[CANUFNET] Private Tree Protection

[peter.shields570]

Hello all,There are many ways to appraise trees, and what you do, and justify, will be based on your experience and knowledge.  Not all will agree.  I think there has been tremendous efforts, by significant arborists, professionals, and groups, to address many concerns that were in previous editions.Not all professionals endorse the 10th, but many professionals do.  When TRAQ first came out, there were many critics, and still are.  Many didnt think we should move away from numerical quantifications of different variables.  They may be right!Reading through the Nova Scotia court case (from the site Michael pointed to), it reiterates the need to reconcile your opinion on the method you chose.  Perhaps you have chosen a few methods, and reached to something that can be agreeable.Back to one of the points earlier, with TFM or TFT and forested or wooded areas, it may not be appropriate, it depends on the usage, functionality and utility.One thing is for sure, appraising trees is not for everyone, and involves a considerable amount of experience and practice.For the Town I work for near Alliston, we will be moving to an aggregate caliper, with depreciation for compensation in planning and engineering. It is functional, and easy to calculate.  For larger wooded areas, we may adopt area calculations, similar to what Guelph has in their technical manual.  For bylaw concerns, and wrongful removals, we may keep with TFT for proper replacement costs and to determine the value on the day (if possible).Just yesterday, a farmer decided he didn't like the row of 15 to 20 70foot tall silver maples along one of our lines.  He ripped them out and pruned the rest with an excavator!  This will be interesting.Regards,Peter ShieldsISA BCMA ON0570, RCA#536Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
-------- Original message --------From: ConsultingArborist via CANUFNET <canufnet at list.web.net> Date: 2020-12-04  10:55 a.m.  (GMT-05:00) To: Canadian Urban Forest Network <canufnet at list.web.net> Cc: ConsultingArborist <careofthetrees at gmail.com> Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] Private Tree Protection 

Agreed. Previous editions seemed to mostly just fine-tune earlier editions. The 10th is more of a wholesale rewrite.


My 2 cents: just because someone has come up with a new approach to calculating Pi, that doesn't make all the other ways wrong. You still get Pi. It sounds like that's basically what the 3rd summary statement, quoted in Michael's message, is saying.





























Oliver K. Reichl, B.E.S.(Hons)
Principal / Consulting Arborist-Ecologist*

Arborsphere Arboriculture & Urban Forestry Consulting

18 Larue Mills Road

Mallorytown, ON, K0E 1R0

Tel: 613-213-6840
Web: www.oliverkilian.com/treecare,

Facebook



* ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #553


  ISA Certified Arborist #ON-1178A

  Ontario Butternut Health Assessor #039

  ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualified

  OUFC Heritage Tree Inspector






























On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 10:06 AM Jack Radecki via CANUFNET <canufnet at list.web.net> wrote:


Indeed the 10th edition is problematic. There has been a second revision or
edition and now it is my understanding that some of the work sheets have
been corrected and need to be downloaded.
I will not use it till it is right.

Jack Radecki past RPAC Chair - ISA Ontario

-----Original Message-----
From: CANUFNET <canufnet-bounces at list.web.net> On Behalf Of Michael
Richardson via CANUFNET
Sent: December 3, 2020 6:52 PM
To: Canadian Urban Forest Network <canufnet at list.web.net>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mrtree at kos.net>
Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] Private Tree Protection

One day after I said TFM is obsolete and replaced by TFT I see this website:
https://10thguideforplantappraisal.info/

A summary paragraph:

The summary position of this group is:

The undersigned individual plant appraisal practitioners do not accept the
10th Edition, in its 2020 form, as a generally accepted[1], complete[2], or
exclusive[3] expression of best practice in plant appraisal."



[1] 10th Ed. is not generally accepted. General acceptance is created
through extensive experience and use.  General acceptance is not created by
mere publication of new and untested methods and techniques. General
acceptance is not created by fiat.

[2] 10th Ed. is not a complete expression of practice or best practice and
is inadequate, by itself, to guide practice.

[3] 10th Ed. is not an expression of practice or best practice to the
exclusion of any other practice guidance.

Something to think about if you are doing Tree Appraisal

Michael











-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20201204/fdb9f47c/attachment.htm>