Looking for an arborist

Pardon me if this is the wrong forum..I'm just a newbie and I'm still exploring the site. I need help in finding a reliable arborist in Richmond, BC. We have 2 huge lombardi poplars that we want to get rid of. Any recommendation would be appreciated. Thanks.

 

Two companies I suggest are tall timber tree services and BC plant health care. Both are well equipped, experienced and insured.
City of Richmond has a strong tree retention bylaw, check it out on line at the City site or city hall before you do anything drastic with those trees, heavy fines can be levied if the bylaw isnt followed. Just FYI. :)

 

If it's a climbing job as opposed to one that requires a bucket truck, as was a huge conifer removal job we just had done, then you don't need a company with tons of equipment, full estimator services, a receptionist answering the phone, and so on. There are times when you want a company like that - for example when power lines are involved, since they usually have a utility arborist on staff. But for a garden-variety removal, you may get a lower rate from an arborist-owner-operator sized outfit. Ours was done by WoodPro Tree Services, with a fully satisfactory outcome.

 

woodpro, yes, Carl can be quite capable.

For a first referral I normally go with companies that cover the "oops" factor well. If the odds or cost of an 'oops' are low, then more players are in the game for certain.
Covering the 'oops' factor to me has nothing to do with employee count but rather insurance, WCB and experience. which of course is no indicator of ability... While estimates are generally free, why not try a few different folks?

 

Thanks for all the replies. Yes our plan is to get quotes from several companies just to have some comparison. We already checked the richmond bylaw and we don't see any problem as our trees really pose danger to our house and to our neighbors...yikes we don't want to have any problems in the future :) Thanks a lot again.

 

Sounds like you're on track, mhern, so I'm going to just deviate into a slight detour to discuss "oops" factors. We had an oops a few years back involving one of the larger companies which illustrates that company size doesn't always help, since in our case it caused a problem.

Our willow had grown through the neighbour's service wire, requiring a tricky cut in the midst of what was also an extensive pruning job for which we hired a large company. I mentioned the wire problem to the estimator, of course, but the estimator was not the guy who did the cutting, and the estimator apparently forgot to point out to the cutter that the job would entail that one difficult item. The cutter discovered it himself, did not have the equipment required to get to the cut safely (would have taken a bucket or at least a 10ft stepladder) and before I could stop him, did it with the saw on the end of his pole pruner, sawing straight toward the wire... a sight I won't soon forget. The company was insured, but that didn't make me feel better. This experience means that, when dealing with such a company in tree cutting or any other kind of work, I am always going to repeat to the actual operator whatever special items I discussed with the estimator.

As for free estimates... BC Plant Health Care does charge $30 for what they call an initial consultation, which they deduct if they get the job. Davey doesn't charge for estimates. But I would have paid that to Davey, as I happily did to BCPHC, because both of their estimators were extremely knowledgeable individuals from whose input I benefitted tremendously as there were a number of complicated technical and arboreal issues on the table when I talked with them.

Woodpro incidentally is insured, and of course Carl does his own estimates, as do most owner-operators.

And on behalf of neighbours of big trees, mhern, may I thank you for considering the neighbours' needs regarding your trees!

 

I have a son in this line of business. Make sure they are fully insured whom ever you get.

Liz

 

Thanks a lot. I just phoned the City of Richmond and I think the best way forward is to apply for a permit and they'll assess (by site visit I was told) if the trees pose any danger to us. That would cost us $50 but at least we'll feel safe knowing that it will be looked at by (I hope) knowledgeable people. I wonder what happens if they tell us that the trees are ok to stay and then cause us problems later on (e.g. hits the neighbors property)...would I be able to sue the city by giving us false recommendations? ;)

 

I know one of the folks at city of Richmond pretty well, a free evaluation is a very good value indeed. as for suing someone, the list of disclaimers on a tree report are usually numerous, there is only so much certainty that can be given about a living organism's future.

 

When I went in to apply for a permit for the removal of the neighbour's tree, I did not ask them to assess the situation. I knew we wanted this tree down; I knew why, and I knew who was going to be sleeping under it on windy nights. It was a matter of complete indifference to me what the city thought. If they had refused us a permit I would have sued them.

The rage for tree retention has gripped the world to the point of insanity, and you need to understand, before you let these people tell you what to do on your property, that while they may be slightly more knowledgeable about trees, but they are not soothsayers. Many trees that arborists have declared safe are not standing today. With the city arborists in particular, their best interests are served by optimism ("look what a green city we have" goes on their resume and into their self-righteousness bank) while your best interests are served by pessimism.

Instead of picturing yourself suing the city, you need to picture your neighbours (or their estate or their insurance company) suing you, and noting that you were well aware of the threat to them and their property yet allowed the city to dissuade you from mitigating it. Or you need to picture yourself or the neighbours dead. When that happens, the city arborists will still be sitting at their desks denying people permits.

Finally, I will point out that it is not really arborists who should be assessing your situation, or indeed authorizing tree removal permits. What citizens should be engaging are structural engineers, to evaluate the tree-carrying capacity of the structures we are worried about. You can argue till the cows come home about whether a tree will come down or not, and there will never be a right answer. But it is beyond dispute that when the tree falls, it will destroy whatever it falls on. Whoever owns the things within the tree's range should have the final right to dicate what threats hang over them.

 

All trees will die, all trees will eventually fail. That is the right answer that cannot be disputed.

Arborists should have the knowledge to assess and quantify the likelihood of failure under normal conditions.

"With the city arborists in particular, their best interests are served by optimism ("look what a green city we have" goes on their resume and into their self-righteousness bank) while your best interests are served by pessimism. "

I find this statement ignorant and offensive. I am not a 'city' tree person but I do know most of them in the lower mainland, they are doing their job, working under bylaws or ordinances written or approved by the people elected to office. If you had a bad experience with someone in particular, don't paint everyone with the same brush.

 

You take offense awfully easily, Paul, and to call me ignorant is not exactly an inoffensive response, nor is it a considered one. This was not a statement painting anyone at all; it is a simple statement of fact that all of us should understand about how the interests of the institutions and personnel we deal with line up with our own. You should understand that a doctor is better served by you being sick than by you being well, while being well is obviously best for you. We should understand that teachers are better served by children who have trouble learning than by children who learn quickly and easily, while parents and the children themselves are best off if they are readily able to learn new things. A housekeeping service is best served by untidy clients, while the clients themselves are best served if they can wield a toilet brush themselves. These are simply the ways in which best interests work.

You are correct in differentiating the arborists themselves from the elected officials who put bylaws into place. But as you point out, sometimes the elected officials (more fools they) only "approve" bylaws - and the arborists are often among the people on whose recommendations the bylaws have been crafted. But even if the bylaws have been crafted by elected officials and are bad and objectionable to implement, none of the arborists are constrained to hold those jobs in arboriculture as opposed to any others. They imply consent by their choice of work.

And so like all public servants and elected officials in democratic societies, arborists holding those jobs need to be held accountable for the nature of the bylaws and their application, on both a case-by-case and systemic basis. There should be nothing wrong with frankly stating that their inherent interests do not line up with citizen interests - but they can do either a good or a bad job nonetheless. Knee-jerk defensiveness on the basis of tribal allegiance to your professional colleagues serves no one at all, least of all, to be blunt, does it reflect well on your occupation.

In contrast to city arborists, by the way, it should be noted that arborists in private practice are best served by trees being kept and needing pruning every couple of years (the work needed by my willows being a case in point). Yet no arborist wants to be sued after a tree falls and does damage. So the process of getting arborists to quote on the task of removal will tell you more about whether the trees are really likely to be safe or not than will an assessment by any city official.

If safety is the issue, that is. In my case, the neighbour's tree roots, canopy, and debris were also driving us crazy.

 

Sometimes I almost hate to admit this, being a Certied Arborist myself, but removals are the one aspect where the non-Certified may be given some room to roam, as long as they are bonded, insured, and fully trained to do the work safely.

But the one part about removals, that may make the decision lean in favor of the Certified Arborist, is that knowledge of trees can make removals safer.

An educated - and very experienced - Certified Arborist should have a better idea about what may or may not make parts of the tree safe or risky. In other words, being able to correctly imagine defects that cannot be seen, based off defects or conditions that can be seen.

Also, if a lot of experience is what you are after, the estimate is valueless from your end, if the Certified Arborist is going to send out an employee who is not Certified as well, or has very little experience.

So you need the estimate and contract to state in writing, what it is that you really want.

Contracts are often the broken link for landscape maintenance as well. Too many homeowners, like 90% or more of them, should get maintenance contracts to state the minimum qualification of a lead employee who will visit their property at least once per month - but this bit of wisdom goes unknown.

Also, unless the bids are seeming to be obcenely rediculous, 2 estimates should do fine. 3 or more estimates basically just makes tree work more expensive for everybody in general, because although some estimates may seem free, almost no estimates are free. Company time gets stuffed into the bids no matter how we dice-it-up. If people start asking for 6 free estimates, they and everybody else is going to pay for that time by the time everyone's tree work is all done.

The least valuable consulting advice I've ever encountered from companies, on-site, is the free advice and consulting. Unless it's been done for established pre-existing customers who have already "pitched-in" to the company resources.

 

Professionally it doesnt serve me well to argue with someone online or otherwise, no matter the platform nor the outcome.

After nearly 19 years in the landscape and nursery industry and about 4 years specifically in the tree care and landscape installation and maintenance industry, I disagree with you KarinL, from day one till this point. Other than that, I won't comment, your neighbor's tree has been removed, as far as I can see your issue has been removed.

Be well.

 

M.D, those are some great points in your post. In particular, I agree that the wanton use of estimates is an expense we all collectively carry in the long run, though I think the cost falls hardest on small operators.

Very interesting, Paul, that you consider my "issue" to have been removed, and thus seem to view my right to speak on the matter to be removed as well, if I understand your post correctly.

As it happens, I have other large trees to deal with which will involve dealing with the arboreal bureaucracy. More to the point, so do thousands of other homeowners and neighbours, each of whom will have to go into the bureaucratic process as a novice and learn from scratch, and the hard way, that the bureaucracy has different values and interests from homeowners - unless people who have been there share their experiences.

To imply that someone should no longer speak about the process once their issue is resolved is to imply that there should be no collective societal learning curve; that we should not share our experiences; and ultimately that we as citizens do not have a right to shape our bureaucratic services. That we should simply shut up and trust the experts - in part because they are "good people."

For yourself or for any practitioner, years of experience mean nothing if they render the expert less able to understand the client problems they are being asked to solve, and more apt instead to attempt to define the problem for the client and impose a solution that does not help the client. This mentality exists in every occupation from fashion design to law; there is no reason why arborists should be immune. And when an occupation becomes bureaucratized, the tendency is accelerated - and bureaucratization affects even the best of people.

It will be interesting to hear how mhern's assessment by the City of Richmond goes. I actually see no reason why permission to remove poplars should be withheld, given the nature of the trees.

 

With most of the small arborist companies I know of, I think the cost falls even harder on the homeowners. Initially, the small operator will pick up a small loss of unpaid time for the first week or two. By the third week of business and thereafter into the business years, the payments coming in are covering the business expense. It's a bit like going to work for a state of federal government, or new company, and waiting for the first paycheck to arrive. Once the routine gets on a roll, the flow of money is continuous.

The hardest hit of estimate time expense included in an estimated cost, typically goes to the smallest projects.

If someone calls me for an estimate and wants me on-site to look at an 18' tall Japanese maple, that may require 1/2 hour travel and on-site just for that single tree, and it's not going to take much labor time. But the work will require travel again, for that one tree.

But if someone calls to have a dozen trees pruned, the travel time is almost identical for estimating and working, and the estimate on-site time is maybe 10 minutes more.

So the best possible scenerio for homeowners, is to get as many things pruned at one time if they can afford it, and the arborist is being fair-and-square about the basis for the estimate.

This is one case where emails can be marvelous for photos. Personally, I prefer to meet people and get to know them. But on occassions, an estimate via email is a big time saver, thus a money saver.

I was up working in Portland a couple of months back. A lady who I never met before, emailed me from Sherwood, a suburb, sending photos of 2 maples that were about 10 years old. From the images, I could estimate within about a 5 minute margin of error, how much time it would take to prune them. All I had to know was how far it was from the trees to where the limbs had to be carried.

With big trees, it's very different. Big trees almost always require driving out before hand to see what's going on from several angles and from beneath.

Now, this isn't for pruning, but I've had people start sending plot-plans and Google Earth satellite images to me, of properties. Lately, one from Wilsonville, Oregon, with about 9 acres that needs tree planting along the roadside, and also one from Roseburg, Oregon, where just advice and sketches are needed - on-site consulting.

From the satellite images, I can't give an exact planting plan or price, but the price range can be narrowed down significantly, so people know basically what they will be dealing with price-wise.

As far as consulting, a satellite image and a photo, provides enough to nail-down a price for on-site consluting. It's available to know if it will be a hour, or a half day, or a full day.

I know one window / gutter company in Portland, Oregon, than accurately provides estimates for gutter cleaning, using Google Earth. They type in the home address, Google Earth loads the image, and they zoom-in until they see the roof. It's available to ascertain the ridge lines and how long the gutters are. If shrubs and trees are around the house, which complicates ladder-work, those show-up in the satellite image as well.

In Medford, when we moved here, I used Google Earth images to see what parts of town had thick established vegetation, because I wanted to promote pruning first. So I didn't want new neighborhoods with tiny plants. When I looked at the images, one thing that was obvious as well, were blue swimming pools in some neighborhoods. That would be useful if someone just moved to town and wanted to know which homes to leave brochures at, if they were starting a pool maintenance service. They could simply print the Google Earth images, mark the road names and go to the houses. An address would not be needed. It's easy to tell if its the 1st house on the block, the 5th house on the right, etc..

All these things are useful for efficiency and reducing expenses. I think they are great resources as long as it does not sterilize the personal nature of business.

 

Thanks M.D. for the interesting update on how arborists are using the latest technology. I for one can't praise arborists enough and wish more people would use them. I've never understood how some people can meticulously care for a flower bed but stick a tree in and the ground and walk away. I inherited 2 40+ foot 43 year old deciduous trees that had never been cared for, and feel it was worth every penny to have an arborist bring them back to health. I think the real question here is: who let these trees get in such an unhealthy and unsafe condition in the first place.

Les

 

Just to give you an update on this issue. We have been approved by the city of richmond to remove the trees and plant two new ones, which won't be a problem as we're thinking of planting more than 2 nice trees anyways. Now..on to getting estimates from all those companies mentioned above. Thanks a lot people.

 

A belated recommendation in case you're still considering your options (and since most of this thread seems to be fairly theoretical &/or generalised instead of offering names of specific companies, which I assume was mhern's original hope)...

We've used 'Monkey Tree Services' for years and have always received reliable, skilled, & honest advice, dependable & careful service, and consistently reasonable rates. I think the primary arborist is named Bill (a good guy) and he calls on additional people if the job requires more sets of hands. Anyway, he's who I'd recommend:

Monkey Tree Services
6485 Prince Albert Street
V5W3E7, Vancouver, <--I don't think it'd matter that you're in Richmond
Tel: (604)833-2479

Good luck!

ps: if you have no use for the poplar wood once the trees have been removed, you might want to offer it up on one of the forums here, on craigslist, &/or to the people on freecycle (=http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vancouverfreecycle/).
pps: I hope it's ok that I refer mhern to other websites & forums... (doh!)

 

Monkey tree services is/was run by Seth Mennie last time I hired them. I have had success recommending them to clients for jobs beyond my ability. If in Richmond also consider Cedar Ridge tree care.

 

Hello,

Any recommndations for the Surrey area?

Thank you!

 

Most companies travel. Nothing to lose by calling to ask.

 

In Surrey I would consider BC Plant Health Care and Tall Timbers Tree Services. You can contact the ISA (www.isa-arbor.com) and/or the BCLNA (www.bclna.com) and search their membership by locale as well I believe.

 

The recommendations for arbourists is very helpul. The side discussion about tree protection/retention bylaws is a very interesting one.

Admittedly I didn't read all of the postings but I found the comments about municipal staff offensive. I know municipal staff are given grief for trying to save too many trees - according to some and, for not doing enough to save more. Too many times residents want to remove their neighbours' trees and public trees because the fallen leaves and "too much work" or to selfishly, I think, want trees removed to create unobstructed private views. And all to often it seems people cry to 'safety' to eliminate inconveniences or the unfamiliar. To me there is a world of difference between unsafe and inconvenient.

I would never ever allow a structural engineer to advise me on a tree unless that structural engineer was a an experienced certified arbourist. I'll paint engineers with a broad brush and suggest that given the opportunity, for 'safety' and protection from liability claims, a strucutural engineering is likely to recommend removal.

Trees are living things. The factors that affect tree growth and health are many and the effects of these factors are slow to manifest. Unfortunately if you're looking for guaranteed tree behaviour, the only tree guaranteed to not fail, is a dead one. I prefer to take my chances.

 

Last time I checked, human beings were living things too.

You can take your chances with your own life, but I don't think you have the right to impose any risks on other people and their children that they do not choose themselves to incur.

If you had read the posts, you might have understood that I suggested an engineer not to advise on a tree, but on whether a house could withstand the weight of a given tree falling on it. The distinction is that the arborist will try to predict WHETHER the tree will fall. If your children are sleeping under the tree on windy nights, you find yourself disinterested in the odds, but rather in what will happen WHEN the tree falls. My whole point was that arborists, municipal and otherwise, are often trying to keep the tree alive and will gamble with human lives to do so - though never with their own. I believe we all prefer to decide for ourselves whether our lives are gambled with. If you ask the engineer to make a recommendation regarding the tree s/he might well err on the side of caution. But what I would ask an engineer to do is not to recommend, but to assess. That's just a calculation of weight/strength.

And the last time I checked, private property rights do include the right to peaceful enjoyment of property. My definition of peaceful enjoyment happens to include growing plants of my own, not having my property squatted on by a neighbour's tree that renders it impossible to grow anything else. Furthermore, today I spent two hours cleaning my eaves, almost entirely due to neighbours' trees, not my own, and this was not how I would have chosen to spend my time. Tell me, how many hours of work DO neighbours have the right to impose on others? And when I do become too decrepit to do this work myself, and cannot afford to hire someone to do it, should I have to move in order to preserve my neighbours' right to grow their tree into my airspace?

As far as offense is concerned, I think it is deeply offensive to ridicule people for not being able to do an amount of work that you find it reasonable to assign, and to acquiesce mindlessly to your preferences regarding safety. Even if it is only an inconvenience to spend a day cleaning tree debris, it is an intolerable conceit to be dismissive of other peoples' right to determine how they spend their time. Others might find the hours I spend on this forum to be a ridiculous waste of time, but it is not up to them to determine in what activities I do or don't find value. The same should apply to cleaning eaves.