Time's up on March 26, so comment now or hold your piece (or is it peace?)
See this month's TCI magazine or go online http://www.tcia.org/PDFs/Part1-PruningDrft2V1PubRev02'07.pdf
I think it's great that this process allows comments from the field.
Here's my main comment. What do you think?
5.5.3 “When repeated pruning is necessary for a tree to avoid conflicts with elements such as infrastructure, view, traffic, or utilities, removal or relocation SHALL be considered.”
GM: This is a proposed addition from 2001 and there is not a clear reason for it in general arboriculture. This language mandates that every arborist must consider removing every tree that is occasionally pruned to clear a house or a road, and every hedge, would create an undue burden on the arborist. This proposed addition would also tend to defeat the whole Purpose of this Standard.
If this language has any place, it is under Utility Pruning, and there only as a should, not a shall. For general purposes, it would be more appropriate to recommend considering the retention of every tree.
ASC A300 Response: Not accepted. The requirement only asks the arborist to consider the option in certain qualified instances. This requirement for consideration only applies when repeated pruning is
necessary.
GM 3/16/2007: This response is not accurate.
1. Requirements do not ask, they order. By using “shall”, ANSI mandates.
2. “repeated” is not defined.
3. 5.5.3 says nothing about “certain qualified instances”. As it stands, the committee is telling arborists that they MUST consider removing every tree that will need to be repruned to avoid conflicts with infrastructure, view traffic, or utilities. This comprises most if not all of the trees in the landscape.
This proposed 5.5.3 goes outside the scope of the Standard. According to the Scope, these “standards (are) for the care and management of trees…”. They do not give primacy to ” infrastructure, view, traffic, or utilities”. This proposal is not “based on current research and sound practice”, as the Mission clearly calls for. It would be very UNsound practice to require an arborist to look at every tree that will be pruned more than once as a potential removal. This order would create an undue burden and turn the arborist’s attention directly away from “care and management”.
There is no research or sound practice supporting this proposal, so proper procedures were not followed by the ASC in developing 5.5.3. It needs to be worded more clearly, or better yet scrapped entirely. As it stands, it will cause financial damage in an arbitrary manner for me to be ordered to look at most of the trees I encounter as potential removals. As I understand the process, this would be grounds for an Appeal.
