My arboriculture magazines did not arrive but thank goodness for the online version. In an article in a not-so latest edition, fictional consulting arborists were assisting on a construction impact report. A property owner who was working on a new retail development project, and found out that there is a tree (Butternut) with potentially protected status growing in the center of the lot.
The Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) protects species on the List of Wildlife Species at Risk, which the Butternut tree (Juglans cinerea) was in. As for plant/tree species, the Act protects only:
1. Pure species on the list. Hybrids are not protected.
2. Plant/trees that are not deliberately planted by someone.
3. Not heavily diseased
On site they did not observe signs of a canker caused by a fungal pathogen, which commonly inflicts this species, and maybe also did not observe other diseases. A week later, DNA test results from samples collected earlier on site revealed that it was a pure species. Later, through aerial images from the early 1900s showed that the tree was planted deliberately. The consultants shared that information in a report to their client. After diving straight to the conclusion section in the report, the client/developer told the consultants that the tree would be removed, and assured them that there would be replacement trees planted on the site.
Preceding the submission of the report, the consultants were in a conundrum, but decided that it was unethical for consultants to withhold any information on the case from the client. "Our role as consultants is not to make value decisions for our clients; our role is to provide information and allow our clients to choose for themselves."
