Large Cedar Dilemma

[Paul Melarange]

Risk , what risk . ...Customer says to painter and decorator I want the outside of my house painted orange with big purple spots on . Painter and decorator says I don't think that is a good idea . There is a risk some one wont like it ..

 

Stubby, I suppose the point I was trying to make is it is important to find out what the clients reason is for wanting a tree removed.

 

The reasons I can think of are:

 

1. Nuisance (both annoyance i.e. excessive shade, leaves, damaging a structure etc and in the legal sense)

 

2. In the way of something i.e. a new building or driveway

 

3. Suppressing a better or more important tree.

 

4. Risk of harm or damage from the tree or parts of the tree failing.

 

I'm sure there are others but that will do for now.

 

All four are perfectly valid reasons. However, the fourth (Risk) is probably one of the most misunderstood. Many people do not understand that in order for a tree to pose a significant risk there has to be a target i.e. something significant that it will hit, the size of the part that fails has to be big enough to cause harm or damage and there has to be a high likelihood of that part actually failing. Consequently, we as arborists are asked to remove trees that are thought to be dangerous, but aren't.

 

Tree surgeons that remove trees that are perceived by the public to be dangerous, but in reality do not pose a significant risk are risk entrepreneurs i.e. they are taking advantage of peoples fear of trees.

 

A painter and decorator isn't in a position to take advantage of peoples fears are they?

 

I'm not saying that people on here take advantage of others, I'm just saying that it is important that we find out the true reason behind why people want trees removed, so we don't remove trees unnecessarily!

[Alinicoll]

Ti, it strikes me from your personal and professional posts that you have a moral compass.....

 

The mantra, "If it don't feel right, it probably ain't right" isn't a bad one.

 

If you need the income it's sometimes necessary to navigate by magnetic North rather than true North. It must be troubling you enough to post it up here?

 

Use your compass mate, it'll see you right!

 

Wise words

[Mountain man]

Stubby, I suppose the point I was trying to make is it is important to find out what the clients reason is for wanting a tree removed.

 

The reasons I can think of are:

 

1. Nuisance (both annoyance i.e. excessive shade, leaves, damaging a structure etc and in the legal sense)

 

2. In the way of something i.e. a new building or driveway

 

3. Suppressing a better or more important tree.

 

4. Risk of harm or damage from the tree or parts of the tree failing.

 

I'm sure there are others but that will do for now.

 

All four are perfectly valid reasons. However, the fourth (Risk) is probably one of the most misunderstood. Many people do not understand that in order for a tree to pose a significant risk there has to be a target i.e. something significant that it will hit, the size of the part that fails has to be big enough to cause harm or damage and there has to be a high likelihood of that part actually failing. Consequently, we as arborists are asked to remove trees that are thought to be dangerous, but aren't.

 

Tree surgeons that remove trees that are perceived by the public to be dangerous, but in reality do not pose a significant risk are risk entrepreneurs i.e. they are taking advantage of peoples fear of trees.

 

A painter and decorator isn't in a position to take advantage of peoples fears are they?

 

I'm not saying that people on here take advantage of others, I'm just saying that it is important that we find out the true reason behind why people want trees removed, so we don't remove trees unnecessarily!

 

I cannot highlight so I'll address your point about preying on people's fears.

If someone is genuinely scared of a tree, ie it causes them sleepiness nights during storms, rightly or wrongly (bearing in mind one can never be absolutely certain of its safety) and there's no TPO etc, it's theirs, and they want it out, you should price to remove.

[Paul Melarange]

I cannot highlight so I'll address your point about preying on people's fears.

If someone is genuinely scared of a tree, ie it causes them sleepiness nights during storms, rightly or wrongly (bearing in mind one can never be absolutely certain of its safety) and there's no TPO etc, it's theirs, and they want it out, you should price to remove.

 

Yes but only after you've ascertained that the tree is actually within falling distance of the house, is large enough to actually penetrate the structure of the building and after explaining all the other options available i.e. crown reduction to reduce wind load etc. surely?

[Mountain man]

Hmmmm, to an extent yes, but what I'm railing against is the school of thought that tries to dissuade a client who is worried or scared of a tree that they're foolish and need to be educated out of their ignorance. I've taken many, many trees out just to allay clients fears of an unlikely catastrophe.

They sleep better afterwards, I've provided a service.

Ps I thought crown reductions are the devils work or is that last weeks mantra?

[detritus21]

Is this where there is a discrepancy between a tree surgeon and an arboriculturalist. From a tree surgeons perspective I would remove the tree as requested by the client. The arbiriculturalist in me would look at the possibility of retention and talk it through with them.

[Mountain man]

I suppose it depends on why they called you, if they phoned you as a arbo.....whatever is was you said, saying they wanted to save it, then fine go on about tip reductions and yearly inspections, if they phone you up and want a price for removal.....

[Stubby]

Yes but only after you've ascertained that the tree is actually within falling distance of the house, is large enough to actually penetrate the structure of the building and after explaining all the other options available i.e. crown reduction to reduce wind load etc. surely?

 

Maybe he is not scared of it . There may be no targets . Maybe he just does not like it . The point I am making is we are not all alike . You may love trees , as I do , but you , I presume are trying to earn a crust . He wants to pay you to take it down . At the end of the day you dont live there , he does . I dont think its a moral issue . Just me . As you said someone else will do it .

[sloth]

Stubby, I suppose the point I was trying to make is it is important to find out what the clients reason is for wanting a tree removed.

 

The reasons I can think of are:

 

1. Nuisance (both annoyance i.e. excessive shade, leaves, damaging a structure etc and in the legal sense)

 

2. In the way of something i.e. a new building or driveway

 

3. Suppressing a better or more important tree.

 

4. Risk of harm or damage from the tree or parts of the tree failing.

 

I'm sure there are others but that will do for now.

 

All four are perfectly valid reasons. However, the fourth (Risk) is probably one of the most misunderstood. Many people do not understand that in order for a tree to pose a significant risk there has to be a target i.e. something significant that it will hit, the size of the part that fails has to be big enough to cause harm or damage and there has to be a high likelihood of that part actually failing. Consequently, we as arborists are asked to remove trees that are thought to be dangerous, but aren't.

 

Tree surgeons that remove trees that are perceived by the public to be dangerous, but in reality do not pose a significant risk are risk entrepreneurs i.e. they are taking advantage of peoples fear of trees.

 

A painter and decorator isn't in a position to take advantage of peoples fears are they?

 

I'm not saying that people on here take advantage of others, I'm just saying that it is important that we find out the true reason behind why people want trees removed, so we don't remove trees unnecessarily!

 

Very well put. I know as an employee I have taken down lots of trees due to the owners unfounded fears of it falling and damaging 'something or nothing' over the years. Often half way through felling a chat to the owner was along the lines of "it's a lovely old tree, I'm very sad to see it go, but now it's grown so big it's dangerous. It really moves in the wind." Me "oh right, yeah, shame that"

Makes me wonder how many safe trees are removed because the owner feels it is isn't, without any of the people quoting saying otherwise. It could be compared to roofing. Little old calls up "my roofs getting old now and I don't want it to start leaking" Dodgy geeza "well I could coat it with this special waterproofer, or I could strip it and re-tile. Good for another 30 years then."

A decent roofer would check it, say it needs nothing and is in good nick. Plenty of rogue traders would go the other route, 'just to keep her happy'.

[Firestorm]

You lot are funny, especially you Mountain Man.