I've been reviewing the Value and related threads. A lot of time has been invested by a few and a few others dropped by from time to time. Russ asked 11/21 (#317) 'What is the value in this?" From my perspective, I hope we few have accomplished more than just entertaining each other.

I have no doubt that all the arborists out there can quickly and accurately define a tree; and the pathologists a pathogen; and the foresters a board-foot; and so on. I can't help thinking that if tree appraisers were clear on Value the KnotHole would have been flooded with clear, concise definitions of value.

Are there lurkers out there, quietly reading all these posts? Are you all amused that we few have spent so much time discussing Value when it's obvious and clear to the rest of you? Or have many had questions about what Value is? Have these discussions helped anybody? Have they hit a nerve?

Scott

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on December 01, 1998 at 10:44:24:

Hi Scott!
How did you know my middle name was Lurker?
Several times i have thought about jumping in, but quite frankly, in spite of enjoying your questions and proddings, some of the messages just made my eyes glaze over. I read, re-read, and re-re-read them, and still didn't understand. I really didn't want to offend anybody, but I guess that's just what I'm doing now.
Before I ever heard of ASCA, I learned that the best communications were those of fewer words and smaller words. In other words, the KISS theory (keep it simple, stupid.)
Further, I think some of these comments about the appraisal process are only making the procedures more complicated than need be. In my opinion, the most complicating part of appraising is deciding which method(s) to use. After that, it's pretty simple.
Wait until all youse guys see the new GUIDE!!! I think it's going to be a huge improvement, and quite different than some of you might think, but I know there is going to be a lot of feed-back, particularily on this board. I also know it's not all going to be positive!
I apologize if I have offended, and I'm also sorry for the length of this discourse.
O.K. let me have it back.
Very treely,
Lew

Reply to post by lewbloch, on December 01, 1998 at 10:44:24:

Lew, Lew, Lew.... [sigh]

The commentary at times has run to lengthy, albeit not always pithy, discourse. But for anyone who has followed the discussion, it has to be at least a bit helpful in figuring out the basis for what we are doing. These threads are not all stuff you will take into the field on a daily basis. But it sure has made me think a little harder and a little deeper about the theory behind the practice.

Russ
ps: Come on up to the Academy, and we'll discuss it some more.

Reply to post by lewbloch, on December 01, 1998 at 10:44:24:

No offense taken Lew. Getting to the simple, basic issue was the idea. Why didn't you post that advice before all those tangents got explored? Russ really wants you to go to Newport. You can help him teach clear, concise writing.

So, the simple answer was: "Value is the present worth of future benefits."

I'll bet you're still with us (your eyes can't be glassy yet with that cool, new 17" monitor and an even cooler short answer).

So, does it make sense? Or are we still off the mark?

Scott

Reply to post by lewbloch, on December 01, 1998 at 10:44:24:

What a lew, lew, (child definition: a large boo boo)

Since, I have seen your posts in other categories, I cannot consider you to be a lurker. Although, you may continue to self proclaim yourself such.

By not participating, you fail in answering the questions which may have been raised during the course of your reading. (your loss, and ours!)

Remember, Russ's rules of the board? #4 Have Fun.

No man (excuse my political incorrectness 'no one') in the space of a few small sentences can elaborate, expound, illustrate, or infer their total thought's, experiences on a particular matter. Thus, many often will not write or inpart in a conversation for fear of rejection, or falsely believe themselves of greater education by remaining quiet.

Yes, we do try to be concise in making statements for which we are accountable for. However, the intent was clear in this thread presented by Scott that he and Russ had been involved in this conversation prior to the thread, and sought to use this means of communication to learn more, thus benefiting not just themselves, but all who read or participated. What is the 'value' then?

Let Lew-se, Lew-sen up and let the thoughts flow!

Hope I have'nt offended, Sincerely Steve

Reply to post by lewbloch, on December 01, 1998 at 10:44:24:

Lew I re-read this thread and I have a few more comments.

The threads are indeed difficult to follow. Not only were there tangents but e-mail by its very interactive and quick response nature does not make for concise, cogent, sequential presentation.

That said, I'm not sure keeping it simple is the whole answer. Somewhere back in the threads I think I said that if simplified application techniques are to be meaningful they must be based on sound theory. Some if not a lot of this stuff is no doubt foreign to the typical plant appraiser who is most probably experienced in plant material. Touching it, physically dealing with it. But appraisal is really social science and if you're going to do it you need to learn more than technique.

What would your response be to treeman A? "I don't have time for that CODIT stuff. It confuses me. My gradfather taught me to make flush cuts and I already know how to use a chain saw. My clients are happy. Don't bother me with that theory stuff."

Or treeman B? "I don't have time for all that plant health care stuff. All those computer programs and bug names in foreign languages. UGGH. I load up my 60gpm sprayer and nothing moves when I'm done. Been doing it for years. The Sierra Club types don't call me and that's fine."

Or treeman C? "Don't bother me with all those latin names. I can't pronounce them even if I could remember them. I know what I mean when I say 'swamp maple.' What else matters? What do I care if those crazy europeans call sycamores plane trees and sycamore maples sycamores and lindens limes? They don't work here and I don't work there. If they want to know what I mean they can ask me."

There's nothing wrong with simplified techniques. They save time, avoid confusion and are in both the public and commercial interest. But you've got to know what they MEAN.

Scott

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on December 01, 1998 at 10:44:24:

Scott,

I am going to try to change from a lurker to flasher for a few moments and put in my thoughts based on an appraisal of a shelterbelt I did last weekend.
This was a 15 year old belt around a farmstead in Central ND (the god-forsaken part you see if you only travel I-94). Several of the ideas in the past few threads came into play. Present value of future benefits - the trees have not reached their full potential of height, which regionally is 30' for green ash and 45' for poplars. The chokecherry and carragana rows are most resonably figured, in my opinion with a Cost of Cure approach figuring the cost of a 12' board windbreak common around many feedlots. The belt was planted specifically for the purpose of creating 3 large calving pens to be use in late winter (Feb, Mar, Apr) so their location was probably worth more than strictly creature comforts and energy savings for the houseyard. Condition suffered a little bit, since the trees were doing an excellent job of holding snow. The 10 -15' drifts, as they settled, had pulled many branches downward on the trees, breaking them, but the tree vigor was improved by the increased water supply from the snow, so this was balancing out.
I will admit that I thought more about some of the aspects of this appraisal, just because of the conversations on this site, than normal. I also admit to the glassy eyed approach to reading previously mentioned.

Keep up the good work, all.

Bob

Reply to post by Bob Underwood, on December 01, 1998 at 10:44:24:

Bob, were you ever able to get any feedback from SDSU on the Shelterbelt method by Helwig et al, circa 1982?

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on December 01, 1998 at 18:14:20:

Scott,
Of course I agree with your premises as to the three "treemen" and most of your premises. i also respect the details and precision of your value AND appraisal techniques. I think you know that.
When you talk about value in the future, do you think it is permissible to appraise how much a tree will be worth in the future?
I am not planning to go to Newport this year, but best of luck.
Very treely,
lew

Reply to post by lewbloch, on December 02, 1998 at 09:41:07:

Hi Lew,

Sorry if this is at all redundant by I can't recall what exactly might be in other posts.

Appraisers must estimate value as of a point in time. Usually, it's today -- the present. Sometimes it's retrospective, in the past. E.G. what was the value of the tree 6 years ago when the chemical trespass occurred? Sometimes it's prospective, in the future. E.G. what will the value of the urban forest be in 20 years if we implement this management and replacement plan rather than just cutting down any trees that die?

I think estimating future value is a valid exercise. Certainly a little more difficult, requiring projections of tree growth as well as inflation, but certainly possible. The appraser must disclose the assumptions and any uncertainty surrounding them, but it's doable. Permissable would depend on the particular jurisdiction, I suppose.

I'm not sure everybody is clear on this next point which is why I'm repeating it. Estimating value as of some point in the future is NOT the same as considering future benefits in estimating value as of today. Value today, present value, is based on the anticipation of what will happen from today forward. A structurally sound and healthy tree is worth more than a defective sickly one because it will provide more benefits for a longer period of time and will cost less to maintain. It is taht anticipation that creates worth or value.

scott

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on December 03, 1998 at 19:03:30:

Scott,
You are right that estimating value in the future is possible and doable, but in my opinion, involves far too much guessing. Weather, insects, diseases, droughts, and many other man made factors can occur which would greatly affect the condition of the tree. Further, the location and contribution to the property may be altered. I would do my best to avoid such situations.
Very treely,
lew

Reply to post by lewbloch, on December 03, 1998 at 20:37:34:

See my post in 371 which I might expand to note that the further away in the future from the present date that we try to estimate values, the higher the uncertainty. Next week may be reasonably predictable, next year less so, next decade even more so. Like complexity, time introduces inherent problems that make the final answer much more difficult to be certain about.

Julian Dunster

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on December 03, 1998 at 19:03:30:

Lew (371) and Julian (376) make good points about estimating FUTURE VALUE. There are many variables in the future that the appraiser can only make assumptions about. The assumptions must be clearly stated and the reliability or confidence level cannot be overstated.

The more reliable (based on available data) the assumptions the higher the confidence and conversely.

We have some similar concerns in estimating the PRESENT VALUE of future benefits. Our notions of worth and value all hinge on future performance and survival. We assume the tree will live out its life (typical for species and age). We assume the house won't be washed away by a flood. If the tree is structurally unsound or sickly, if the house is within a 100 year flood plain we are less confident and reduce the value estimate to reflect higher risk. (Mathemetically we are discounting the future benefits more steeply, either uniformly over projected life or variably over projected life to reflect lowere probability of survival in each sucessive year.) In any case we do it all the time in our PRESENT VALUE estimates, so the exercise is really not so different for FUTURE VALUE cases, just different inputs and adjustments.

Scott