Where does your loyalty lie?

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

definately getting off topic here guys, lets get back to cutters v consultants:thumbup1:

 

Oh god, i think ive become one of them! I have havent I!

 

i knew I would get there in the end!

 

now I can be that **** the boys with the toys loathe!

[Nick Watkins]

irresposible, or living in a world that will see 60% die before adolescence?

 

have two, lose all, have nine 1-2 will stand

 

I have not thought of it like that, kind of like gambling but with human lives being the loss not chips in a casino.

 

My practical nature would say, have one, afford medicine and one will stand. With the added benefit that the other 7 you would have had will not drain limited natural resources.

 

I have had lengthy conversations about this with my cousin who is a born again happy clapper, turned vicar and is now brain washing people in Africa. By all accounts and from my visits there it's a pretty screwed up situation all round, luckily for me I live here and can debate about it on an Internet forum.

[Ian Flatters]

I didn't vote because im kind of 50/50. With the consultancy i do im expected to understand the clients needs/worries. I do however take ecology in arb quite seriously and wherever the risk is low enough to allow standing deadwood or even leaving a tree with deadwood i try to. This could also include looking at the clients proposed development plans and removing either felling or if the site is capable transplanting trees (although realistically the latter isn't normally budgeted for).

 

As a cutter most the time it will lie with the client, maybe i can convince them that a 40,50,60% reduction isn't the way forward. Sometimes they think they know best because they can use Google! Recently we went to do a job which involved a nice 15% reduction on a Atlas Cedar, 10% on a Judas AND nearly 50% on a cherry which really was a pollard in the end. The cherry i wouldn't say looked good in anyway but had always been topped and lopped by the next door neighbor, so it was hard to convince/explain that there is a better way. After all his neighbor hammered it and it continued to grow why wouldn't doing it again be fine.

 

I think most the time the client has a clear idea of his/her goals with the tree and it can be hard to convey whats best for the tree. Sometimes the client is stubborn makes a decision on then has to change the plan. I.e. Me, testcricket and frosty went to do 2 30% reductions on 2 Oaks. When we got there the client had, had them thinned/lions tailed that summer with little or no light gain. So i suggested leaving the furthest oak which luckily hadn't been thinned and removed the nearest thus giving the 'Client' all the light they would ever need. So was my best interest in the client or the tree? In this case i would say both, Client gains his much wanted light and the second tree is allowed to develop naturally and untouched.

 

I apologize if this reads poorly/rambles/repeats/repeats/rambles.

[RobArb]

28/25 in favour of the tree:thumbup:

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

I didn't vote because im kind of 50/50. With the consultancy i do im expected to understand the clients needs/worries. I do however take ecology in arb quite seriously and wherever the risk is low enough to allow standing deadwood or even leaving a tree with deadwood i try to. This could also include looking at the clients proposed development plans and removing either felling or if the site is capable transplanting trees (although realistically the latter isn't normally budgeted for).

 

As a cutter most the time it will lie with the client, maybe i can convince them that a 40,50,60% reduction isn't the way forward. Sometimes they think they know best because they can use Google! Recently we went to do a job which involved a nice 15% reduction on a Atlas Cedar, 10% on a Judas AND nearly 50% on a cherry which really was a pollard in the end. The cherry i wouldn't say looked good in anyway but had always been topped and lopped by the next door neighbor, so it was hard to convince/explain that there is a better way. After all his neighbor hammered it and it continued to grow why wouldn't doing it again be fine.

 

I think most the time the client has a clear idea of his/her goals with the tree and it can be hard to convey whats best for the tree. Sometimes the client is stubborn makes a decision on then has to change the plan. I.e. Me, testcricket and frosty went to do 2 30% reductions on 2 Oaks. When we got there the client had, had them thinned/lions tailed that summer with little or no light gain. So i suggested leaving the furthest oak which luckily hadn't been thinned and removed the nearest thus giving the 'Client' all the light they would ever need. So was my best interest in the client or the tree? In this case i would say both, Client gains his much wanted light and the second tree is allowed to develop naturally and untouched.

 

I apologize if this reads poorly/rambles/repeats/repeats/rambles.

 

good post:thumbup:

[Ian Flatters]

28/25 in favour of the tree:thumbup:

 

Interesting i thought it would of been more for the client.

[Tom D]

Its interesting haow this has panned out, although I think there are a few misconceptions regarding my original intent.

 

This is NOT about cutters versus consultants.

 

My point is that if you are an arboricultural consultant then you have a DUTY to represent your client as best as you can, failiure to do so is negligent and could, in theory, lead to a claim against you.

 

You may be a consultant working as a TO in which case your loyalty should lie with the council and the local planning strategy.

 

Or perhaps an ecological consultant working for a conservation body such as the woodland trust or the RSPB.

 

Or like me a general consultant who's duty lies with his clients and who's job is to represent them.

 

I honestly beleive that what ever type of consultant you are you MUST act impassionately and represent whoever is employing you to the best of your abilities. Allowing your own views to come in to things could easily lead to either you or your employer facing legal action. If as a layman I employ a consultant to help me with a problem and that consultant fails to achieve my desired result then that is fine. However if it turns out that other consultants could have acheived a more desireable result for me then I would be within my rights to sue the first consultant for professional negligence.

This is true for all professions from medicine to law to surveying.

 

There is nothing wrong with what I will crudely call a "tree hugging" attitude but if you are trading as a consultant and allow that attitude to affect your work than you are potentially negligent.

[Stephen Blair]

Its interesting haow this has panned out, although I think there are a few misconceptions regarding my original intent.

 

This is NOT about cutters versus consultants.

 

My point is that if you are an arboricultural consultant then you have a DUTY to represent your client as best as you can, failiure to do so is negligent and could, in theory, lead to a claim against you.

 

You may be a consultant working as a TO in which case your loyalty should lie with the council and the local planning strategy.

 

Or perhaps an ecological consultant working for a conservation body such as the woodland trust or the RSPB.

 

Or like me a general consultant who's duty lies with his clients and who's job is to represent them.

 

I honestly beleive that what ever type of consultant you are you MUST act impassionately and represent whoever is employing you to the best of your abilities. Allowing your own views to come in to things could easily lead to either you or your employer facing legal action. If as a layman I employ a consultant to help me with a problem and that consultant fails to achieve my desired result then that is fine. However if it turns out that other consultants could have acheived a more desireable result for me then I would be within my rights to sue the first consultant for professional negligence.

This is true for all professions from medicine to law to surveying.

 

There is nothing wrong with what I will crudely call a "tree hugging" attitude but if you are trading as a consultant and allow that attitude to affect your work than you are potentially negligent.

 

exactly what i was just about to say, word for word actually:sneaky2:

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Its interesting haow this has panned out, although I think there are a few misconceptions regarding my original intent.

 

This is NOT about cutters versus consultants.

 

My point is that if you are an arboricultural consultant then you have a DUTY to represent your client as best as you can, failiure to do so is negligent and could, in theory, lead to a claim against you.

 

You may be a consultant working as a TO in which case your loyalty should lie with the council and the local planning strategy.

 

Or perhaps an ecological consultant working for a conservation body such as the woodland trust or the RSPB.

 

Or like me a general consultant who's duty lies with his clients and who's job is to represent them.

 

I honestly beleive that what ever type of consultant you are you MUST act impassionately and represent whoever is employing you to the best of your abilities. Allowing your own views to come in to things could easily lead to either you or your employer facing legal action. If as a layman I employ a consultant to help me with a problem and that consultant fails to achieve my desired result then that is fine. However if it turns out that other consultants could have acheived a more desireable result for me then I would be within my rights to sue the first consultant for professional negligence.

This is true for all professions from medicine to law to surveying.

 

There is nothing wrong with what I will crudely call a "tree hugging" attitude but if you are trading as a consultant and allow that attitude to affect your work than you are potentially negligent.

 

if your going to call anyone negligent, you better be good:001_rolleyes:

[Stephen Blair]

if your going to call anyone negligent, you better be good:001_rolleyes:

 

He is:001_cool: