For those of you who have not yet heard Jim Clark and Nelda Matheny's new book "Trees and Development. A Technical Guide to the Preservation of TRees During Land Development" is now available from ISA. An excellent book and source guide, it should be widely promoted within our own profesion, as well as to landscape architects, architects, engineers, and planners. I encourage you all to get a copy or get the other playesr involved to get their own copy, so that we can actively promote better understanding of trees and development issues.

Julian Dunster

Reply to post by Julian Dunster, on May 08, 1998 at 11:24:57:

Julian

I have seen Jim & Nelda's book which, although a step in the right direction for you lot in the Colonies, it falls far short of what is needed to implement the procedure.

The essential mistake with this book is that it is aimed at the Arboriculturist, who, in the USA & Canada as well as most of Europe, knows what the problems are. We need to publish to our client base, not to ourselves - this is self serving and does nothing to advnace the profession.

When we truely involve planners, Artichokes (Architects) and the landscape variety of same, then we will have done something. Only one Consulting Group has done this to date - I will give the Acronym - SORP - figure that out and you will have the answers. Until then - promote the self service and we step back several rungs on the evolutionalry ladder.

Ciao - Dealga

Reply to post by Dealga OCallaghan, on May 08, 1998 at 11:24:57:

I'll disagree a bit, Dealga, about the book being entirely self serving. It is written toward the arborist, but has good information to be used by the planning professionals, too. What this book does is pull a lot of information together in one place, and makes a good training tool and reference for the arborist. However, as you pointed out, it falls short of the standards on much of the actual "how to". Perhaps it is our aversion to regulation and laws that tell us all the aspects of doing our jobs. We have yet to convince the planners and builders that there are very good and valid reasons why this needs to be done. Maybe this book will helps us convince them- it is now in writing, rather than a few individuals saying it needs to be done.

Russ

Reply to post by Dealga OCallaghan, on May 08, 1998 at 11:24:57:

Any book promoting tree protection in the US is a plus, I agree, it is not as well known as our own (UK) BS 5837 or NJUG Pub 10 guidelines and of course the many AAIS publications and planning varients, but certainly a step foward outside the UK. Jim and Nelda have produced good stuff in the past, however, the UK market is fully charged with BSI guidelines and Jim and Nelda's stuff has taken these, to some extent, into account.

In reality, we can only change the situation at pace and Jim and Nelda are attending to the issue in hand.

However, do not knock the potential for serious CPD in relation to US development and vegetation protective measures.

Is SORP (Sustainability of Resources Programme) not an ISA (Europe) Ltd product, or is it simply an aconym for OCA Ltd?

Paul H.

Reply to post by Paul H, on May 08, 1998 at 18:00:23:

Paul H
Get your facts right before rushing into print. SORP is wholly owned by ISA International. True it is an ISA Europe initative, but the rights are owned by the ISA.

The development of SORP was through OCA Ltd, but this company sold the rights to ISA. It neither owns nor contraols SORP at this point. It has produced a number of products within the SORP Suite, but then so have others, noteably The Royal Botanic Gradens at Kew - hardly an OCA Ltd subsidiary.

I would also check your use of words, as even in the Coptic or Cyrrillic Alphabets, there is no way S.O.R.P. could be an acronym for OCA LTD. Actually OCA Ltd is the acronym for O'Callaghan Associates Limited and SORP is the acronym for Sustainability of Resources Programme.

I hope this helps you uinderstand the situation which I would feel is essential to you in your capacity of Secretary to the Morttgage Users Group which is, itelf representing a SORP Product.

Reply to post by Dealga OCallaghan, on May 08, 1998 at 18:55:55:


I am well aware of the facts and the English language.

My second paragraph was intended as a play on words.

Paul H.

Reply to post by Dealga OCallaghan, on May 08, 1998 at 11:24:57:

Dealga... I enjoyed your presentation at Landscape Below Ground II, and respect you as a professional... however...

I disagree with your comments....

After a thorough review of "Trees and Development", I find it extremely comprehensive in scope. It includes virtually all the information necessary to plan for and implement tree preservation procedures. I believe the information provided is thorough enough and broad enough in scope to be of critical value to all involved in the development process (arborists, architects, landscape architects, engineers, planners, etc.).

I also emphatically disagree that all arborists already "know what the problems are", and that ANY effort to educate and inform our peers is "self-serving and does nothing to advance the profession"!

However, I do agree that we need to communicate this information to the general public and development related professionals in a meaningful way.... but I do not believe your critique of this very important publication serves that end!

With all due respect... I strongly recommend you review this publication again and recommend it to all with an interest in tree preservation... particularly your "client base".

Torrey Young

Reply to post by Torrey Young, on May 08, 1998 at 18:00:23:

Dealga - If you trust the ISA's judgement on SORP I would suggest that you trust ISA on "Trees and Development." Both programs serve the profession (self-serving), allied professions and trees.

Reply to post by Bill Kruidenier, on May 15, 1998 at 19:29:01:

Bob

Surely, we serve the client, with impartiallity of course and after all, the client commissions the investigation and end's up paying the fee!

Where are you actually coming from on this issue?

Paul H.

Reply to post by Dealga OCallaghan, on May 08, 1998 at 11:24:57:

Dealga:

You folks in the U.K. may be ahead of us in the Colonies.
Here, it's a mistake to assume that the "consultant"
(arborist/arboriculturist) knows what the problem is, or how
to address it. As Russ comments separately, this book
brings together a wealth of necessary information in one
place.

Yes, we need to publish to our clients. We need to educate
them, but we need to educate ourselves first, and in the
U.S., at least, we need that "self-serving" self-education
very much.

For that matter, Jim & Nelda's book is certainly accessible
to planners, arcthitects, etc. (and is being actively
marketed to them) Yes, we must convince them of the
necessity of following it's guidelines, (although the book
already does this rather effectively) and find ways to
integrate these people into the process.

Still, we must first familiarize ourselves with the
principles with which we intend to involve others.

Joe McNeil
oakperson@aol.com

Reply to post by Joseph McNeil, on May 08, 1998 at 18:00:23:


Your remarks imply that before you read Jim and Nelda's book, you were in no position to supply arboricultural consultative input to developers/construction industries, however, in gaining knowledge from the book, you can now clearly define and incorporate all the necessary data for the successful preservation of trees on site. Have I misinterpreted you or not, please explain?

Paul H.

Reply to post by Paul H, on May 19, 1998 at 12:43:53:

Paul, you misunderstand. Whatever the level of expertise of the consultant,
this book is an excellent tool.

Joe McNeil

Reply to post by Joseph McNeil, on May 20, 1998 at 17:07:40:


Dear Joe

No offence. I agree about the publication and have from the start. If your writings lead readers to misinterpret your meaning then we end up with confusion.

Paul H.

Reply to post by Torrey Young, on May 08, 1998 at 18:00:23:

Torrey, you said it right! My comments would echo yours exactly! Well put! Now I suppose I'll have to have a look at the book.

Reply to post by Dealga OCallaghan, on May 08, 1998 at 18:55:55:

How rude. I thought you Brits had manners!

Reply to post by Julian Dunster, on May 08, 1998 at 11:24:57:

Successful tree preservation in a development context requires three (at least) things: 1) a culture that fosters it, that includes sciety at large, the owner/developers and the planners/architects/engineers and so forth; 2) tree specialists who know what they are doing; and 3) # 2 able to communicate and command respect and confidence.

As I understand Jim & Nelda's book it is and was intended to be a technical reference aimed principally at 2 & 3 and secondarily at the professionals in 1. It stands in sharp contrast to Growing Greener Cities and Building in the Green (American Forests, NAHB, NADF and the like) etc. which are aimed at the wider audience and intended for the cultural mission, #1.

I must agree with Joe Mcneil and point out that we must educate ourselves first. Assuming all arborists understand the dynamics of tree growth, not all understand the dynamics of the development process and trees under such stress. Some who may intuitively understand may not qualify under 3.

As long as I've been around tree care I've heard the same lament: why don't we get the same respect as the landscape architect, architect, engineer, planner, lawyer, whoever? Why do they listen to them, not to me? Same goes for real estate appraisers in the valuation arena. The answer is they have each developed a culture that is recognized. Some of it undoubtedly a mystique, window dressing or less tasteful stuff. But much of it in advanced education, a highly developed literature and established standards, not just a range of self informed opinions.

We are making progress, but have a long way to go. Technical manuals like Jim & Nelda's are an important part of the process. We can only take partial responsibility for the cultural process (#1). We must take responsibility for our own skills (#'s 2 &3).

While I'm at it, with regard to #3: see Russ's ASCA discussion group on the Academy report writing course.