UKTC Archive

Re: Vancouver storm

Subject: Re: Vancouver storm
From: Michael Richardson
Date: Nov 17 2021 14:06:33
I believe that there were over two meters in some areas.

The Fraser valley and through to Penticton has been really hard hit.  THis
is what is called the lower mainland through to the interior.

It looks like a hurricane has hit some of the areas the devastation is so
great.

A view on a news channel will shock you and make you realize how vulnerable
humans are to the weather.

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 9:01 AM elsteadbysea@xxxxxxxxxxx.com <
uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info> wrote:

A bit worrying but 2 m in a day, is that really possible 83 millimetres an
hour?
I have a friend in the Rockies who I am trying to contact.

Phillip

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
<uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
Sent: 17 November 2021 13:44
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: Re: Vancouver storm

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 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 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 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




--
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




--
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



--
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




--
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




--
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




-- 
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