the guy said...
- Thread starter 123Deboralee
- Start date
guymayor
Branched out member
- Location
- East US, Earth
To return to the scene of the crime:
Client goals: get tenant
Arborist purpose: tree work to help client achieve goals.
Anyone consider pruning the tree to attract tenants?
Here's a poll: are arborists first and foremost:
1. machine operators
2. industrial athletes
3. tree care service providers. ?
Just wondering.
Client goals: get tenant
Arborist purpose: tree work to help client achieve goals.
Anyone consider pruning the tree to attract tenants?
Here's a poll: are arborists first and foremost:
1. machine operators
2. industrial athletes
3. tree care service providers. ?
Just wondering.
- Location
- Connecticut
[ QUOTE ]
Now you've done it; little doubt someone else will say they have lowered a 350' redwood last week in 2 hours
[/ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't doubt it with G.B. on here.
[ QUOTE ]
probably two weeks; our crew (two to five) comes and goes depending on when they have been paid
[/ QUOTE ]
Can you explain this more?
Now you've done it; little doubt someone else will say they have lowered a 350' redwood last week in 2 hours
[/ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't doubt it with G.B. on here.
[ QUOTE ]
probably two weeks; our crew (two to five) comes and goes depending on when they have been paid
[/ QUOTE ]
Can you explain this more?
- Location
- Canada
Guy, you forgot the word FACILITATORS! How much time do you believe a well rounded arborist should spend (usually for free) talking people into saving an OLD cottonweed?
How much money should the client spend on mitigating the risk from any tree, to THEIR risk level.
I think your preaching to the choir here. The tree OWNER is in the drivers seat. The arborist's job is to facilitate the clients wishes! Lord knows there are enough start-up tree operations lookin' to make a buck.
A home owner is like a horse, you can lead it to the water, the REST is up to the horse!
The limited pictures shown are hardly enough to say one way or the other IF the tree is worth saving. IMO Nothing like being up close and personal with a tree large enough to crush a house or two!
How much money should the client spend on mitigating the risk from any tree, to THEIR risk level.
I think your preaching to the choir here. The tree OWNER is in the drivers seat. The arborist's job is to facilitate the clients wishes! Lord knows there are enough start-up tree operations lookin' to make a buck.
A home owner is like a horse, you can lead it to the water, the REST is up to the horse!
The limited pictures shown are hardly enough to say one way or the other IF the tree is worth saving. IMO Nothing like being up close and personal with a tree large enough to crush a house or two!
guymayor
Branched out member
- Location
- East US, Earth
Guy, you forgot the word FACILITATORS! How much time do you believe a well rounded arborist should spend (usually for free) talking people into saving an OLD cottonweed?
Brett, I agree not much time should be wasted, especially for a landlord who obviously does not give a spit about anything but a rent check. A quick estimate for pruning/mulch/possible support, along with the butchering cost, is all they deserve.
But they, and their future tenants, and the community, and yes even an old Populus deserve at least that much.
"How much money should the client spend on mitigating the risk from any tree, to THEIR risk level.
It is their call yes but they should have all reasonable management options estimated.
"I think your preaching to the choir here.
I truly wonder what hymnal they hold--this is foremost an industrial athlete's forum, and boys love their toys; hence the quasipoll.
"The tree OWNER is in the drivers seat. The arborist's job is to facilitate the clients wishes!
Nononononono it is not. If it were, what separates us from any whore? Our job is to sell tree care that reaches their GOALS not their wishes. This idiot's goal is a tenant; his delusion aka wish is that tree removal will get him a tenant. Most potential tenants value trees, if those trees are not neglected and looking like crap.
"Lord knows there are enough start-up tree operations lookin' to make a buck. A home owner is like a horse, you can lead it to the water, the REST is up to the horse!
Exactly, so lead them to the $900 pruning trough on the way to the $9000 removal trough. Most horses will not buy a case of champagne when a case of beer will do. Heck I wouldn't, and I like champagne!
"The limited pictures shown are hardly enough to say one way or the other IF the tree is worth saving.
Even then we could not, for that call is the owner's--see your words above; it seems you have forgotten that you said: 'The tree OWNER is in the drivers seat.'
Selling removals is a stubborn habit to break. Bones twist and ache when the needle exits the elbow.
"IMO Nothing like being up close and personal with a tree large enough to crush a house or two!
Or shade and cool and benefit more than two hundred--on that we can agree.
Brett, I agree not much time should be wasted, especially for a landlord who obviously does not give a spit about anything but a rent check. A quick estimate for pruning/mulch/possible support, along with the butchering cost, is all they deserve.
But they, and their future tenants, and the community, and yes even an old Populus deserve at least that much.
"How much money should the client spend on mitigating the risk from any tree, to THEIR risk level.
It is their call yes but they should have all reasonable management options estimated.
"I think your preaching to the choir here.
I truly wonder what hymnal they hold--this is foremost an industrial athlete's forum, and boys love their toys; hence the quasipoll.
"The tree OWNER is in the drivers seat. The arborist's job is to facilitate the clients wishes!
Nononononono it is not. If it were, what separates us from any whore? Our job is to sell tree care that reaches their GOALS not their wishes. This idiot's goal is a tenant; his delusion aka wish is that tree removal will get him a tenant. Most potential tenants value trees, if those trees are not neglected and looking like crap.
"Lord knows there are enough start-up tree operations lookin' to make a buck. A home owner is like a horse, you can lead it to the water, the REST is up to the horse!
Exactly, so lead them to the $900 pruning trough on the way to the $9000 removal trough. Most horses will not buy a case of champagne when a case of beer will do. Heck I wouldn't, and I like champagne!
"The limited pictures shown are hardly enough to say one way or the other IF the tree is worth saving.
Even then we could not, for that call is the owner's--see your words above; it seems you have forgotten that you said: 'The tree OWNER is in the drivers seat.'
Selling removals is a stubborn habit to break. Bones twist and ache when the needle exits the elbow.
"IMO Nothing like being up close and personal with a tree large enough to crush a house or two!
Or shade and cool and benefit more than two hundred--on that we can agree.
treehumper
Carpal tunnel level member
- Location
- Ridgefield, NJ
Wow, can't believe the reaction to this thread. $9K isn't out of line for that tree where a crane can't be used. I have done large trees over houses where getting a crane in wasn't feasible. All large wood was quartered or smaller and removed by log dolly. It took as quite a while and really should have been priced higher than the $8K we charged.
Wires? They are where they are and can be worked around. It would be nice if they were dropped but it's not a necessity.
Properly explained to the client as to what is involved and thus the cost there should be no problem with the price.
C'mon people play nice!
Wires? They are where they are and can be worked around. It would be nice if they were dropped but it's not a necessity.
Properly explained to the client as to what is involved and thus the cost there should be no problem with the price.
C'mon people play nice!
- Location
- North of Boston
i responded to this thread the way i did knowing the past troll threads this person started, and after seeing the comment about how the help is paid and the lies within this thread. Went from NO CRANE, to maybe a crane, bucket, lift, skidsteer, army tank, jetliner, boat, submarine, could get to it......
Sorry to vent here, this person strikes me as a troll though!
Sorry to vent here, this person strikes me as a troll though!
[ QUOTE ]
Guy, you forgot the word FACILITATORS! How much time do you believe a well rounded arborist should spend (usually for free) talking people into saving an OLD cottonweed?
Brett, I agree not much time should be wasted, especially for a landlord who obviously does not give a spit about anything but a rent check. A quick estimate for pruning/mulch/possible support, along with the butchering cost, is all they deserve.
But they, and their future tenants, and the community, and yes even an old Populus deserve at least that much.
"How much money should the client spend on mitigating the risk from any tree, to THEIR risk level.
It is their call yes but they should have all reasonable management options estimated.
"I think your preaching to the choir here.
I truly wonder what hymnal they hold--this is foremost an industrial athlete's forum, and boys love their toys; hence the quasipoll.
"The tree OWNER is in the drivers seat. The arborist's job is to facilitate the clients wishes!
Nononononono it is not. If it were, what separates us from any whore? Our job is to sell tree care that reaches their GOALS not their wishes. This idiot's goal is a tenant; his delusion aka wish is that tree removal will get him a tenant. Most potential tenants value trees, if those trees are not neglected and looking like crap.
"Lord knows there are enough start-up tree operations lookin' to make a buck. A home owner is like a horse, you can lead it to the water, the REST is up to the horse!
Exactly, so lead them to the $900 pruning trough on the way to the $9000 removal trough. Most horses will not buy a case of champagne when a case of beer will do. Heck I wouldn't, and I like champagne!
"The limited pictures shown are hardly enough to say one way or the other IF the tree is worth saving.
Even then we could not, for that call is the owner's--see your words above; it seems you have forgotten that you said: 'The tree OWNER is in the drivers seat.'
Selling removals is a stubborn habit to break. Bones twist and ache when the needle exits the elbow.
"IMO Nothing like being up close and personal with a tree large enough to crush a house or two!
Or shade and cool and benefit more than two hundred--on that we can agree.
[/ QUOTE ]
"Sell tree care that reaches their goals not their wishes"...
Guy, you forgot the word FACILITATORS! How much time do you believe a well rounded arborist should spend (usually for free) talking people into saving an OLD cottonweed?
Brett, I agree not much time should be wasted, especially for a landlord who obviously does not give a spit about anything but a rent check. A quick estimate for pruning/mulch/possible support, along with the butchering cost, is all they deserve.
But they, and their future tenants, and the community, and yes even an old Populus deserve at least that much.
"How much money should the client spend on mitigating the risk from any tree, to THEIR risk level.
It is their call yes but they should have all reasonable management options estimated.
"I think your preaching to the choir here.
I truly wonder what hymnal they hold--this is foremost an industrial athlete's forum, and boys love their toys; hence the quasipoll.
"The tree OWNER is in the drivers seat. The arborist's job is to facilitate the clients wishes!
Nononononono it is not. If it were, what separates us from any whore? Our job is to sell tree care that reaches their GOALS not their wishes. This idiot's goal is a tenant; his delusion aka wish is that tree removal will get him a tenant. Most potential tenants value trees, if those trees are not neglected and looking like crap.
"Lord knows there are enough start-up tree operations lookin' to make a buck. A home owner is like a horse, you can lead it to the water, the REST is up to the horse!
Exactly, so lead them to the $900 pruning trough on the way to the $9000 removal trough. Most horses will not buy a case of champagne when a case of beer will do. Heck I wouldn't, and I like champagne!
"The limited pictures shown are hardly enough to say one way or the other IF the tree is worth saving.
Even then we could not, for that call is the owner's--see your words above; it seems you have forgotten that you said: 'The tree OWNER is in the drivers seat.'
Selling removals is a stubborn habit to break. Bones twist and ache when the needle exits the elbow.
"IMO Nothing like being up close and personal with a tree large enough to crush a house or two!
Or shade and cool and benefit more than two hundred--on that we can agree.
[/ QUOTE ]
"Sell tree care that reaches their goals not their wishes"...
- Location
- Canada
So what your saying is a CONSULTATION should have been done!
guymayor
Branched out member
- Location
- East US, Earth
[ QUOTE ]
So what your saying is a CONSULTATION should have been done!
[/ QUOTE ]"Should", sure a consultant is going to agree with that!
But Cmon Brett that is a false dichotomy and you know it. Every estimate by a pro involves the pro in the decision; the owner's opinion is validated by our going along with it.
It's a simple matter with little time spent to estimate every service that fits the tree and owner goals, as well as the one the owner asks for. If they are not careful what they wish for, it's on us to be careful with our estimates.
To ignore owner goals, and management options for the tree short of removal, is to set aside arboricultural skills and training in favor of being just a cog in a machine that is outside of our control.
Y'all do what you want; I gotta rage against that machine cuz i see it dragging my profession, and OUR urban forest canopy, down to the ground.
Plus it sucks to see rage against a troll,
But I do wonder about that poll.
So what your saying is a CONSULTATION should have been done!
[/ QUOTE ]"Should", sure a consultant is going to agree with that!
It's a simple matter with little time spent to estimate every service that fits the tree and owner goals, as well as the one the owner asks for. If they are not careful what they wish for, it's on us to be careful with our estimates.
To ignore owner goals, and management options for the tree short of removal, is to set aside arboricultural skills and training in favor of being just a cog in a machine that is outside of our control.
Y'all do what you want; I gotta rage against that machine cuz i see it dragging my profession, and OUR urban forest canopy, down to the ground.
Plus it sucks to see rage against a troll,
But I do wonder about that poll.
If the owner is worried about the tenants safety, doesn't he have the right to remove the hazard? It has been confirmed that the tree is a hazard, as all trees are, and it was requested to be removed. I have two questions. What gives us the right to talk them into doing something they don't want to? The second question goes with the first, now that we've talked them into pruning and tree care, who excepts liability of that tree when it fails? By promoting tree care we give the client the false impression that we have removed the hazard and the tree is safe.
- Location
- North of Boston
[ QUOTE ]
If the owner is worried about the tenants safety, doesn't he have the right to remove the hazard? It has been confirmed that the tree is a hazard, as all trees are, and it was requested to be removed. I have two questions. What gives us the right to talk them into doing something they don't want to? The second question goes with the first, now that we've talked them into pruning and tree care, who excepts liability of that tree when it fails? By promoting tree care we give the client the false impression that we have removed the hazard and the tree is safe.
[/ QUOTE ]
I completely disagree with this generalization. we have done what we as educated Arbos feel could be done, within the customers budget, to make the tree as safe as can be within these limitations. You need to be honest with your cients, and educate them! not lie to them, or fill them full of half truths.
If the owner is worried about the tenants safety, doesn't he have the right to remove the hazard? It has been confirmed that the tree is a hazard, as all trees are, and it was requested to be removed. I have two questions. What gives us the right to talk them into doing something they don't want to? The second question goes with the first, now that we've talked them into pruning and tree care, who excepts liability of that tree when it fails? By promoting tree care we give the client the false impression that we have removed the hazard and the tree is safe.
[/ QUOTE ]
I completely disagree with this generalization. we have done what we as educated Arbos feel could be done, within the customers budget, to make the tree as safe as can be within these limitations. You need to be honest with your cients, and educate them! not lie to them, or fill them full of half truths.
I am always completely honest to my customers and to say different really pisses me off. This customer has not given us his budget. His request was a removal. Why should we change it. To prune it would only remove a fraction of the hazard. How is this lying to them. As far as educated arborists goes, you may be one, I may be one, it doesn't mean we have the same opinion.
- Location
- Canada
Trees have a finite life span, they do NOT live for ever. How long they live is dependant on several issues (species, available space, water, nutrients, care/management). These aren't arborists rules, they are the laws of nature.
- Location
- North of Boston
[ QUOTE ]
I am always completely honest to my customers and to say different really pisses me off. This customer has not given us his budget. His request was a removal. Why should we change it. To prune it would only remove a fraction of the hazard. How is this lying to them. As far as educated arborists goes, you may be one, I may be one, it doesn't mean we have the same opinion.
[/ QUOTE ]
I wasnt singling you out, so relax. are we talking hypotheticals or THIS particular case.
the being honest comment is just something that bothers me industry wide.
I am always completely honest to my customers and to say different really pisses me off. This customer has not given us his budget. His request was a removal. Why should we change it. To prune it would only remove a fraction of the hazard. How is this lying to them. As far as educated arborists goes, you may be one, I may be one, it doesn't mean we have the same opinion.
[/ QUOTE ]
I wasnt singling you out, so relax. are we talking hypotheticals or THIS particular case.
the being honest comment is just something that bothers me industry wide.
guymayor
Branched out member
- Location
- East US, Earth
[ QUOTE ]
the being honest comment is just something that bothers me industry wide.
[/ QUOTE ]I think I know what you mean, but what do you mean?
"If the owner is worried about the tenants safety, doesn't he have the right to remove the hazard?"
Landlord wants tenants--no other concern expressed or implied.
" It has been confirmed that the tree is a hazard, as all trees are,"
Well there you go, that is so clear--we should then all be sons and daughters of Mr. Weyerhauser, who on his deathbed said "Cut em low, boys".
"What gives us the right to talk them into doing something they don't want to?"
He only wants tenants, and btw we can talk to him any way we see fit.
"now that we talked them into pruning and tree care, who excepts liability of that tree when it fails?"
Not us, if we exercise due care.
"By promoting tree care we give the client the false impression that we have removed the hazard and the tree is safe."
You've taken fearmongering to a new low. Amazing! O man somebody else take over; I'm losing my lunch.
the being honest comment is just something that bothers me industry wide.
[/ QUOTE ]I think I know what you mean, but what do you mean?
"If the owner is worried about the tenants safety, doesn't he have the right to remove the hazard?"
Landlord wants tenants--no other concern expressed or implied.
" It has been confirmed that the tree is a hazard, as all trees are,"
Well there you go, that is so clear--we should then all be sons and daughters of Mr. Weyerhauser, who on his deathbed said "Cut em low, boys".
"What gives us the right to talk them into doing something they don't want to?"
He only wants tenants, and btw we can talk to him any way we see fit.
"now that we talked them into pruning and tree care, who excepts liability of that tree when it fails?"
Not us, if we exercise due care.
"By promoting tree care we give the client the false impression that we have removed the hazard and the tree is safe."
You've taken fearmongering to a new low. Amazing! O man somebody else take over; I'm losing my lunch.
easyphloem
Branched out member
- Location
- Louisville, KY
It's a simple case of black and white, Guy. There is no gray in BB's world.
SZ
SZ
Your arguments against my statements are very weak. In order to win an argument, you need to reply with a more sophisticated response. The comment that we can talk to him any way we see fit, doesn't that fall into Bulls concerns over honesty throughout the industry? Guymayor the reason you're losing your lunch is because you're stepping on your own tongue buddy.
tomthetreeman
Participating member
- Location
- Rhode Island
The first thing I saw when I looked at the photos was a huge old tree that deserved the consideration to be preserved. The original request said nothing about that, and I frankly don't have the time these days to derail a thread to change someone's mind about saving a tree, so I simply answered the question.
Now that we have come to the inevitable subject of the arborists's role, I will chime in.
It is reasonable to assume that the homeowner has little to no knowledge of trees and their value/risk, and that a tree this large would be considered by the average HO to be an above average liability.
It is the job of the arborist to make a reasonable and informed assessment and base their recommendations upon that. If the tree represents a major hazard, say so. If the tree is an asset, say so. Inform the client of their options to mitigate risk and to add or retain value to their property and/or the community. Give them options, a well-informed recommendation, and prices to meet the desired goals. Once they have the information, it is up to them to decide what is 'acceptable risk.' It really is as simple as that.
If the arborist is unwilling or unable to offer these services they should not be doing consultations or selling tree work at all. It is my strong opinion that we as arborists are responsible for informing the public, preserving natural resources, and selling a sustainable service, not just making money by doing what homeowners ask us to do.
-Tom
Now that we have come to the inevitable subject of the arborists's role, I will chime in.
It is reasonable to assume that the homeowner has little to no knowledge of trees and their value/risk, and that a tree this large would be considered by the average HO to be an above average liability.
It is the job of the arborist to make a reasonable and informed assessment and base their recommendations upon that. If the tree represents a major hazard, say so. If the tree is an asset, say so. Inform the client of their options to mitigate risk and to add or retain value to their property and/or the community. Give them options, a well-informed recommendation, and prices to meet the desired goals. Once they have the information, it is up to them to decide what is 'acceptable risk.' It really is as simple as that.
If the arborist is unwilling or unable to offer these services they should not be doing consultations or selling tree work at all. It is my strong opinion that we as arborists are responsible for informing the public, preserving natural resources, and selling a sustainable service, not just making money by doing what homeowners ask us to do.
-Tom
[ QUOTE ]
i responded to this thread the way i did knowing the past troll threads this person started, and after seeing the comment about how the help is paid and the lies within this thread. Went from NO CRANE, to maybe a crane, bucket, lift, skidsteer, army tank, jetliner, boat, submarine, could get to it......
Sorry to vent here, this person strikes me as a troll though!
[/ QUOTE ]
You are a very cruel man who does not know as much as he thinks he does; you are putting words into my mouth again which tells me your heart is full of slander-and you are calling me names. Our help is none of your business.
"Id gladly take the work, it will cost you more to transport our crane than to do the tree! though. get it for 9k, and have a n identical setup to what we run standing by. we'll come down do the job for you and pay for our own flight back. good deal?"
Before you said you would do the job for 5K; now I have to
have a crane standing by; does that come out of the 5K? I doubt it so now who is telling lies.
"have a good night 123, we'll see you again in a few months!?"
I have other things to do besides see if I can write more
posts than anyone else; I run a tree business (something I doubt you will ever do) and a household. We own everything that we have (we're not buying a crane). Do you have a laptop with you up in the tree; is that how you got over 3300 posts on here? I would hate to be your wife. when I said good night I did not mean to you. I wish you would stay out of my threads; then I would write more often.
i responded to this thread the way i did knowing the past troll threads this person started, and after seeing the comment about how the help is paid and the lies within this thread. Went from NO CRANE, to maybe a crane, bucket, lift, skidsteer, army tank, jetliner, boat, submarine, could get to it......
Sorry to vent here, this person strikes me as a troll though!
[/ QUOTE ]
You are a very cruel man who does not know as much as he thinks he does; you are putting words into my mouth again which tells me your heart is full of slander-and you are calling me names. Our help is none of your business.
"Id gladly take the work, it will cost you more to transport our crane than to do the tree! though. get it for 9k, and have a n identical setup to what we run standing by. we'll come down do the job for you and pay for our own flight back. good deal?"
Before you said you would do the job for 5K; now I have to
have a crane standing by; does that come out of the 5K? I doubt it so now who is telling lies.
"have a good night 123, we'll see you again in a few months!?"
I have other things to do besides see if I can write more
posts than anyone else; I run a tree business (something I doubt you will ever do) and a household. We own everything that we have (we're not buying a crane). Do you have a laptop with you up in the tree; is that how you got over 3300 posts on here? I would hate to be your wife. when I said good night I did not mean to you. I wish you would stay out of my threads; then I would write more often.
