Things have gotten pretty dull. How do all of the rest of you feel about using different appraisal methods for the same project, and submitting them in the report. If you do try several methods, or you obligated, as an advocate for the truth, to include them all....or only the one you think is more appropriate? Does this reflect on the reasonableness testing? Huh? Huh? Huh?
Very treely,
Lew

Reply to post by lew bloch, on February 26, 1998 at 19:21:22:

It all goes back to the purpose and use of your report and how the assignment is defined.
If your assignment is to base your tree value on all available methods because the audience is a group of lawyers and judges who want all possibilities explored - that's one thing. If your assignment is to use that method which is most frequently used (I hate to say "standard") in your particular situation then that is what you do. And you are enough of a professional to make that judgement call and be reasonable.

Bottom line is: you can't do anything without first clearly defining your assignment to yourself and to your client!!!

I love this bulletin board - it's so much fun talking at you! Cheers! DA

Reply to post by Dorothy, on February 26, 1998 at 19:21:22:

I, too, love this board, Dorothy. Sometimes the assignment is not specific as to methodology, only to determine the value of damaged plants for a law suit or insurance claim. Sometimes the various methods come out real close, but sometimes they are miles apart. Some of my colleagues say to include all of your findings in the report; some say to determine the best method in your opinion. What say you???
Very treely,
lew

Reply to post by lew bloch, on March 02, 1998 at 17:31:34:

>>I, too, love this board

And I love that you guys think that. I'm glad I set this up. It's fun! Don't forget to invite others to drop by.

Lew, as Dorothy pointed out, whether to use multiple methods, and report on all of them, depends entirely on the assignment. That means considering the client and associated audiences, and the purpose they will use the report for. If I calculate more than one method, I will sometimes report all the results, but often just mention that the results of the selected method were verified by other methods. Have to be careful with that, so you don't get tripped up on using one over another. My opinion is that as the professional, I have to choose which is most appropriate, and have an obligation to consider all the alternatives before formulating a final judgement on the case.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on March 03, 1998 at 18:08:14:

What would folks say if we used the trunk formula to set the value at the time the tree was lost for whatever reason, and the cost of cure as a measure of what it will cost to restore some semblance of the landscape and subtract one from the other. Many of the common trees round here, such as red alder, big leaf mape, hemlock, Douglas-fir, and red cedar could have high value under the trunk formula approach (merely because of large trunk diameter), and a low cost of cure (replacement plants are not that expensive, even up to 3 4 metres tall), and yet have only nominal lumber value or worse still, only very low value as firewood (which may exced lumber value). The courts have not yet seriously caught on to the nuances here, but they will in time. Any comments, suggestions, etc. I agree with Dorothy to a point, but I have had several cases where the trunk formula was used to inflate the value, vs cost of cure.

Cheers.

Julian

Reply to post by Julian Dunster, on March 03, 1998 at 20:00:26:

Using the trunk formula method to inflate a value is not new or different. What may be outstanding is when the arborist documents why the rating values used for condition, location or species are unusualy higher than what might be considered 'typical' and the arborist admits that the value might be considered inflated over the 'norm'. This kind of ethical reasoning and documentation is what we are striving toward. We may diagree on a value, but we should be ethically sound and reasonable in our judgements. As a good friend of mine often says - "We must be advocates for the truth."-- and I will amend that by saying that by disclosing the methodology, the reason for using that methodology (the purpose and use of a report) in the beginning - in the definition of the assignment - we can arrive at a value that is reasonable and defensible. Please note ---- I did not say you will always win. But, then winning isn't everything. And winning at any cost is nothing.
Sorry to get so serious. But you get my point, I hope. I think Scott Cullen is starting to get to me!!! I do wish he would get a computer capable of going on line.
Your companion in the nightmare of appraisal,
Dorothy

Reply to post by Dorothy, on March 04, 1998 at 17:16:19:

Very good points, Dorothy, and I whole heartily agree, especially the advocate part. It really gets to me that all of our appraisals are not within 10% of each other. Why should experienced appraisers be any farther apart than that?!?! As to Scott, do you really think he can brief enough to go on line???
As before,
Lew

Reply to post by lewbloch, on March 06, 1998 at 01:42:40:

I don't know if Scott could ever be described as brief, but it sure would cut down on my phone bills. Dorothy

Reply to post by Dorothy, on March 04, 1998 at 17:16:19:

Dorothy, I think that Scott is starting to get through. I'm hearing him in person and now on line as well through you!! Would you like me to begin bothering him to get a web connection, its a local call.......

This is a really great for us "rookies" to be able to read and participate in this kind of discussion grou.

Wayne