UKTC Archive

Re: Vancouver storm

Subject: Re: Vancouver storm
From: Wayne Tyson
Date: Nov 18 2021 05:43:16
Denial is a strong emotion. A product of self-righteousness.

WT

On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 7:34 PM Russ Carlson <thearborist@xxxx.com> wrote:

[Text converted from HTML]
We humans can't seem to comprehend the scope of the climate change
problem, in part because storms like this hit elsewhere and seem
isolated. We can't comprehend the scope of the COVID problem even though
it is at a global scale and equally as bad at the local scale. One
problem seems too remote, the other seems too huge. We can't even agree
on what the problems are, what the causes are, and what the solutions
might be, so let's just deny it, and do nothing at all. Yeah, that'll
work...


---
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 11/17/21 12:28 PM, Julian Dunster wrote:

  It has been an interesting few days in BC. From record breaking
  temperatures in the summer to record breaking rainfall. The challenge
  now is how to get so many major roads cleared and rebuilt. It may be
  a while, so supply chain disruptions will continue. I believe the
  high point, as it were, was 1.88 m of rain in under 2 days on
  Vancouver Island. On the Malahat highway the runoff was channeled
  down the road so not surprisingly it failed. Two weeks of repairs
  scheduled, road closed all night, 3-4 hour delays for anyone moving
  up or down hill. The storm also weeded out a few trees here and
  there.

  Apparently the climate change models suggest it will get worse and
  more common. Oh joy. I doubt any politician can do much about it at
  all, so blaming the incumbent probably is irrelevant. And, since
  climate change is a cumulative impact, reversal requires cumulative
  change and adaptation, so decades of reversal not an overnight
  solution. Since humans are one of the most stupid animals on the
  planet I doubt we will see rapid change that will satisfy many or
  that will make really big differences. So, the ability to rapidly
  adapt will become a more important function now.

  Nice and sunny today albeit a tad cold due to overnight frost :)

  On Behalf of Dunster and Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd.


  Dr. Julian A Dunster R.P.F., R.P.P.., M.C.I.P., ISA Certified
  Arborist,
  ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist # 378,
  ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
  Honourary Life Member ISA + PNWISA

  North American distributor for Rinntech
  www.dunster.ca
  www.treelaw.info
  www.rinntech.info

  On Wed/11/17/2021 5:44 AM, 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 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