Counterfiet in Tree Care

mdvaden · 5th January 2008, 09:31 AM

I'm going to post a quote of something I wrote elsewhere, because the weight of what I wrote, didn't hit me until I re-read it a couple of times.

In the past, I often written about another aspect, that "counterfiet" pruning often looks even better that good pruning that is thought-through using thorough knowledge of tree care.

Often, it's from among the body of landscapers where counterfiet pruning comes from most often. Also, its true that a lot of landscapers seriously underestimate or ignore the need for proper "tree work" and arboriculture.

Now, I just recognized a different counterfiet. It's something I've disagreed with before, but never really recognized it as a counterfiet. It's statements from very skilled people, where the words seem wise, but undermine the attitude that tree care is important at all levels.

Here's what I wrote, I think it makes sense out of context as well. In context, "tree care" = "tree work", so that's how to interpret that vocabulary in the text.

"If someone thinks that climbing makes one an arborist, then that attitude is basically the same as a lot of "landscapers" I've met.

Because a lot of landscapers DON'T put much weight on small and medium size trees as being "arboriculture" and "tree work", therefore, they damage arboriculture with that attitude.

So in reality, a tree climber that does not view all sizes of trees as "tree work" and "arboriculture" has an even worse attitude than a landscaper who possesses a bad attitude about tree care.

Because arborists should be setting the example, and when their attidude sets the example that smaller stuff is not tree care, they basically encourage landscapers and homeowners to not take tree care seriously.

That attitude is both subtle, and damaging.

It's often said that the effectiveness or "value" of a counterfiet is its closeness to the original. And the attitude that only big tree care is "tree work" is a fine piece of counterfiet, where the "fake bills" (statements) are passed and given.

So a tree climber can be in a position to do expert tree work, but simultaneously undermine arboriculture."

Ekka · 5th January 2008, 12:11 PM

I dont know, I've seen a consulting arborist picking and arranging flowers.

Also, the author has perhaps overlooked the problem when a tree crew billing some $300/hour with stump grinder, chipper and miniloader and the lady want roses pruned when in fact a gardener with a lawnmower could do that for a fraction of the cost.

You don't go to a micro surgeon specialist to get a splinter pulled from your finger unless of course there's something unique about it.

And finally, the treatment of shrubs is very different to trees, how often do you hedge a tree, or cut it back with secateurs for next years flowering like hibiscus?

That statement must have come from a typical academic. Am I right?

mdvaden · 5th January 2008, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ekka

I dont know, I've seen a consulting arborist picking and arranging flowers.

Also, the author has perhaps overlooked the problem when a tree crew billing some $300/hour with stump grinder, chipper and miniloader and the lady want roses pruned when in fact a gardener with a lawnmower could do that for a fraction of the cost.

You don't go to a micro surgeon specialist to get a splinter pulled from your finger unless of course there's something unique about it.

And finally, the treatment of shrubs is very different to trees, how often do you hedge a tree, or cut it back with secateurs for next years flowering like hibiscus?

That statement must have come from a typical academic. Am I right?

The red letter quote originates from me, and was in response to a climber's comments.

Ekka · 5th January 2008, 01:01 PM

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.

mdvaden · 5th January 2008, 02:03 PM

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.

TreeDimensional · 5th January 2008, 06:34 PM

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.

quercus · 6th January 2008, 03:35 AM

I'm gonna have to go with Ekka on this one... This how I see it, and why I see it that way...

The stuff that makes you an arborist is the ability to perform high-end work on all trees, both big and small, and everything that is related to trees. I think it's better to know everything about something (trees) then to know something about everything (landscaping). Apart from looking at gear and related stuff, I think that an arborist could be a landscaper too, but not the other way around.Comparing this is the same as comparing a regular doctor and a heart surgeon. The heartsurgeon will be able to do what the doctor does, but could it work the other way around? I've seen some devastating tree work around here, done by landscapers who couldn't climb. They cut whole limbs off a tree because there were some dead branches on them. If they were able to walk out on that limb, they didn't have to do that. Therefore the tree came on a second place, first place was not having the knowledge to do their work correctly.Better said, they did have the knowledge because they knew that what they were doing was a complete failure... But they did it anyway because they couldn't reach their jobsite sort o' speak.What they should have been doing is call a REAL ARBORIST to do the job for them, instead of doing it themselves and by doing so, mutilate another tree. 80% of all trees that we work on, are not reachable by bucket. Say if we were to climb them with a ladder we'd go back to the beginning of tree-care and therefore placed ourself and our crew in harms way.The ability of climbing is a way to distinguish yourself as a master arborist and tree-care and climbing and safety go hand in hand. For me there's no other way. And it doesn't take a lot of gear to climb a tree safely and to walk out on a limb safely. In fact, I could do almost everything I can do right now with the use of 1 flipline, 1 helmet, 1 climbing line and 1 saddle and absolutely nothing else. All the other gear is just meant to make the work faster and therefore more efficiency is guaranteed. It's just a choice you have to make in the beginning.But if you cannot climb you have no choice to make. It's the bucket or... you can't do it.Hacks are recognized by this method. The tree has to be reachable by bucket, or it has to be felled in one piece, without knowing it's even needed to remove the tree.Come on guys, this cannot be what we stand for? This may come as a shock to some of you, but it is the ability to effectively do what's right on trees is what makes you an arborist, not only the knowledge wich you have on the ground...

Say you have to inspect a big tree for a client. There are two ways in accomplishing that. One is with a bucket, the other possibility while climbing. Compare the costs and then see wich one the client prefers. If costs for inspection are high he'd want to have the tree removed to be sure and to avoid more costs later.On the other hand if costs were low, chances are you and the tree will benefit from that because maybe a tree can be saved.And you are gonna be the one working on the tree because you, compared to one million of hacks, don't need an expensive bucket truck.

mdvaden · 6th January 2008, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quercus

The stuff that makes you an arborist is the ability to perform high-end work on all trees, both big and small, and everything that is related to trees. I think it's better to know everything about something (trees) then to know something about everything (landscaping).

Seems I've never been able to know everything about something, so it's safer to know something about everything. That's often why exams don't require 100% to pass.

What I've mentioned in addition, is that if tree climbers can't identifiy turfgrass (at least here where lawn is a big deal) and know other plant care, they become handicapped. Because climbing is not a knowledge that's essential to know what to do WITH tree. But turf care is. How can we recommend how people should alter or maintain their property in relation to the tree, if we don't know what it's in relation with?

No arborist really should be viewed as "climbing UP" a tree.

An arborist instead "steps INTO" a unified landscape environment when they walk onto a property.

That's why I provide 300% better service than the average climbing Certified Arborist in Oregon. I've got the knowledge and years of experience to match the Certified Arborists and climbers - that' 100%. I've got the landscape intall experience and turf management background - that's 100%. And I've got the college and landscape design background - that's 100%. So I can read the intended design of all the plants together as a unit on the property, and understand the underground and above ground nature of "The Whole".

So when a climber is handicapped by not having the extra understanding of what the tree is PART of, that's not High-End service. It becomes Lower-End service than what is "available".

I find it interesting that some climbers like talk and act as if the big tree was the landscaping, rather than unit of the landscaping.

When I contract pruning and peripheral landscape work for homeowners, they get more complete service. That's because if there are big trees, I hire from among the better climbers who are Certified Arborists to work on the project. That combines 3 Certifications on all those projects. Both of our Arborist Certifications and combined experience, plus the Landscape Technician Certification on top of it.

That supercharges the entire service and provides comprehensive care that most climbers in our area are not providing.

That's why I believe in "managing" landscaping and tree care. Other arborists could just as easily hire people who are experts on the rest of the stuff in the yard to fill that void in the overall care, or, they can just learn it and provide that comprehensive approach individually.

Personally, I easily accept climbing arborists as arborists even if they don't understand most of the rest of the landcape plant materieal and components.

But as long as a few felt like making a big deal out of the non-hort aspect as a qualifier, it seemed like an entertaining opportunity to toss the horticultural qualifier into the arena of ideas.

What's more important?

The non-hort aspect? Or the hort aspect?

Gear, climbing, rigging? Or comprehensive plant ID and cultural care knowledge?

But since I don't expect all climbing arborists to know everything, I'm just fine with calling them arborists. Only makes sense, since they usually know the core value of tree health basics.

TreeDimensional · 6th January 2008, 08:58 AM

I believe that I may have been mis-interpreted. The issue in my little corner of the world is, I am the only CA within 120 miles (210km). I am pressured to know a little about a lot. There are and always will be the local, take a tree down a tree for beer and pizza guy, in every town. Irregarless of whether the tree needed to removed or could be saved. We ALWAYS strive to do the right thing. The right thing to our way of thinking is working in the most efficient way as possible. This means using all the tools we have available, or equipment we can afford. Efficiency means less cost to the client, the issue becomes what does it cost me to be efficient. On several occasions we have had to prioritize work. Severe weather events where damaged trees threaten humans or more property damage always comes first, our regular clients then get their work done, and elective removals usualy come last. Like the Dr. argument, the way we look at it is like hospital triage. The people who insist on removing a live healthy tree get my special attention, I spend a lot of time looking at it from their view-point as well as mine. We don't have a lot of trees, so we have to look after the ones we have.

I will admit that we don't take the bucket truck (7 MPG) 50 miles, to assist someone who whats help deciding what species of tree to plant. In this senatio I would probaly show up in the car (35 MPG) with my Trees of Canada and Woody Ornamental for the Prairies books. I agree with most of the points brought up in this thread, however we work in a regional market on issues that are global. Perhaps the Certifying bodies could look into melding their passions together, for the benefit of all the plants (and grass) in OUR clients yards. I am a simple rural arborist, however I have seen inter-relationships (some good, some bad) on just about every job site we go to.

quercus · 6th January 2008, 10:29 AM

Excuse me for my technical english. Maybe I'm not saying it right or something. That's maybe because I am a belgian guy and english is not a native language here. I'll try to get it right this time.

I think we're on a different level here. I fully understand what you are trying to say and I'm not saying that I know it all...
A tree is always part of landscape and it's certainly not the landscape itself. Of course it's very important to know as much as there is to know about the landscape, if you call yourself a landscaper, and of course it's very important to know as much as you can about trees, if you want call yourself an arborist.
But I do feel that someone who calls himself an arborist should be able to carry out the work itself, and it seems like that isn't the case. How on earth are you going to provide the correct information to your client for let's say crown-bracing if you can't see that there's a problem at 50 feet above the ground? How are you going to justify a cure to a client if you haven't seen the symptoms up in the tree yourself ?How are you ever assessing ,let's say a platanus occidentalis, for masaria disease if you can't see the wounds on top of the limbs? Are you going to pull on a limb and see if it falls off? You hire another guy to go and take a look to see if it's necessary? To be your eyes and ears? Any good arborist knows that there are things you see up in the tree whom can't be seen from the ground. How do you feel about that? How would you feel if you are providing an advice, knowing that there's maybe a lot more going on in that tree than meets the eye? Would you feel secure and confident in your advice?
As for the relationship of tree and landscape... You are absolutely right that an arborist has to know a lot about turf care... since that is in direct relation to the tree...
If a client asks me for advice on a tree that has to be planted, I take a look around and see what would fit. I take a look at the plants whom thrive in that garden and automatically I have a good idea of what kind of soil it is or what the groundwater- level is like... I drill a hole in the ground and take samples for the lab to analyze... I look at the space we are going to use and what the client wants regarding to colour and natural form. I ask what kind of tree they would prefer and what the actual objective is in say about twenty years from now. I ask why the tree has to be planted? Does it have a use and if so... What will be it's use? Are they thinking of getting a pool or pond? Are they thinking about installing driveways or porchesafter planting the tree? Do they care a lot about the aftercare that's going to be needed? Will they have a certain budget for the future if something would happen to the tree? Will they perform work on the tree themselves? What are they expecting when the tree is full grown? See these are a lot of questions that must be answered in order to provide a good advice. Everyone of these questions is vital to the future of the tree and some don't seem to have anything to do with it. By asking all these questions I do relate the tree to the clients demands but also to the landscape he already posseses. But it certainly does not make me a landscaper. The same thing goes for someone who can create a beautiful landscape around an existing tree. They probably could tell a lot about ground and soil,they'll probably know how to prune the tree, know a hell of a lot more plants then me, probably ask ten times as many questions as we do in order to provide the proper advice about the landscape and everything. But that certainly does not make one an arborist. Every single one of us can provide a 500% quality job,with a matching or even maybe exceeding quality compared to yours, if we hire qualified subcontractors to do certain specific jobs for us... See if you call yourself an arborist but you can't, for example, climb, then you are only half an arborist and therefore cannot provide a good service for a client = 50%. Except, of course, when you hire equipment like bucket trucks or qualified climbers again, who could do that job for you. Then you are again where we , the CA's ,are now... at 100%. There's, IMO, no grey zone about wether you are an arborist or not. To be or not to be... that's the question. Do you consider yourself an arborist or do you prefer landscaper technician? or both?

I do have a small problem with this...
What's more important?

The non-hort aspect? Or the hort aspect?

Gear, climbing, rigging? Or comprehensive plant ID and cultural care knowledge?

If you f... .. in ID'ing a plant, it could die...So you buy another one = BIG DEAL?
If you f... .. your rigging, gear, or your climbing once (1 TIME) chances are that you, or someone else dies... VERY BIG DEAL!!! You tell us... What's more important?
Please don't compare apples to skyscrapers... Because that's exactly what you are doing here...

And I'd love to see that bigfoot/sasquatch trap, MD. Looks like something really cool to me. But for some reason the link is not working...

arborjockey · 6th January 2008, 10:40 AM

If an arborist does not need to climb how do you acquire a twig/branch sample when the trees' 1st scaffolding branch is 90ft (30meters) off the ground? I think somone has confused his normiclature in the green industry. A botanist may not need to climb, nor would a horticulturalist, but if your diagnosing disease or doing tree evaluations consistantly as an ARBORIST, it's a must! I have worked for many companies, as well as owned my own, and I would always prefer a confident climber over an educated one. I can tell a climber to prune a specific species a spefic way and get the job done safely. On the other hand, you get someone who has a P.H.D in the industry yet lacks climbing skills and I see my self losing $ and/or a life. A p.h.d. doesnt help out when you have to blow the top out of a 100ft pine tree; a seasoned climber does. Don't get me wrong: I've traveled my entire life across the US and I'll be the first to say I'm embarassed about most of the blokes that represent the tree industry. That's why 7 men died in the month of August alone in America (that's the lives that were lost and accounted for - most deaths are not posted). Experts say that number is probably double that. I've trained my share of climbers to be decent arborists, but I have yet to get a papered degree holding person to climb with any type of speed. Let's get to the point: if you're scared of heights, that's cool! You can still be a salesman in the industry seeing how none of them can climb.

Ekka · 6th January 2008, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdvaden

Personally, I think the climbing issue is irrelvant.

I think it's extremely relevant and unfortunately it was a USA idea for a club like ISA to do such a thing. Europe, UK, Australia and NZ all have stringent competencies in climbing.

The arborist qualification is the coal face trades level. Where you'd expect like getting a plumber or electrician the person could deal with the situation, a hung up limb, a removal, prune etc. Imagine having an electrician visit who tells you he only does lights not power points?

The ISA failed miserably in this area and distorted the value and skills of arborists world wide. Fortunately their qualifications mean little here and I hope it stays that way.

And whilst I'm on

lets look at another matter.

As mentioned above degreed people or people who spent years in foresty, turf care, general horticulture etc do a multiple choice $300 test and bingo, now they're an arborist. With that type of qualification you'd safely say just about anyone in out door landscape/hort industry would gain there cert calling themselves an arborist ... then go and have a look at this thread and note my comment in post 5

Arb 2, Class 2007 - Mt Wilson

How would you feel being an arborist in Australia and the bloke standing next to you with an ISA cert thinks he's the same? I bet you'd think it sucks. And frankly I do. It takes years here with practical and desk theory and exams that are not multiple choice which have to be passed. We had tree reports to write, ID 60 trees from leaf/fruit samples in a room etc. Our pass rate was 80% also.

newguy18 · 6th January 2008, 01:10 PM

this is a very important issue.Personally I believe an arborist should be able to climb period.I also would like to have words with the isa for having a certified line clearance arborist credential.If you do line clearance like I see your not an arborist your just an uneducated[or careless person]with a chainsaw and a bucket truck.Personally even if it cost me money If i was doing line clearance I would take the time to do it right that means instead of topping it gets removed or thinned and pruned back to collars.I'm not certified yet but I have a deep care for trees and learned how to do it right before I got of the ground and started doing treework.Personally i also believe if a bucket can reach a tree then it can be climbed which eliminates my need to buy a bucket.i know of at least 2 companies around here that have buckets and claim treecare but offer topping.Even those that don't offer topping usually don't have a clue or don't care.i seem to be the closest thing to an arborist in live oak.I know of one guy in welbourn that is a tcia member but that means very little to me.I know very little of landscaping and about the most i've done were a few rock gardens and planting some plants and a few trees.I couldn't tell you to much about turf or pesticides but that comes from never have used them. just my 2 cents.

5th January 2008, 09:31 AM	#1 (permalink)
mdvaden Over mature heritage tree Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Oregon Posts: 564	Counterfiet in Tree Care I'm going to post a quote of something I wrote elsewhere, because the weight of what I wrote, didn't hit me until I re-read it a couple of times. In the past, I often written about another aspect, that "counterfiet" pruning often looks even better that good pruning that is thought-through using thorough knowledge of tree care. Often, it's from among the body of landscapers where counterfiet pruning comes from most often. Also, its true that a lot of landscapers seriously underestimate or ignore the need for proper "tree work" and arboriculture. Now, I just recognized a different counterfiet. It's something I've disagreed with before, but never really recognized it as a counterfiet. It's statements from very skilled people, where the words seem wise, but undermine the attitude that tree care is important at all levels. Here's what I wrote, I think it makes sense out of context as well. In context, "tree care" = "tree work", so that's how to interpret that vocabulary in the text. "If someone thinks that climbing makes one an arborist, then that attitude is basically the same as a lot of "landscapers" I've met. Because a lot of landscapers DON'T put much weight on small and medium size trees as being "arboriculture" and "tree work", therefore, they damage arboriculture with that attitude. So in reality, a tree climber that does not view all sizes of trees as "tree work" and "arboriculture" has an even worse attitude than a landscaper who possesses a bad attitude about tree care. Because arborists should be setting the example, and when their attidude sets the example that smaller stuff is not tree care, they basically encourage landscapers and homeowners to not take tree care seriously. That attitude is both subtle, and damaging. It's often said that the effectiveness or "value" of a counterfiet is its closeness to the original. And the attitude that only big tree care is "tree work" is a fine piece of counterfiet, where the "fake bills" (statements) are passed and given. So a tree climber can be in a position to do expert tree work, but simultaneously undermine arboriculture." __________________ ____________________________________ Grove of Redwood TITANS Oregon BIGOOT trap

5th January 2008, 12:11 PM	#2 (permalink)
Ekka Eric Frei Administrator - Brisbane L5 (Dip) Hort Cert III Arb + some Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 6,847	Re: Counterfiet in Tree Care I dont know, I've seen a consulting arborist picking and arranging flowers. Also, the author has perhaps overlooked the problem when a tree crew billing some $300/hour with stump grinder, chipper and miniloader and the lady want roses pruned when in fact a gardener with a lawnmower could do that for a fraction of the cost. You don't go to a micro surgeon specialist to get a splinter pulled from your finger unless of course there's something unique about it. And finally, the treatment of shrubs is very different to trees, how often do you hedge a tree, or cut it back with secateurs for next years flowering like hibiscus? That statement must have come from a typical academic. Am I right? __________________ Remember to use the "search" function, if you have answers/questions post them so everyone can benefit. Free Tree and Green Industry Link Directory Qualified Brisbane Tree Lopping Brisbane Tree Care, Consultations and Arborist Reports Forum Sponsors

5th January 2008, 01:01 PM	#4 (permalink)
Ekka Eric Frei Administrator - Brisbane L5 (Dip) Hort Cert III Arb + some Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 6,847	Re: Counterfiet in Tree Care 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. __________________ Remember to use the "search" function, if you have answers/questions post them so everyone can benefit. Free Tree and Green Industry Link Directory Qualified Brisbane Tree Lopping Brisbane Tree Care, Consultations and Arborist Reports Forum Sponsors

5th January 2008, 06:34 PM	#6 (permalink)
TreeDimensional Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 385	Re: Counterfiet in Tree Care 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. Last edited by TreeDimensional : 5th January 2008 at 06:35 PM. Reason: Spelling

6th January 2008, 03:35 AM	#7 (permalink)
quercus Mature tree Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: belgium Posts: 426	Re: Counterfiet in Tree Care I'm gonna have to go with Ekka on this one... This how I see it, and why I see it that way... The stuff that makes you an arborist is the ability to perform high-end work on all trees, both big and small, and everything that is related to trees. I think it's better to know everything about something (trees) then to know something about everything (landscaping). Apart from looking at gear and related stuff, I think that an arborist could be a landscaper too, but not the other way around.Comparing this is the same as comparing a regular doctor and a heart surgeon. The heartsurgeon will be able to do what the doctor does, but could it work the other way around? I've seen some devastating tree work around here, done by landscapers who couldn't climb. They cut whole limbs off a tree because there were some dead branches on them. If they were able to walk out on that limb, they didn't have to do that. Therefore the tree came on a second place, first place was not having the knowledge to do their work correctly.Better said, they did have the knowledge because they knew that what they were doing was a complete failure... But they did it anyway because they couldn't reach their jobsite sort o' speak.What they should have been doing is call a REAL ARBORIST to do the job for them, instead of doing it themselves and by doing so, mutilate another tree. 80% of all trees that we work on, are not reachable by bucket. Say if we were to climb them with a ladder we'd go back to the beginning of tree-care and therefore placed ourself and our crew in harms way.The ability of climbing is a way to distinguish yourself as a master arborist and tree-care and climbing and safety go hand in hand. For me there's no other way. And it doesn't take a lot of gear to climb a tree safely and to walk out on a limb safely. In fact, I could do almost everything I can do right now with the use of 1 flipline, 1 helmet, 1 climbing line and 1 saddle and absolutely nothing else. All the other gear is just meant to make the work faster and therefore more efficiency is guaranteed. It's just a choice you have to make in the beginning.But if you cannot climb you have no choice to make. It's the bucket or... you can't do it.Hacks are recognized by this method. The tree has to be reachable by bucket, or it has to be felled in one piece, without knowing it's even needed to remove the tree.Come on guys, this cannot be what we stand for? This may come as a shock to some of you, but it is the ability to effectively do what's right on trees is what makes you an arborist, not only the knowledge wich you have on the ground... Say you have to inspect a big tree for a client. There are two ways in accomplishing that. One is with a bucket, the other possibility while climbing. Compare the costs and then see wich one the client prefers. If costs for inspection are high he'd want to have the tree removed to be sure and to avoid more costs later.On the other hand if costs were low, chances are you and the tree will benefit from that because maybe a tree can be saved.And you are gonna be the one working on the tree because you, compared to one million of hacks, don't need an expensive bucket truck.

6th January 2008, 08:58 AM	#9 (permalink)
TreeDimensional Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 385	Re: Counterfiet in Tree Care I believe that I may have been mis-interpreted. The issue in my little corner of the world is, I am the only CA within 120 miles (210km). I am pressured to know a little about a lot. There are and always will be the local, take a tree down a tree for beer and pizza guy, in every town. Irregarless of whether the tree needed to removed or could be saved. We ALWAYS strive to do the right thing. The right thing to our way of thinking is working in the most efficient way as possible. This means using all the tools we have available, or equipment we can afford. Efficiency means less cost to the client, the issue becomes what does it cost me to be efficient. On several occasions we have had to prioritize work. Severe weather events where damaged trees threaten humans or more property damage always comes first, our regular clients then get their work done, and elective removals usualy come last. Like the Dr. argument, the way we look at it is like hospital triage. The people who insist on removing a live healthy tree get my special attention, I spend a lot of time looking at it from their view-point as well as mine. We don't have a lot of trees, so we have to look after the ones we have. I will admit that we don't take the bucket truck (7 MPG) 50 miles, to assist someone who whats help deciding what species of tree to plant. In this senatio I would probaly show up in the car (35 MPG) with my Trees of Canada and Woody Ornamental for the Prairies books. I agree with most of the points brought up in this thread, however we work in a regional market on issues that are global. Perhaps the Certifying bodies could look into melding their passions together, for the benefit of all the plants (and grass) in OUR clients yards. I am a simple rural arborist, however I have seen inter-relationships (some good, some bad) on just about every job site we go to.

6th January 2008, 10:29 AM	#10 (permalink)
quercus Mature tree Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: belgium Posts: 426	Re: Counterfiet in Tree Care Excuse me for my technical english. Maybe I'm not saying it right or something. That's maybe because I am a belgian guy and english is not a native language here. I'll try to get it right this time. I think we're on a different level here. I fully understand what you are trying to say and I'm not saying that I know it all... A tree is always part of landscape and it's certainly not the landscape itself. Of course it's very important to know as much as there is to know about the landscape, if you call yourself a landscaper, and of course it's very important to know as much as you can about trees, if you want call yourself an arborist. But I do feel that someone who calls himself an arborist should be able to carry out the work itself, and it seems like that isn't the case. How on earth are you going to provide the correct information to your client for let's say crown-bracing if you can't see that there's a problem at 50 feet above the ground? How are you going to justify a cure to a client if you haven't seen the symptoms up in the tree yourself ?How are you ever assessing ,let's say a platanus occidentalis, for masaria disease if you can't see the wounds on top of the limbs? Are you going to pull on a limb and see if it falls off? You hire another guy to go and take a look to see if it's necessary? To be your eyes and ears? Any good arborist knows that there are things you see up in the tree whom can't be seen from the ground. How do you feel about that? How would you feel if you are providing an advice, knowing that there's maybe a lot more going on in that tree than meets the eye? Would you feel secure and confident in your advice? As for the relationship of tree and landscape... You are absolutely right that an arborist has to know a lot about turf care... since that is in direct relation to the tree... If a client asks me for advice on a tree that has to be planted, I take a look around and see what would fit. I take a look at the plants whom thrive in that garden and automatically I have a good idea of what kind of soil it is or what the groundwater- level is like... I drill a hole in the ground and take samples for the lab to analyze... I look at the space we are going to use and what the client wants regarding to colour and natural form. I ask what kind of tree they would prefer and what the actual objective is in say about twenty years from now. I ask why the tree has to be planted? Does it have a use and if so... What will be it's use? Are they thinking of getting a pool or pond? Are they thinking about installing driveways or porchesafter planting the tree? Do they care a lot about the aftercare that's going to be needed? Will they have a certain budget for the future if something would happen to the tree? Will they perform work on the tree themselves? What are they expecting when the tree is full grown? See these are a lot of questions that must be answered in order to provide a good advice. Everyone of these questions is vital to the future of the tree and some don't seem to have anything to do with it. By asking all these questions I do relate the tree to the clients demands but also to the landscape he already posseses. But it certainly does not make me a landscaper. The same thing goes for someone who can create a beautiful landscape around an existing tree. They probably could tell a lot about ground and soil,they'll probably know how to prune the tree, know a hell of a lot more plants then me, probably ask ten times as many questions as we do in order to provide the proper advice about the landscape and everything. But that certainly does not make one an arborist. Every single one of us can provide a 500% quality job,with a matching or even maybe exceeding quality compared to yours, if we hire qualified subcontractors to do certain specific jobs for us... See if you call yourself an arborist but you can't, for example, climb, then you are only half an arborist and therefore cannot provide a good service for a client = 50%. Except, of course, when you hire equipment like bucket trucks or qualified climbers again, who could do that job for you. Then you are again where we , the CA's ,are now... at 100%. There's, IMO, no grey zone about wether you are an arborist or not. To be or not to be... that's the question. Do you consider yourself an arborist or do you prefer landscaper technician? or both? I do have a small problem with this... What's more important? The non-hort aspect? Or the hort aspect? Gear, climbing, rigging? Or comprehensive plant ID and cultural care knowledge? If you f... .. in ID'ing a plant, it could die...So you buy another one = BIG DEAL? If you f... .. your rigging, gear, or your climbing once (1 TIME) chances are that you, or someone else dies... VERY BIG DEAL!!! You tell us... What's more important? Please don't compare apples to skyscrapers... Because that's exactly what you are doing here... And I'd love to see that bigfoot/sasquatch trap, MD. Looks like something really cool to me. But for some reason the link is not working... Last edited by quercus : 6th January 2008 at 11:01 AM. Reason: not complete

6th January 2008, 10:40 AM	#11 (permalink)
arborjockey Semi-mature vigorous tree Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: hawaii. ohio. oregon. california Posts: 127	Re: Counterfiet in Tree Care If an arborist does not need to climb how do you acquire a twig/branch sample when the trees' 1st scaffolding branch is 90ft (30meters) off the ground? I think somone has confused his normiclature in the green industry. A botanist may not need to climb, nor would a horticulturalist, but if your diagnosing disease or doing tree evaluations consistantly as an ARBORIST, it's a must! I have worked for many companies, as well as owned my own, and I would always prefer a confident climber over an educated one. I can tell a climber to prune a specific species a spefic way and get the job done safely. On the other hand, you get someone who has a P.H.D in the industry yet lacks climbing skills and I see my self losing $ and/or a life. A p.h.d. doesnt help out when you have to blow the top out of a 100ft pine tree; a seasoned climber does. Don't get me wrong: I've traveled my entire life across the US and I'll be the first to say I'm embarassed about most of the blokes that represent the tree industry. That's why 7 men died in the month of August alone in America (that's the lives that were lost and accounted for - most deaths are not posted). Experts say that number is probably double that. I've trained my share of climbers to be decent arborists, but I have yet to get a papered degree holding person to climb with any type of speed. Let's get to the point: if you're scared of heights, that's cool! You can still be a salesman in the industry seeing how none of them can climb.

6th January 2008, 01:10 PM	#13 (permalink)
newguy18 Part of the Furniture Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Live Oak Florida home of the crapiest trees you will ever see. Posts: 2,613	Re: Counterfiet in Tree Care this is a very important issue.Personally I believe an arborist should be able to climb period.I also would like to have words with the isa for having a certified line clearance arborist credential.If you do line clearance like I see your not an arborist your just an uneducated[or careless person]with a chainsaw and a bucket truck.Personally even if it cost me money If i was doing line clearance I would take the time to do it right that means instead of topping it gets removed or thinned and pruned back to collars.I'm not certified yet but I have a deep care for trees and learned how to do it right before I got of the ground and started doing treework.Personally i also believe if a bucket can reach a tree then it can be climbed which eliminates my need to buy a bucket.i know of at least 2 companies around here that have buckets and claim treecare but offer topping.Even those that don't offer topping usually don't have a clue or don't care.i seem to be the closest thing to an arborist in live oak.I know of one guy in welbourn that is a tcia member but that means very little to me.I know very little of landscaping and about the most i've done were a few rock gardens and planting some plants and a few trees.I couldn't tell you to much about turf or pesticides but that comes from never have used them. just my 2 cents. __________________ Have your say join us today. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzkd_m4ivmc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzfzb...eature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-OqK...eature=related