Ekka and mdvaden, this topic is very interesting to me personally. I believe there must be a balance between the landsscape and the treescape. I have pesonally seen little old grannies hiring three different diciplines to work on her yard. The gardening people for the flowerbeds, perennial and such, the lawn guy for the lawn, and the arborists for the trees. This presents a mutitude of issues for all the disiplines involved, somtimes to the detriment of the yard. In our area the lawn guys insist on using weed and feed, because it makes the grass look good. If the grass looks good the homeowner is happy and gets refered for more lawncare. Everything is just dandy for a while and THEN the trees start to look stressed (dicamba). Seen this too many times, one disipline not considering the impact on other plants not under their direct control.
I will not take sides on what you gentlenmen considering what an arborist is. I believe that in some markets, arborists do make a decision to specilize into the area that suits their ability. This being said, I see most urban arborists specializing, while their rural counterparts need to maintain a working knowledge of all the principles of tree care. As far as determining whether a person is an arborist because they run a bucket truck rather than climb, I'm not buying it. It all comes down to what your perception of what tools your tree care operation needs for major assets.
There also is the safety factor in doing things a certian way. For instance, I live 120 miles form the next closest climber, my fire department absolutley refuses to learn or train in high angle rescue. How do I approach climbing or working on a hazard tree for removal. For us it is a case of using the best tool for the job. This might be something as simple as using extra climbing lines, or possibly using our bucket truck, or if all else fails, convincing the client that our only option is bringing in the crane. I should mention that I have quoted climbing jobs,that have humbled me. Until you get up into the crown, even the best arborist don't see all the hazards. The interesting thing about using a crane is that it seems to cost the same as rigging the tree down. We have had this happen on several occasions, where it might take you all day to rig down a tree and hump the debris out of a tight back yard. When you use the crane it takes you 2.5 hours and the junk is placed where you can back the chipper right up to the main stem!
The cost for doing it either way always seems to be very close to the same, with the crane guy making about 66% of the revenue and the guy sweating getting the rest.
I have to be careful of what I say, but I do personally know a guy that is what I call a triple treat. He is a ISA Cerified Arborist, Has a degree in Urban foresty, and is an ASCA certifed consulting arborist. He once asked me if I would hire him to prune a 50' elm tree. I politely declined, because I knew he had the theory down, his ability to work with his feet off the ground was nil.
I hate to over-simplify the issue but the way I see it is there are three distinct sectors in the tree-care industry, Buracrats, Technocrats, and sweating people. Hopefully the top dog can appriciate what the bottom guy is doing a vise-versa. This is almost an impossible task because with authority comes the attitude that "I can't be wrong".
This post is only a brief personal opinion, and I a willing to be educated by my peers on this site. Lately I get the feeling that I am being considered a thread killer, bring it on!!!
By the way, Ekka, how come three are only 25 ISA certified arborists in OZ?? Could it be that the regulatory body has raised the stakes with mandatory training, or is it something else????? The Kiwis have 25, while all of China has 4, talk about a target rich enviornment.
