsontreecare.ca
       613-475-2877
       800-769-9183

               < 
http://www.richardsontreecare.ca/images/Tree_Doc_logo_email.png>




     --
     The UK Tree Care mailing list
     To unsubscribe send     mailto:
uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
     The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural
consultancy
and
     Stockholm Tree Pitshttps://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk






--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe sendmailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy
and
Stockholm Tree Pits
https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk



--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe sendmailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy and
Stockholm Tree Pits
https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk



--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe sendmailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy and
Stockholm Tree Pits
https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk



--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe sendmailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy and
Stockholm Tree Pits
https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk






--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC forum is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy and
Stockholm Tree Pits
https://www.stockholmtreepits.co.uk