With the tree? or its owner?
After recent discussions on another thread I am wondering how most of us feel on this issue.
As a Consulting Arborist, I cut and climb as well as providing reports and surveys, I have to say that whatever "hat" I am wearing my first priority has to be with my customer. This has to be the basis for any serious professional relationship.
I will not break the law or lie to keep my client happy but I will fight his corner as best I can, this means that if he wants to take a tree down against the wishes of the LA then my job (for which he is paying) is to justify this according to my knowledge of the tree and its situation. This means that I will attempt to find cause for its removal either by citing other neighbouring trees as cover, ie it won't be missed, or by finding fault with the tree itself either disease or structural defects. In my view this is neither unethical or un professional, on the contrary it is in fact the reality of the job, it would be un professional to do anything other than represent your clients as best you can. I have good working relationships with the TO's that I deal with regularly and I beleive that they respect my dedication to my clients, we may not always agree but that is all part of the process, I'm doing my job and they are doing theirs.
My job, the way I see it, is to give advice according to the principles of good tree management, and then to (hopefully) carry out the work advised. I have done a lot of conservation work over the years, veteranisation, habitat creation etc, because this was what the clients wanted, I am not simply a lop em and chop em merchant. In cases where I feel the clients wishes are not the best thing for the tree then I will advise them as to the correct path, whatever that may be, however if they really want that tree topped and if I don't do it someone else will..... all I can do is explain the reasons for not doing it and if that isn't enough to disuade them then I will top it (I always use reduction cuts though, even if they are way beyond "acceptable")
I don't feel like a cowboy, in fact I think I offer a very good service, I am certainly doing well so I must be doing something right.
To give you a couple of analogies, take a planning consultant employed to ease through a planning app for a house that he beleives is hideous and in appropriate for the site. He may advise his client that the house is inappropriate, but if the client wants that house then he has to bite his tongue and do his job.
Or how about a solicitor representiong a client whom he knows to be guilty, the professional approach is to do his best to get his client off the hook, its that simple.
So who's approach is un-professional?