Quote:
Originally Posted by Ekka  Like I wouldn't send a guy with just a hammer to demolish a house it's a matter of what you're geared for, land clearing, techno removals, or tree seeing. A matter of economics, like you refer large tree work on etc.
Frankly, I dont think some-one should carry the title of arborist if they cant climb, it should be a mandatory pre-requisite and the former ISA certification prior to the climbing certification fails the integrity of an arborists skill more than anything else I know of. |
My guess, is that the ISA has revisited this issue, and that's probably why climbing holds such a small percentage in the exams and certifications.
Meaning, they recognize that being an arborist is competently taking care of "trees". So if someone within their ability does it right with small trees, they are an arborist. If they do it right with big trees, they are an arborist.
That leaves it in the arborist's hands to do the work safely. If that includes climbing for an arborist, that's their choice. They can choose to use climbing gear as their tool, like a person can choose a car to get across town.
Being a traveler does not require a car. But a person can choose to be a driver. But with traveling, automobile driving skills don't determine the rules of the road and the directions to travel. Driving skills are different from rules of the road and the right direction to travel.
I have a friend who owns a big tree service in the mid-west of the USA. He used to climb here in Oregon almost exclusively. He is a skilled climber and a Certified Arborist also. After moving to the mid-west, he bought bucket trucks because those take care of 90% of his pruning needs there. He climbs on occassion, but not to often since his employees do some of the infrequent climbing.
Now I think he would still be an arborist. But granted, I could just as easily get a bucket truck and do just as well. In fact, I think he would concede that I may be able to do even better.
So I see the definition of "arborist" and "climber" being totally different things. One is nearly entirely dictated by tree health and science, and the other is entirely dictated by gear and safety.
But then you get a few folks - like yourself is seems - who believe that whether someone is an arborist or not, is defined by how much gear and climbing skill they put on, or shed.
Personally, I think the climbing issue is irrelvant.
Even beyond that, I think that to be an arborist, one SHOULD exceed the current ISA standards. That they should demonstrate more knowledge and skill in areas like turfgrass, landscaping, etc..
But although they "should", I don't think it's feasible. And if they don't go that extra mile, I still think its fine to call them "arborists" even though they seriously lack versatility and understanding of how trees fit into the bigger picture of a landscape.