inonotus--bad actor

[guymayor]

This tree has these conks 270 degrees around. root/butt rotter. ungood, but it's a rental property-- i did not even bother contacting them.

crown unaffected, which is often the case--until they keel over.

 

[SMAdams]

[ QUOTE ]
This tree has these conks 270 degrees around. root/butt rotter. ungood, but it's a rental property-- i did not even bother contacting them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was shown a rental property that had a tree like that in the back yard...I didn't take it.

 

[guymayor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This tree has these conks 270 degrees around. root/butt rotter. ungood, but it's a rental property-- i did not even bother contacting them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was shown a rental property that had a tree like that in the back yard...I didn't take it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on reason, or inspection?

Inspection is really a straightforward process.

 

[Sylvia]

A decision not to take a rental doesn't require anything other than a gut feeling.

Guy, are you looking for a rental to live in or did you happen by a property and notice this wood decay fungus...

You, as a BCMA, did not try to contact the owners to let them know they had a potentially compromised tree on the property? I could understand not notifying someone if a driveby, after all can we possibly be responsible for every tree we drive by? But you had time, and took the time, to stop and take a picture.

Not sure why the fact that it was a rental meant it was less deserving of attention. Should we only be concerned about trees that provide a financial benefit to us? You stated in your first post that there may be no way to tell if and when this tree will come down, until it does. It would seem notification to someone would have been appropriate.

Sylvia

 

[guymayor]

[ QUOTE ]
It would seem notification to someone would have been appropriate. Sylvia

[/ QUOTE ]I agree that notifying tree owners is a good idea, if the hazard is extreme and obvious. Passing a test might increase that obligation a little maybe this one's borderline re obligation, imo. i did no excavation or inspection, just took pics. I'll follow your advice and stick a note in the door with info on I dryadeus, to cma if nothing else.

But I don't have to recommend removal to cma.

 

[Sylvia]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It would seem notification to someone would have been appropriate. Sylvia

[/ QUOTE ]I agree that notifying tree owners is a good idea, if the hazard is extreme and obvious. Passing a test might increase that obligation a little maybe this one's borderline re obligation, imo. i did no excavation or inspection, just took pics. I'll follow your advice and stick a note in the door with info on I dryadeus, to cma if nothing else.

But I don't have to recommend removal to cma.

[/ QUOTE ]


From past discussions, you and I agree on basic premises for which we should be held accountable. Personally, if we "own" a bad tree we have walked by, we should also be able to "own" the good trees...which brings up two questions: 1) does that increase our net worth and 2) are we responsible for making all management decisions for those trees?

But, of course, the answer to both questions is no. If we can't make the final decision on a tree, why on Earth do we "own" it? All we can do is present the facts and let the appropriate party make their informed decision.

But I digress...the fact being, we as knowledgable professionals, do know more than the lay public and sometimes we see something that should be brought to the owner's attention. The fact that this particular tree caught your eye enough to stop and take pictures, and you stated in your first post the potential of this tree failing without ever throwing outward indications of decline....to me, was a real heads up.

Good for you for pointing it out to someone who can then pursue this or not, as they see fit.

Sylvia

 

[guymayor]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, if we "own" a bad tree we have walked by, we should also be able to "own" the good trees...which brings up two questions: 1) does that increase our net worth and 2) are we responsible for making all management decisions for those trees?

But, of course, the answer to both questions is no.

Sylvia

[/ QUOTE ]

Gosh all getout gal, the answer to 1) should be YES, if you mean 'does that make the value of our services higher' or 'will we have more money as a result'!

You're not doing all that studying and passing just to charge the same are you? I hiked my rates when i got certified 17 years ago, and again w bcma in 2004. Definitely justified, and recognized by clients.

the easiest way to notify is to have printouts from U extension. While i hesitate to call all that "facts", it's usually good enough for the purpose. A library of these "fact sheets" to carry around in a folder is a valuable toolkit.

If the Inonotus was <90 degrees around it would not be a burning red flag, but 270 is, imo.

 

[nuthin_special]

I think that there is a legal precedent out there maing arborists responsible for spotting obvious hazards when on a site visit. It makes sense that if someone is asking for your expertise and you fail to spot a problem, that is negligence. If your expertise was not requested, ie. a drive by, then i can't possibly see how you'd be responsible. When i do a site visit for one particular tree, i always ask the client if i can look at other trees that may be potential hazards. Due diligence and hopefully more sales.

I knocked on a door to point out some ganoderma, it was a rental property and three days later the tree blew over. Funny. nothing came of it, it's just a funny story.

 

[guymayor]

Go to www.tcia.org to see the attached. expanding the scope of assessment can be good, if it's competent and objective. It sounds like you are describing using scare techniques to get work.