Removal Recommendation = Stick to your words?

mdvaden

mdvaden

Participating member
Location
Beaverton. Oregon
If an arborist recommnends removal of a tree in writing or verbally, due to health and risk reasons, should the arborist 100% stick to their words?

If the arborist recommends removal, but "goes along" with a bandaging effort to make the homeowner happy, wouldn't an attorney have a much easier time pinning negligence and liability on the arborist if the tree fails and someone gets hurt, or something is destroyed.

It seems like a record of the arborist's own opinion would come back and bite them.

If that's the case, it may be appropriate for arborists to avoid repairing or tending to trees in some cases; if they gave a certain removal recommendation.

Doubt I have 1% bias on risk mitigation. What I'm referring too - again - is where the tree has been 100% correctly diagnosed to be an immediate need for removal. After such CORRECT diagnosis, I'd consider preservation work to be bandaids.
 
What if more information comes in? The standard disclaimer says: "3. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however, the consultant/appraiser can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. If new information is received, that may result in different options or recommendations.


10. Unless expressed otherwise: 1) information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the condition of hose items at the time of inspection; and 2) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without climbing, dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future."

Mario, your use of "bandage" to describe risk mitigation indicates a bias against it, or lack of knowledge about it. Likely both; no offense meant.

A certain level of liability is unavoidable no matter what we do or not do, but there are steps that can limit our own personal and professional liability when assessing tree risk. First, define your assignment so that you and the owner understand the level of detail that you will be going to, and what form the written report will take. Second, state your limitations in a written “disclaimer”. Unless you have a big “S” on your chest, you cannot see inside the tree or under the tree. You cannot foresee what storms will be testing the tree’s strength, so you cannot guarantee its safety for a week or even for a day. Finally, make it clear that risk is always present, and it is the owners of the tree who are responsible for the decisions affecting the tree.

In the case of high risk trees, it makes sense to list Management Options, instead of making Recommendations. Why assume professional risk needlessly?
 
Actually you do not have to be superman to see inside a tree. There are a number of techniques that can do this for you and tree pulling test can give a quantified answer to safety (in some cases). The problem comes that these tools are very expensive and may be hard to interpret results from. Inexpensive tools such as drills and core sampler also give some info, but only from a single location and maybe not the most critical.

One arborist changing his mind is probably fine as they learn more info about a specific tree, but what happens when one arborist recommends keeping a tree and every other tree service (read non educated tree cutter) says cut it down?

As for management options vs. recommendations, if you have been called in as the expert than you are expected to make it clear wether keeping the tree is even an option. There is only so much you can let the client decide. They have the right to remove or not, but your word (report) etc., is being relied upon. If the tree "must" be removed than that has to be expressely conveyed. If the tree "must" be pruned, cabled etc. than that has to be expressively conveyed.

The issue in the end is liability. It seems to me that if you want to be a consultant on tree safety than you will be required to have alot of biological, arboriculture and engineering knowledge, and traing, experience and upgrading to be able to defend yourself in court, should the day ever come. A lawyer makes hundreds of dollars per hour and as such they are likely going to find where you are weak as a consultant and make full use of that info in court.

If you are going to give an opinion (not a report etc.) on a tree then you better investigate fully and not spend only a minute or two looking over the tree. Then you need to document. Then you might have the slightest ammunition against the lawyers.
 
[ QUOTE ]
What if more information comes in?...

[/ QUOTE ]

Geez, Guy, you are long winded. I shortened your reply down the minimum. Stick to the basics.

The first paragraph was intended to refer to a sane, competent arborist who did their job - recommendation already given.

The post deals with a trained, capable arborist, having gathered all information they substantially need to see or know about a tree. And then they say "this tree should not stay, it poses a hazard, it needs to go".

Once said, should they give-in to homeowner preservation requests, or stick to their professional advice that its a hazard and not be an accomplice to negligence?
 
I would never advise a removal and then change my mind to suit the client...unless circumstances changed. If a client did not want to follow some sort of advised strategy like eliminating a target, crown reduction, cabling...on and on...which would mitigate the hazard to my comfort then it would be more likely to be a removal.
 
By the way,

Guymayor...

By long-winded, I didn't mean your post wasn't good for content.

It's just that it seemed seemed to handle a different premise than the post was intended to be about.

Take no offence brother !!
grin.gif


Maybe I didn't make myself clear originally - tried.
smirk.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]

The post deals with a trained, capable arborist, having gathered all information they substantially need to see or know about a tree. And then they say "this tree should not stay, it poses a hazard, it needs to go".

[/ QUOTE ]A trained, capable arborist knows the definition of hazard. not every "hazard" needs to go; hazard means that, according to the owner's criteria, it should be mitigated. Have you not read the recent series on risk in Arborist News?

re longwinded, I cribbed a paragraph from my ceu article on risk in the february issue. You must have missed that one, too.
mad.gif
If any one of the 20,000 recipients found fault with it, I never heard about it.

ok Leon I'll check the thread.

Good post overall, mr. We do need to give defensible reports. I can't wait for the pnw course on certified risk assessor to go nationwide; we as an industry need to get our act together on this.
 
[ QUOTE ]
A trained, capable arborist knows the definition of hazard. not every "hazard" needs to go;

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course Guy. And now that's narrowed to where this post is pin-pointed.

It's not focused on "every hazard", but every hazard that absolutely has no better solution than to go (and aside from all the other hazards that are manageable: the other realm that you interjected).

Hypothetically assuming the arborist has made the best and right situation.

IF, there was no better alternative than eradicating the tree as the arborist suggests, should that arborist stick firm to his words, and not work on the tree?

So if you, are 100% positive that a certain tree has no other proper way of being dealt with than removal, would you prune it and try to save it for the homeowner?

As far as all the other trees that may be manageable risks, that's a whole different subject than this thread - which may also make a good thread.

The reason I started this thread, is that it seems that several tree services - in our area too - will recommend that a tree should be removed. And with with no reason to save the tree. But then they are willing to keep pruning the tree when the homeowner resists the idea of removal and expects to keep the tree.

The continued pruning for pay, seems to undermine their credibility and the profession to a degree.
 
[ QUOTE ]

IF, there was no better alternative than eradicating the tree as the arborist suggests, should that arborist stick firm to his words, and not work on the tree?
The continued pruning for pay, seems to undermine their credibility and the profession to a degree.


[/ QUOTE ]What does not seem clear to you yet is that it is the owner who decides what is proper, not some arborist's interpretation and application of what they read in a book. Speaking of reading, how do you think the points made in the recent risk series in Arborist News bears on this thread?

If an owner chooses to extend a tree's useful life by pruning I am happy to do it, if it is safe enough to climb. I tend to mind my own business and not tell people what to do with their tree. If they assign me to make recommendations I may be willing to, but I cannot decide what to do about something I do not own.
 
[ QUOTE ]
mdvaden, are you talking about the annual top and prune?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Someone calls you to see a tree. You, correctly, diagnose and tell them "its got to go, it's a current hazard". They decide to keep it, and ask for a pruning bid. You give an estimate, and do some work on it, rather than repeating that it should be removed, and passing on the pruning work.

Of course someone else can come right in and prune the tree. But it boils down to "can an arborist be bought". Do we have a price that will bribe our judgement.

I've seen a few become ongoing maintenance. Even when I started, I did a couple myself. After a few years, I just said "no thank-you" on repeat work, to distance myself from working on such weak trees. Realized that money and losing the customer was a bigger motivator then than sticking with providing service to the realm of trees which should be preserved.
 
Not really my area, but...
I say go ahead and prune it (if it can be done safely, say from a bucket). Make it clear you think it should be removed and is a hazard, and also make it clear it will still be a hazard after you prune it. I would think if you covered all your normal bases you should be free from liability, or atleast as free as you would be in normal circumstances. I mean if even after the pruning you again write up a recomendation for removal, I don't see how that would be any different than a normal recomendation that was not followed. And if you end up back there next year to reprune because it is still dieing, then that tree is making you even more money than had it been removed, and you obviously have a happy client. That would maybe be a good time to talk about planting a new tree to replace the one that is on it's way out. Then you have a happy client with a new tree that will need planting and pruning in a few years.
Just my 2 cents though.
 
[ QUOTE ]
You, correctly, diagnose and tell them "its got to go, it's a current hazard".

[/ QUOTE ]Mario it is clear that not only are you not clear on the difference between "diagnose" and "assess", you are stuck on "hazard = removal" like a broken record (or a skipping cd). Plus, being so judgmental makes reasoning difficult.

All this reminds me of a workshop I went to once where this chubby little extension agent in a flowered shirt said every tree that had a defect had to be removed. Mitigation was a foreign concept to him; he pronounced it "Midget ate"
blush.gif


If you use these terms like the rest of the industry, some of your confusion will start to abate. Sentences like this make no sense to me: "Realized that money and losing the customer was a bigger motivator then than sticking with providing service to the realm of trees which should be preserved."

confused.gif


tongue.gif


crazy.gif


Have you read Arborist News at all this year?
 
I try to give the customer all of the options. If removal is the only course of action then it may be time to walk away from the customer. Keep in mind that as long as your work is justified with the ANSI standards than there should not be a moral or ethical delima.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You, correctly, diagnose and tell them "its got to go, it's a current hazard".

[/ QUOTE ]Mario it is clear that not only are you not clear on the difference between "diagnose" and "assess", you are stuck on "hazard = removal" like a broken record

[/ QUOTE ]

Guy, I think you are stuck on not realizing that I'm referring to just the trees which MUST or SHOULD be removed IMMEDIATELY, rather than all THE REST that don't need removal at all or immediately.

I've tried to explain it for you a few times, but must leave my previous posts to do so as best as possible. Other replies from folks now show that a couple of people understand which particular trees I'm referring too.
 
I think this tree might b a good example to what you are talking about.

Amber aprox 70 feet high with a DBH of 30 inches. There is a defect where some one braced a large included branch that failed at 15 feet. The result is a large cavity that has split with a gap that is aprox 2 inches wide and 2 feet long. The diameter is aprox 20 inches at the defect. The tree is on the school route and will hit powerlines and the house across the street if a failure would occur away from the cavity.
 

Attachments

  • 94782-P8020016.webp
    94782-P8020016.webp
    317.8 KB · Views: 43
if you have not only recommended removal (because of the hazard and risk involved) but said no other option was acceptable I do not see how you can then prune the tree. NO matter what the customer wants if you have said the tree has to go then you are stuck to that one option. Somebody else can prune it but you cannot.

One question that has to be considered is: are you being paid for an assessment or did you go to the job site to give an estimate? Management options take time to compile as you must first do the assessment. Estimates take (generally) not much time. Presentation of an estimate sheet may take some liability away if it can be shown you did not offer an "opinion" but rather a price for the options the customer presented.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom