Arborist for hire/prositution

[evo]

A good friend of mine coined the phrase "biositute" when ranting about corruption and selling out of morals or using credentials to gain leverage.
I'm seeing this more and more in a general sense but with Certified arbs and even TRAQ its getting worse. Today I got a call for a 'third' opinion on some 'Hazardous' trees that 'should' be removed. I personally don't hold the TRAQ card, but the other two do, and are both certified.
I took a peek at the trees, and failure is likely. However, the customer was very surprised when I gave him my speech on the 'arborists' role in assessment.. Some verbiage along the lines of "our role and job is to inform you of likely hood of failure size of part, targets which could be impacted and provide/discuss mitigation options. Your role is to determine your personal 'risk' tolerance, and threshold of consequences". What we are not suppose to do is tell you what todo. Dude was very surprised to hear that! With all the trees in question, none had fixed targets of significant value (a chicken coupe/fence). Both companies gave prices do also do the removal work, but both conflicted on number and which trees to remove.
My 'quote' quickly turned into a consultation and review, and did not 'quote' the job other than provide a day rate price, and ball park time idea based on scope of work.
This link is a hot topic in my home state, and has been a concern of mine in California for the past few years. Around here on the island I'd be hard pressed to find a 'old growth' tree that DOSENT have fire scars or charred bark. Post fire mitigation seems to have opened the flood gates of 'salvage' logging of trees which may be of little to no risk, or simply fire adapted species doing what fire adapted species do..

Arborists say ODOT post-fires tree cutting is excessive, rushed

A growing number of people are sounding alarms over excessive tree-cutting as the state removes hazard trees damaged by last year's wildfires. Arborists who have worked on the project say the work is being mismanaged and needs to stop.

www.opb.org

Where dose those with higher standards turn to when the credentialized become unscrupulous.

 

[chiselbit]

This is similar to what our power company is doing here in California. After they got sued for damages caused by fires their wires caused they have gone on a tree eradication rampage, removing large healthy trees that are within striking distance of their power lines. Decimating entire neighborhoods. Between them and the insurance companies that are insisting most or all trees on properties must have 10’ of canopy clearance between each tree, which is in my opinion a pointless act of vandalism because if the fire is in the canopy then it’s certainly not going to be slowed down by a 10’ gap between trees. But they ( ins co’s) are cancelling policies of homeowners don’t comply so we end up with properties that are basically clearcuts. It seems to me there will always be some risk involved with living amongst trees and to just cut everything is an an extreme overreaction.

 

[ConeCollector]

I have seen a number of situation recently and experienced a few myself where I’ve been asked to implement a policy that does not conform to the ISA or ASCA philosophy of tree assessment. There is a large light blue color utility provider in northern ca that has had trouble recently with there equipment starting catastrophic fire, they want certified Arborist and TRAQ BUT they use their own tree assessment model that is way different than the ISA. So it appears to me they want the professional credibility of certifications but not all the ethics junk that come along. Because of the ad hock nature of our industry and low pay it must be pretty easy for companies and agencies to find folks willing to bend their professional credibility for a stable paycheck.

 

[owScott]

I have seen a number of situation recently and experienced a few myself where I’ve been asked to implement a policy that does not conform to the ISA or ASCA philosophy of tree assessment. There is a large light blue color utility provider in northern ca that has had trouble recently with there equipment starting catastrophic fire, they want certified Arborist and TRAQ BUT they use their own tree assessment model that is way different than the ISA. So it appears to me they want the professional credibility of certifications but not all the ethics junk that come along. Because of the ad hock nature of our industry and low pay it must be pretty easy for companies and agencies to find folks willing to bend their professional credibility for a stable paycheck.

This is right on the money. I went to the paradise fire right after to do tree risk assessment. After a conversation with the top PG&E person on the site it became clear they werent interested in doing legit tree risk assessments. They just wanted certified arborist with TRAQ to just sign off on what they were doing. They were doing knee jerk removals of lots of trees that were not risky. In my view it was to appear to being doing something. Example, their criteria for removal was any tree with the potenial to hit the wire s needs removal. I pointed out that the average Pondo in this area was 150ft. So that would require cutting a strip through the forest 300 ft wide? They were accomplishing nothing but the appearance of doing something productive. 2 weeks in I walked. This is just my opinion and experience and dont know the bigger picture. I have a sucessful business here at home and lost money to go consult on the fire. I did it out of interest and the desire to further my consulting and maybe make some good contacts. It left me with a bad taste.

 

[Njdelaney]

Less continuous canopy = drier hotter soil and ground temperature = more fire risk. We're eating ourselves alive for a greasy buck. Stupid, short-sighted bullshit.

 

[Stumpsprouts]

We're eating ourselves alive for a greasy buck.

And eating the world alive.

 

[rico]

Less continuous canopy = drier hotter soil and ground temperature = more fire risk. We're eating ourselves alive for a greasy buck. Stupid, short-sighted bullshit.

I have spent much of the last year working in the CZU Complex, and the powers that be have gone from one extreme to another... Decades and decades of piss poor non existent forest management, which caused massive fuel loads, is now being followed by massive over cutting. I was recently in an area which burned very badly, but despite this a large majority of Redwoods are on the rebound (fuckers are tough to kill). Instead of letting nature run its coarse and giving our Redwoods time to come back it seems that someone is now signing off on what are essentially clearcuts...An unmentionable outfit is gonna pull 25,000,000 board feet out of one a little slice if gods country, while taking what looks to be well in excess of 80% of the canopy. Fucking insult to injury.

 

[owScott]

A good friend of mine coined the phrase "biositute" when ranting about corruption and selling out of morals or using credentials to gain leverage.
I'm seeing this more and more in a general sense but with Certified arbs and even TRAQ its getting worse. Today I got a call for a 'third' opinion on some 'Hazardous' trees that 'should' be removed. I personally don't hold the TRAQ card, but the other two do, and are both certified.
I took a peek at the trees, and failure is likely. However, the customer was very surprised when I gave him my speech on the 'arborists' role in assessment.. Some verbiage along the lines of "our role and job is to inform you of likely hood of failure size of part, targets which could be impacted and provide/discuss mitigation options. Your role is to determine your personal 'risk' tolerance, and threshold of consequences". What we are not suppose to do is tell you what todo. Dude was very surprised to hear that! With all the trees in question, none had fixed targets of significant value (a chicken coupe/fence). Both companies gave prices do also do the removal work, but both conflicted on number and which trees to remove.
My 'quote' quickly turned into a consultation and review, and did not 'quote' the job other than provide a day rate price, and ball park time idea based on scope of work.
This link is a hot topic in my home state, and has been a concern of mine in California for the past few years. Around here on the island I'd be hard pressed to find a 'old growth' tree that DOSENT have fire scars or charred bark. Post fire mitigation seems to have opened the flood gates of 'salvage' logging of trees which may be of little to no risk, or simply fire adapted species doing what fire adapted species do..

Arborists say ODOT post-fires tree cutting is excessive, rushed

A growing number of people are sounding alarms over excessive tree-cutting as the state removes hazard trees damaged by last year's wildfires. Arborists who have worked on the project say the work is being mismanaged and needs to stop.

www.opb.org

Where dose those with higher standards turn to when the credentialized become unscrupulous.

This is always a sticky situation. When I do a tree risk assessmnet most times the customer also wants a proposal to do the appropriate work. I tell them its a conflict of interest and they should have someone else bid on the work. However sometimes they insist. I then will give a price and reinterate the need for other bids. I feel this is a middle road. As far as people with credentials giving opinions that benefit them selling work I agree thats unscrupulous. I especially see alot of unnecesary PHC getting over sold.

 

[Reach]

This is always a sticky situation. When I do a tree risk assessmnet most times the customer also wants a proposal to do the appropriate work. I tell them its a conflict of interest and they should have someone else bid on the work. However sometimes they insist. I then will give a price and reinterate the need for other bids. I feel this is a middle road. As far as people with credentials giving opinions that benefit them selling work I agree thats unscrupulous. I especially see alot of unnecesary PHC getting over sold.

It’s a hard call on what to do when you’re called for an assessment. My policy is to write an assessment with recommendations and include a quote. However, if the call is questionable, I will recommend giving a call to a top notch consulting arborist I know, who will give a completely unbiased opinion and will not quote doing the work, as he only consults.

 

[evo]

This is always a sticky situation. When I do a tree risk assessmnet most times the customer also wants a proposal to do the appropriate work. I tell them its a conflict of interest and they should have someone else bid on the work. However sometimes they insist. I then will give a price and reinterate the need for other bids. I feel this is a middle road. As far as people with credentials giving opinions that benefit them selling work I agree thats unscrupulous. I especially see alot of unnecesary PHC getting over sold.

I essentially do the same. I don't hold a TRAQ card, even though I easily could if I choose to... I specifically state this with the names of others locally who hold this, and even state which one(s) I have the highest opinion of. If they still want me, I then state I view the assessment/consult as it's own job, explain conflict of interest, and refuse to quote the work until they digest the info for a week. I ask them to consider the options, let me know which direction they are leaning and provide them with referrals based on their goals. Then I reiterate conflict of interest, and ask them to get a second opinion and if then they want me to give a quote I'd be happy to.

This feels the cleanest to me, but I'm amazed at how willingly vulnerable people choose to be. Either stating they dont care and just want a company to tell them what the need done, and then do the work. Or just blind trust...

 

[evo]

I have seen a number of situation recently and experienced a few myself where I’ve been asked to implement a policy that does not conform to the ISA or ASCA philosophy of tree assessment. There is a large light blue color utility provider in northern ca that has had trouble recently with there equipment starting catastrophic fire, they want certified Arborist and TRAQ BUT they use their own tree assessment model that is way different than the ISA. So it appears to me they want the professional credibility of certifications but not all the ethics junk that come along. Because of the ad hock nature of our industry and low pay it must be pretty easy for companies and agencies to find folks willing to bend their professional credibility for a stable paycheck.

Dont get me wrong, I don't have the highest opinion of the ISA's criteria. I just walked from a job that an assessment was made on using the TRAQ form. All trees were well within two different critical area jurisdictions. The consulting arborist blanketed that all trees could be crown raised by about 10 limbs and all understory could be "rejuvenated" by hedging down to 3-4'. 2 of the trees are not likely to make it though the summer. One douglas fir with a old growth form/octopus limbs 10" plus in diameter in the lower crown where crown raising by 10 limbs would take 30-40% of the live crown mass and only expose the view to the willow behind it... Essentially they used the track form, and then wrote an addendum after reading the counties code to get the property owner the maximum view desired.
Site was new construction. From the shoreline there is a 200-250' vertical glacial till bluff, land slightly tilts downwards into a perennial wetland (where most of the trees are) house site is about 150' from the bluff edge.
Shore line management act is 200' from high tide overseen by wetlands, bluff is overseen by a different department 'steep slopes', wetland has a buffer of 10-100' depending on classification.
Code states 25% pruning is allowed as recommended by an arborist, anything declared 'hazardous' for any reason can be removed without a permit. The commonly used loophole is 'any tree growing on a steep slope is hazardous and destabilizes the slope due to the tree rocking in the wind and fracturing the soil'. University Geologist PHD, who is in bed with real-estate. Of course topping just below the desired view is often a recommended practice.
Chicken or the egg, soil failure or tree failure? never mind the tension roots or reaction wood.

In these situations even with a 'up rooting' tree, the excuse is that it will pull a chunk of soil down with it. Which yes it's true, BUT obviously the stump should remain which will rot in place, often creating a network of 'pipes' that channel water in a localized area. IF the tree were allowed to fall to the shore below with a root ball, it's less likely to become a battering ram hammering the toe of the slope. ALSO it's more likely to stay put damping storm surge wave action and erosion. I'm sure they will admire the view as their house falls into the sea.

 

[ghostice]

Comments on electrical utility above are right on. Same here with insurance company's after a huge September snowstorm we had some years back. The next summer it started, basically:
"Every limb or branch over house must die"
"But it hasn't failed yet, it survived the storm(s) and doesn't appear damaged, why don't we wait until EAB restrictions are over and take care of it then if we must?"
"Every limb or branch over house must die NOW"
Please find somebody else . . . .
Our poor, poor trees - falling victim to Group Thinkus Homo Sapiens var Moronicus

 

[climbingmonkey24]

I will not bid on something that I think could do harm to the tree / not good for the situation and I will be upfront and honest about my opinion. I've got no problems walking away from a job if I think what someone is looking for is counterproductive or not appropriate and they aren't willing to consider alternatives.

I don't believe in "doing whatever the customer wants" just to win the job and get a check if what they want is not the right thing to do or obviously counterproductive and harmful to the tree / situation.