Anybody want to meet Monday evening in Portland to talk about all this over a beer?
Jack Magai
magaijack@gmail.com
Jack Magai
magaijack@gmail.com
Conflicts in the ISA Code of Ethics
- Thread starter Jackmagai
- Start date
Frax
Participating member
[ QUOTE ]
Nature is messy and chaotic. I don't subscribe to "mother nature knows best". Our environment is an ongoing experiment in survival. Left alone trees on an individual basis are not necessarily the best judge of their own needs. Take a walk through a forest to see just how many individuals have failed. However, as in all things chaotic, step back far enough and we see a thriving successful organism, a forest. But even that has it weakness due to the fact that it reacts to its environment's history not its future.
[/ QUOTE ]
I used to struggle with the idea that trees know what's best. They still do. Forests work properly in the forest ecosystems but the ways that trees behave in forests does not work well in the artificial urban or suburban environment. Sometimes its wrong for them, and sometimes its wrong for us. So we try and guess what will work out well and what is an acceptable compromise. That's our job.
Nature is messy and chaotic. I don't subscribe to "mother nature knows best". Our environment is an ongoing experiment in survival. Left alone trees on an individual basis are not necessarily the best judge of their own needs. Take a walk through a forest to see just how many individuals have failed. However, as in all things chaotic, step back far enough and we see a thriving successful organism, a forest. But even that has it weakness due to the fact that it reacts to its environment's history not its future.
[/ QUOTE ]
I used to struggle with the idea that trees know what's best. They still do. Forests work properly in the forest ecosystems but the ways that trees behave in forests does not work well in the artificial urban or suburban environment. Sometimes its wrong for them, and sometimes its wrong for us. So we try and guess what will work out well and what is an acceptable compromise. That's our job.
treehumper
Carpal tunnel level member
- Location
- Ridgefield, NJ
Exactly Frax. We have already imposed ourselves on trees through urbanization of forests. All those multi-century trees growing in our midst started out as forest trees then witnessed our expansion. We then implant into this new environment trees with limited regard to their needs and expect them to adapt successfully. So, while they are miraculous living entities they are also working from genetically imprinted norms not incredible foresight of how the environment will be changed, yet again, by our fickle nature.
Where room permits we live and let live. Otherwise we get on with our jobs as best we can and with judicious reason attempt to bring to bear our understanding and limited grasp of what the future holds and how we might do better for the trees.
Where room permits we live and let live. Otherwise we get on with our jobs as best we can and with judicious reason attempt to bring to bear our understanding and limited grasp of what the future holds and how we might do better for the trees.
Nora's post seems about right to me.
I think that a Code of Ethics which reflects this point of view would be stronger.
If I sign the current one, with the conflict intact, I am essentially agreeing to something which I think I may violate the terms of.
I'd be happy signing one which keeps II.A.1. intact ("Certificants ... must... deliver safe and competent services with objective and independent professional judgment in decision-making."), but reworks I.A.2. ("Certificants ... must ... comply with all accepted professional standards related to arboriculture practice, including national practice standards and policies.").
An improvement might be something like "...must use all accepted professional standards... as a basis for their practice."
or "...must comply with all accepted professional standards ... except when experimenting with new materials or methods."
Jack Magai
magaijack@gmail.com
jackmagai.com
I think that a Code of Ethics which reflects this point of view would be stronger.
If I sign the current one, with the conflict intact, I am essentially agreeing to something which I think I may violate the terms of.
I'd be happy signing one which keeps II.A.1. intact ("Certificants ... must... deliver safe and competent services with objective and independent professional judgment in decision-making."), but reworks I.A.2. ("Certificants ... must ... comply with all accepted professional standards related to arboriculture practice, including national practice standards and policies.").
An improvement might be something like "...must use all accepted professional standards... as a basis for their practice."
or "...must comply with all accepted professional standards ... except when experimenting with new materials or methods."
Jack Magai
magaijack@gmail.com
jackmagai.com
guymayor
Branched out member
- Location
- East US, Earth
And if new technology comes along between rewrites, check to see if it conflicts with a 'SHALL', and remember that conflicts with 'should', if defendable, are not conflicts with the standard, or any ethics code.
Jack, with which clause in which standard do you think what experimenting would be non-compliant? Your suggested improvement could open the door to...anything!
Look at the 2 out for review right now. What potential conflicts with good practice do you see?
Leaving "stubs" on damaged trees used to bother me, because I thought it was non-compliant. Then I read the pruning standard, it showed me that method was compliant, and set me free! When non-arborists criticized me for "topping", I just cited chapter and verse-4.1.8, 5.3.4 etc., and went about my business. No arguments.
Jack, with which clause in which standard do you think what experimenting would be non-compliant? Your suggested improvement could open the door to...anything!
Look at the 2 out for review right now. What potential conflicts with good practice do you see?
Leaving "stubs" on damaged trees used to bother me, because I thought it was non-compliant. Then I read the pruning standard, it showed me that method was compliant, and set me free! When non-arborists criticized me for "topping", I just cited chapter and verse-4.1.8, 5.3.4 etc., and went about my business. No arguments.
As I mentioned earlier there were two issues in cabling and bracing which were resolved in a rewrite. I may be able to cite these later today, but don't have access to the standards at the moment (now that I mention this again, why don't we make these available free online?).
I did look at the root care A300 draft last night, and happily nothing struck me as a conflict. But my point is that it is exactly the unanticipated advancements which we need to make room for. Looking back I have seen prohibitions on practices which were later approved. How can something get approved if no one can try it out?
Would you provide a link to the other standard in review?
thanks,
Jack Magai
I did look at the root care A300 draft last night, and happily nothing struck me as a conflict. But my point is that it is exactly the unanticipated advancements which we need to make room for. Looking back I have seen prohibitions on practices which were later approved. How can something get approved if no one can try it out?
Would you provide a link to the other standard in review?
thanks,
Jack Magai
guymayor
Branched out member
- Location
- East US, Earth
[ QUOTE ]
As I mentioned earlier there were two issues in cabling and bracing which were resolved in a rewrite. I may be able to cite these later today, but don't have access to the standards at the moment (now that I mention this again, why don't we make these available free online?).Would you provide a link to the other standard in review?
[/ QUOTE ]Not when you can use your smartphone to go to the tcia website and look under Business.
re free (or paid) online, this topic comes up often but the technological leap to make this happen has not yet occurred. If anyone can help/encourage/demand/insist that TCIA find a way to implement online access, that would be great! If you are at the conference, try to talk to your rep(s) before you attend the session tomorrow.
[ QUOTE ]
I did look at the root care A300 draft last night, and happily nothing struck me as a conflict.[/quote[
[/ QUOTE ] Happily indeed!
[ QUOTE ]
But my point is that it is exactly the unanticipated advancements which we need to make room for. Looking back I have seen prohibitions on practices which were later approved.
[/ QUOTE ] Like what?
[ QUOTE ]
How can something get approved if no one can try it out?"
[/ QUOTE ]Good question. As long as you read the standard with the mindset that it contains prohibitions, you may believe that you found many. But if you read for the possibilities, you will find that those "prohibitions" are Shoulds, and no more than cautions. It's easy to overreact.
Why not focus on the positives, and if you see a need for change, comment with a *specific* proposed change. Non-specific complaints tend to go nowhere, outside the world of internet forums that is!
Simple process, not perfect, but open to specific proposals toward improvement. Find your rep or any committee member (viewable list at TCIA site) and fire away!
As I mentioned earlier there were two issues in cabling and bracing which were resolved in a rewrite. I may be able to cite these later today, but don't have access to the standards at the moment (now that I mention this again, why don't we make these available free online?).Would you provide a link to the other standard in review?
[/ QUOTE ]Not when you can use your smartphone to go to the tcia website and look under Business.
[ QUOTE ]
I did look at the root care A300 draft last night, and happily nothing struck me as a conflict.[/quote[
[/ QUOTE ] Happily indeed!
[ QUOTE ]
But my point is that it is exactly the unanticipated advancements which we need to make room for. Looking back I have seen prohibitions on practices which were later approved.
[/ QUOTE ] Like what?
[ QUOTE ]
How can something get approved if no one can try it out?"
[/ QUOTE ]Good question. As long as you read the standard with the mindset that it contains prohibitions, you may believe that you found many. But if you read for the possibilities, you will find that those "prohibitions" are Shoulds, and no more than cautions. It's easy to overreact.
Why not focus on the positives, and if you see a need for change, comment with a *specific* proposed change. Non-specific complaints tend to go nowhere, outside the world of internet forums that is!
Simple process, not perfect, but open to specific proposals toward improvement. Find your rep or any committee member (viewable list at TCIA site) and fire away!
guymayor
Branched out member
- Location
- East US, Earth
the rep of whichever member organization you belong to. or just check the whole committee list and contact anyone on there.
please visit the website and figure it out. it's easy.
imouttahere
please visit the website and figure it out. it's easy.
imouttahere
Guy,
Just to follow up,
I did read the part 3 revisions, and found a specific example:
"33.5.19 Installations shall follow manufacturers’ recommendations."
I use Sherrill's Treesave in through-bolt applications, which is not what they recommend it for. I've talked with Tobe Sherrill and the rope engineer about this, and I'm happy continuing to do this. (photos on my website.)
Am I not violating the letter of the standard?
I think there is some use to having the ANSI standards continue as is, as a reference for us all. But the Code of Ethics should recognize our need to experiment, which will sometimes take us out beyond the confines of the standards.
Thanks for engaging in this discussion.
regards,
Jack Magai
jackmagai.com
Just to follow up,
I did read the part 3 revisions, and found a specific example:
"33.5.19 Installations shall follow manufacturers’ recommendations."
I use Sherrill's Treesave in through-bolt applications, which is not what they recommend it for. I've talked with Tobe Sherrill and the rope engineer about this, and I'm happy continuing to do this. (photos on my website.)
Am I not violating the letter of the standard?
I think there is some use to having the ANSI standards continue as is, as a reference for us all. But the Code of Ethics should recognize our need to experiment, which will sometimes take us out beyond the confines of the standards.
Thanks for engaging in this discussion.
regards,
Jack Magai
jackmagai.com
guymayor
Branched out member
- Location
- East US, Earth
Jack, I hope you made it to that session.
"33.5.19 Installations shall follow manufacturers’ recommendations."
I use Sherrill's Treesave in through-bolt applications, which is not what they recommend it for.
Am I not violating the letter of the standard?"
A lot of arborists are rugged individuals who bristle against suspected limitations and confines -- where there are none. Unless the manufacturer specifically says you should NOT, it may well be okay to do it. But that depends on what TreeSave precisely says, which I do not know.
I didn't feel unethical when i towed a chipper over 45 mph, despite sticker saying not to. Look at blatant CYA wording in the big picture. Changing 33.5.19 to a should does not seem likely, due in part to liability concerns; nothing new
It's common for mfrs to recommend against using other company's products; i got threatened with lawsuit for hybridizing in lightning systems. If there is a conflict, perhaps the first to talk to should be Treesave.
English arborists call Treesave type stuff in through-bolt applications "invasive dynamic". Hybrid systems are improvised all the time. If you follow 18 shalls and vary on one with a documented justification and communication with the parties as you have, that sounds like good faith compliance to me.
If you want to really stress out about compliance, read the Z!
but don't tell tom i said that...
"33.5.19 Installations shall follow manufacturers’ recommendations."
I use Sherrill's Treesave in through-bolt applications, which is not what they recommend it for.
Am I not violating the letter of the standard?"
A lot of arborists are rugged individuals who bristle against suspected limitations and confines -- where there are none. Unless the manufacturer specifically says you should NOT, it may well be okay to do it. But that depends on what TreeSave precisely says, which I do not know.
I didn't feel unethical when i towed a chipper over 45 mph, despite sticker saying not to. Look at blatant CYA wording in the big picture. Changing 33.5.19 to a should does not seem likely, due in part to liability concerns; nothing new
It's common for mfrs to recommend against using other company's products; i got threatened with lawsuit for hybridizing in lightning systems. If there is a conflict, perhaps the first to talk to should be Treesave.
English arborists call Treesave type stuff in through-bolt applications "invasive dynamic". Hybrid systems are improvised all the time. If you follow 18 shalls and vary on one with a documented justification and communication with the parties as you have, that sounds like good faith compliance to me.
If you want to really stress out about compliance, read the Z!
I did make it to the A300 committee meeting. Interesting to see the inner workings, though I didn't have much to add.
"If you follow 18 shalls and vary on one with a documented justification and communication with the parties as you have, that sounds like good faith compliance to me."
Right. This is just how I have always used the standards. My issue is that the Code of Ethics doesn't allow us to take a common-sensical approach. It's a "must comply with" situation.
I feel uncomfortable signing something that I know I'm not literally going to do.
"If you follow 18 shalls and vary on one with a documented justification and communication with the parties as you have, that sounds like good faith compliance to me."
Right. This is just how I have always used the standards. My issue is that the Code of Ethics doesn't allow us to take a common-sensical approach. It's a "must comply with" situation.
I feel uncomfortable signing something that I know I'm not literally going to do.
guymayor
Branched out member
- Location
- East US, Earth
"My issue is that the Code of Ethics doesn't allow us to take a common-sensical approach. It's a "must comply with" situation."
where are you reading this? "Observe the standards..." is all I see mentioned in the Code, not "must comply literally with every single detail"
"I feel uncomfortable signing something that I know I'm not literally going to do."
Me too. If you read carefully before reacting, comfort will come.
where are you reading this? "Observe the standards..." is all I see mentioned in the Code, not "must comply literally with every single detail"
"I feel uncomfortable signing something that I know I'm not literally going to do."
Me too. If you read carefully before reacting, comfort will come.
guymayor
Branched out member
- Location
- East US, Earth
Jack, it still sounds like you're brewing a tempest in a teapot, and maybe oughta give your conscience a rest.
What wording in the Treesave instructions is giving you trouble?
What wording in the Treesave instructions is giving you trouble?
frashdog
Branched out member
- Location
- Champlain valley, adirondack coast
It is all a steamy crock of dukie any way you look at it, like a religion, just sign it and know what is right.
