# Achilles Heel of many Arborists? Not a "Horticulturist"



## M.D. Vaden (Sep 12, 2007)

The homeowner helper forum had a thread with a question about choosing an arborist or a horticulturist to look at some shrubs.

That pertains to something I've thought about a lot, after being on the Oregon Landscape Contractors Board and dealing with differences of qualifications, testing and licensing in the industry.

I think one of the great Achilles Heels of tree workers, is not being a horticulturist. Too many focus on trees and tree care, but don't have a feel for the whole garden and landscape situation.

For a lot of landscapers, its frequently the same kind of probems, but by not understanding trees.

"Horticulturist" is really the all-encompassing professional title for understanding trees and the smaller plants. Enabling an understanding of the big picture.

In Oregon, one of the industry problems was (is) having the landscapers and tree workers split under two separate license boards. There was a little effort to merge the two a little bit, but the effort stagnated in the state congress due to all the big financial problems that came after "nine-eleven".

I work with landscaping, and I work with trees. And there is very little difference of science, knowledge and technology. Its applied a little bit differently, but the same educational foundation should be taught for trees and landscape work.


----------



## Adkpk (Sep 12, 2007)

I'm a landscaper and am working at doing tree work. I am not much of a student being self taught. But I am trying to learn as much about trees as I do plants and landscapes. Ok 
But I am seeing something I've been missing for a while. So ya.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Sep 13, 2007)

Yes arboriculture is subspecialty of horticulture.

One thing I tell people is that I'm not strong on herbaceous material. With serious gardeners, I will ask questions about what they have and how they do it to learn and get on their good side 

As far as shrubs go, IMO that is part of arboriculture. All woody material in your area should be in the mental inventory. Though that will not help when you have the client who knows her sand cherry as a purple plumb. I call all plumb/cherry cvs. I cannot readily ID Prunus after loosing a job because I was not there to read the tag 12 years ago.

Oh then there was the lady who was adamant that she had a flowering crab, not a crabapple....


----------



## treeseer (Sep 13, 2007)

John Paul Sanborn said:


> Yes arboriculture is subspecialty of horticulture. .


and also part of forestry. I look at arb as a hybrid of the two, like rocknroll was born of the blues and country music.

You need more than hort to have a solid basis for arb, mario, unless the hort in OR goes into great depth on woodies (unlike here in nc and va).

good point on shrubs and other woodies; they are our biz.

It helps to know about local herbaceous stuff; they are associates after all.


----------



## Tree Machine (Sep 13, 2007)

My college training was in Hort, but as a treeguy (20 years later), I don't use it much. There's not much calling and what few questions I do get, I may defer to "That's really a landscaper question."

The questions I get most often would be like.

"What should I plant, where?" 
"That's more a landscaper question."

"Is a yew a bush or a tree?"
"Yes."

"Can you come with me to the nursery and help me choose a tree?"
"No."

"Can you transplant this viburnum for me"
"I can whack it and yank it out by the roots. Otherwise, that's really a landscape thing."

"I have some work I'd like you to do on my wrist-diameter wisteria."
"Ya know,.... Landscape guys love that sort of thing. I try to stick with tasks that require climbing."

And then the one I really have mixed emotions over,
"Can you help me plan and build a tree nursery."


I understand the hort / arboriculture crossover but the distinctions are fairly clear, arbo creates a lot of waste material and requires working at heights. Horticulture / landcape is more of installation and maintainance of plant material that does not require working at height. I am hired by landscapers to do aerial work. I refer to them work that requires aesthetics, planning, choosing and installation.

Granted, this is a broad generalization, with lots of exceptions, I'm sure. And I'm on board with Mario, "And there is very little difference of science, knowledge and technology." Very, very true. My tree care started after college with a Bonsai addiction that went on for several years- landscape material that was cultivated as miniaturized trees. A true crossover area, equally tree, equally hort.

I'd love to have half the knowledge and understanding that Mario Vaden has. This cat is an inspiration.


----------



## treeseer (Sep 13, 2007)

Tree Machine said:


> I understand the hort / arboriculture crossover but the distinctions are fairly clear, arbo creates a lot of waste material and requires working at heights. Horticulture / landcape is more of installation and maintainance of plant material that does not require working at height. .


well Jim that is one way to look at it. I often feel more like an arborist working on the ground and a vegetation manager when climbing and cutting.

I hear what you are saying tho on deferring what you do not want to (or cannot afford to) do to specialists. Trim wisteria? Sure, at my arborist rate i would be happy to but they would not be happy to pay that.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Sep 13, 2007)

Tree Machine said:


> My college training was in Hort, but as a treeguy (20 years later), I don't use it much. There's not much calling and what few questions I do get, I may defer to "That's really a landscaper question."



May depend on the area and type of landscaping.

I use horticulture quite a few times when the trees are larger.

It helps me convey to customers what I'm doing in the their tree - like thinning, and how it's related to their turf care, like will they need to overseed with a shade grass or not.

Turfgrass ID allows me to know if they already have a shade grass under the tree. In that case, if its not doing good, then I can discuss other angles like competition for food and roots.

They may ask or hope that I can thin more of the tree than I have, for more light to the turf, and if that's not practical or healthy for the tree, I'm equipped with the facts for the entire landscape situation.

If a tree needs removal in their yard or if the neighbors plants will be sun damaged by their removal, knowing a lot of the small plants and their light sensitivity helps during every removal. That way removal can be postponed, or suggestions can be given about how to prepare for it - for both sides of the fence.

So at least weekly, the horticulture stuff is useful. Some yards, it wouldn't really matter (brown grass and just a few big trees).

There's more plants out there than I'd want to know about, but I try to remember the ones available in the commercial size nurseries. The retail nurseries have some "exotic" stuff, but much of their odd-balls are still the same species, just unusual varieties.


----------



## Job Corps Tree (Sep 13, 2007)

*Not a Horticulturist, But an Arborist*

I had always planed to be good at one thing and trees became it. I do some plants, just to help a Homeowner to pick what may work under a Older Tree under-story Shrub ( small trees) or replacing , filling a spot where we had removed a tree or Shrub with something else. I also would When we were cutting or pulling them out talk to the homeowner about coming back after work and Transplanting the to my yard. If it was a nice plant and it could be moved most all had no problem with me moving the to a new location. Some times it may be in their yard , if not it would come home with my yard Later if I needed one for a new spot or if something got crushed in a removal I had things I could replace what was broken. Did my hole yard in IL. this way, as well as had Shrubs to move elsewhere when needed. 
Still doing this in Arkansas


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Sep 13, 2007)

Tree Machine said:


> "Can you come with me to the nursery and help me choose a tree?"



Sure, but my normal rates apply


----------



## Ekka (Sep 13, 2007)

I have both.


----------



## treeseer (Sep 14, 2007)

Job Corps Tree said:


> I also would When we were cutting or pulling them out talk to the homeowner about coming back after work and Transplanting the to my yard. Did my hole yard in IL. this way, as well as had Shrubs to move elsewhere when needed.
> Still doing this in Arkansas



I have a yard full of rescued shrubs and trees, too. Shrub care is good arboriculture and good to know about; see attached. Using groundcover like hosta to encourage tree and landscape appreciation is also good. You got hosta in Oz, ekka?

Dan if you think that cutting down a tree is more like arborist work than diagnosis and treatment on the ground, you are sadly mistaken.

Good points mario; if we know how to care for the landscape we take better care for the trees.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Sep 14, 2007)

treeseer said:


> Using groundcover like hosta to encourage tree and landscape appreciation is also good.



They are good management tools too. Everyone tells people to mulch under trees, I tell them to add perennial beds because they are going to water more often when they have hostas and ferns.


----------



## Job Corps Tree (Sep 14, 2007)

*TREECO ( Non Climbing CERT.ARBORISTS*

I do agree .It has been a long standing Misnomer for some that can't or won't Climb. How can someone who has Climbed any trees be called a C.A .It has been like the 2 class should been reversed, I mean the CTW and CA . We called them a Arm Chair Arborist or Ground Bound Arborist


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Sep 14, 2007)

Job Corps Tree said:


> I do agree .It has been a long standing Misnomer for some that can't or won't Climb. How can someone who has Climbed any trees be called a C.A .It has been like the 2 class should been reversed, I mean the CTW and CA .



That is the elitist mentality of the climber. Arboriculture is not about tree climbing, trim and remove is a small part of the discipline. Though it *is* the biggest part of the employment and revenue in the industry. 

If everyone were a climber then there would not be the people to do the research needed to expand the knowledge base.

You would not want to spend hours in a lab in front of a microscope, why should they have to get into the canopies?

I'd love it if more nurserymen were CA, if they grow small trees, why require that they climb big ones?

Everyone has their own business model, if someones is shrubs and small ornamentals that can be worked from the ground, why require big tree climbing.





> We called them a Arm Chair Arborist or Ground Bound Arborist



That is the kind of talk that makes climbers look like arogant, idiot, primadonas :sword:


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Sep 14, 2007)

TreeCo said:


> Guy I prune ('climb and cut'?) ten times more trees than I remove. I call it pruning or trimming. Suggesting climbing is only for removal is a misleading suggestion at best.
> 
> It seems the value of being a climbing certified arborist is under attack these days. Your use of the terms "climbing and cutting" and "vegetation manager" to describe what you do and how you feel as a climbing BCMA is just adding sticks to the fire of the diminished value of being an ISA Certified Arborist.
> 
> I strongly feel the designation of being an ISA Certified Arborist should include climbing along with a basic knowledge of tree biology and pruning. The non climbing certified arborist should be call just what they are....Non Climbing Certified Arborist.



So you think because I quite climbing in the early nineties, that I shouldn't be a Certified Arborist?

Even though I do reams of arboriculture, and work with other climbing Certified Arborists?

Now, I don't find that to be the best suggestion of the month   

I equate arboriculture with arboriculture - or tree care.

And I equate tree climbing with rock climbing. Seriously. Climbing is ropes, gear, hardware, hardhats. Climbing can be done by anybody who has no knowledge of arboriculture.

That's why I suggest sticking with arboriculture being the broad range of tree knowledge and tree care.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Sep 14, 2007)

TreeCo said:


> N..... but when the climber also has a knowledge of arboriculture much better arboriculture is practiced in the tree.



True, when the practitioner cares about trees, then it is true tree care. the others are quite often just wood cutters.


----------



## oldugly (Sep 14, 2007)

I am firmly against landscapers calling themselves tree trimmers, or tree trimmers calling themselves landscapers. As arborists, yes they can cross over for diagnosis, or phc, but the specifics of landscape design, etc. I have no expertise in, in reverse order the dynamics of removing hazard trees in areas inaccessible to equipment, I would never trust to a landscaper.
Then there is the insurance. I pay big bucks for insurance that covers tree trimming...a landscaper gets by for a small percentage of that because they are only insured for tree work up to six inches in diameter...or 20 feet tall. Why should I have to compete with someone who is required to pay half my bills to do the same job. Licensing them both under the same letterhead is like licensing an electrician to be a plumber, or a carpenter to be an escavator.
Aboriculture is a specialization of horticulture...and the basics of hort applies, but the dynamics of aerial work are a different animal.


----------



## treeseer (Sep 14, 2007)

Ground bound arborist; I like that. In a semester paper in the 80's I differentiated between the perspectives of the terrestrial turtle and the arboreal arbiter; the professor said whaaaa but gave me an A out of confusion I think...

If opinions on a tree are rendered without aerial inspection they are underinformed and often wrong. But Dan and my other brothers in the saddle, I agree with jps about the primadonna thing--even if you can climb, you have no grounds to look down on other arborists, or say their certification should be separate from yours. If you want to be recognized as a climbing tree worker, get the ctw.
:jawdrop:


----------



## treeseer (Sep 15, 2007)

TreeCo said:


> Just how does a non climbing arborist do an aerial inspection?


By proxy, getting someone up there with a camera. Binoculars can give a good picture but they cannot give the view from above.


> It's still my opinion that there should be a separate certification for a non climbing arborist and that certified arborist should be the title of the certification for a climbing aborist.


There already is; ca + CTW is what you are talking about. No it's not a cash grab, and yes you should be willing to take a test every 15 years. 


> Around Atlanta there are a lot of non climbing certified arborist selling work that non certified arborist and non certified tree workers are doing. The system set up by the ISA has left the door wide open for this type of abuse of the CA designation and this door is going to stay open for decades.


I totally completely agree with you. The dilution of requirements--CEUflation--keeps CAs giving opinions that they are not qualified to give. I get called in behind a lot of these jokers and the level of ignorance and arrogance is frightening.

And yes by and large isa seems more concerned about keeping the numbers up than keeping the quality up, and that is a bummer. But only member involvement will change that, not grousing on a forum board.:taped:


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Sep 15, 2007)

TreeCo said:


> Just how does a non climbing arborist do an aerial inspection?



Either by the mean which Treeseer mentioned, or what I do - work in conjunction with another Certified Arborist who climbs.

The relevant point is, both the certified climber and myself, are making decisions by combining virtually the same exact science, knowledge and skills.

The third option is the bucket or lift.

A fourth would be renting the "Trunk Monkey" 

Your question would invite-in the concept of medium size trees: too high for an orchard ladder, but too small for climbing gear. What happens with the hundreds of climbing arborists who don't have a bucket, or don't rent one? How do they evaluate those trees without climbing them or using a lift?


----------



## Bermie (Sep 15, 2007)

My background in nursery, propagation, commercial landscaping and grounds maintenance has held me in very good stead when I made the transition to climbing arborist.

I have a couple of properties where I can work in the big trees and also prune the roses. 
I am often asked for advice on planting, transplanting, design and hardscaping. I'll happily give some pointers but then I will hand off any landscape specific work to those I know can devote the time and have the expertise and resources to do the work. Leave the trees to me though!

What bites is when landscapers without the specific knowledge necessary to carry out large tree work correctly and/or safely jump in and muck it all up! 

It is great to specialize, but a specialist should have a passing knowledge of other areas of 'horticulture' if only to realize when they are out of their depth and know when to call on someone else!


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Sep 15, 2007)

TreeCo said:


> Well.........OK.
> 
> As long as you aren't just trying to squelch dissent.



Loyal opposition is a strong underpinning to any body of governance.


----------



## Tree Machine (Sep 15, 2007)

Bermie said:


> It is great to specialize, but a specialist should have a passing knowledge of other areas of 'horticulture' if only to realize when they are out of their depth and know when to call on someone else!


I'm with Bermie. A knowledge of horticulture is more important than a full indulgence in it. Example; I bid a lightning-struck, 3/4 dead oak yesterday for takedown. Then the question came up about what to do with the _Pachysandra_ at the base. I thought immediately to this thread.

I could have offered a number of options, but when you express knowledge, it's sort of implies that you can do the work, which may be true, but the last thing I wanted to do with my time was to either describe what to do with this ground cover or actually do the work.

Yes, I could have, no, I didn't want any part of it, even if it paid the same as my technical climbing rate.

Now if I did, wouldn't that be like taking food off the plate of the pro who would love that work? I refer out a lot of hort / landscape work. These contractors love me for it as much as I love them for tree referrals. When they start doing tree work, I get calls to come clean up their mess, and as any treeguy can attest, the last thing you're interested in is cleaning up tree debris from some other tree worker.


----------



## oldugly (Sep 15, 2007)

Maybe landscape arborists should have THEIR own ISA cert. instead of making climbers and aerial workers get another one. Call it Landscape Arborist, or Groundbound Investigative Arborist, or maybe Groundbound Investigative Consulting Diagnosis and PHC Specialist Arborist. or Shrimpy Tree Arborist, or something like that.

In reality, landscape work...design, perrenial care, shrubs, (although I can see where they COULD fall under an Arborists care) have very limited application to an Arborist' workload, or need for expertise. 

I am very distressed that although plainly stated that MD wanted all arborists and landscapers grouped together under the same licensing and certifications no one else seemed to have a problem with that. This to me is much more distressing than whether or not they carry a CA. card or not. They are two separate jobs, insured at different rates, and performing different functions. Should all carpenters be electricians? Or all plumbers escavators? Maybe all contractors should be beauticians?

This is not an elitist mentality. Landscapers that I know are true professionals and I praise them highly as knowledgable in their work and expertise. Just stay out of my trees, and I will keep off your flowers.


----------



## treeseer (Sep 16, 2007)

oldugly said:


> This is not an elitist mentality. Landscapers that I know are true professionals and I praise them highly as knowledgable in their work and expertise. Just stay out of my trees, and I will keep off your flowers.


It is a separatist mentality. If it works for you, fine, but I have more control over the trees when I have some control over the landscape, where the roots are. There is more to a tree than branches. You don't do tree care unless you do root care.


----------



## oldugly (Sep 16, 2007)

Treeseer
I have no problem with your point in doing root care to care for the trees...very good point.
What I have a problem with is lumping landscapers with tree trimmers in commercial applications, ie licensing, governing boards, and certifications. I am not saying that someone cannot be both but they are two separate entities. (Example: I am a brother and a husband, and a father...but because I am one does not make me the other)

Maybe my statement about the flowers seems somewhat harsh, brutal, or maybe just sarcastic, but I am dealing up here with alot of landscapers pulling jobs away from me...not because they have more knowledge...but because they pay less overhead (namely insurance) and therefore can underbid me. Obviously they do not compete with me on any difficult trees, but it would be nice to do an easy job once in awhile. And their trimming methods, and results look like (insert negative expletive of your own choosing). 

So if my attitude sounds separatist..yes it is. Separatist, Specialist, and maybe a little arrogant and defensive as well. I think I have earned my arrogance, proven my specialty, and paid for my sparatism.


----------



## Justice (Sep 16, 2007)

Around here to the public a landscaper is a grass cutter, and grass cutting is what they do mostly. True landscapers are certified landscape architects, not arborists. Architects are not the best arborists either, or the best at tree care. 

Tree selection, tree care (all phases), is a part of being a arborist. Grouping a landscaper in with certified arborists IMO really devalues a certification. 

As far as being a climbing certified arborist, you can't do a true hazard tree analysis, or tree evaluation without going up (whatever method necessary). If there are really any issues with the tree (usually why they call) you will need a closer inspection. That is why on a ground inspection, "aerial inspection required" is common. If you inspect from the ground and have someone else inspect aerial issues, you are not inspecting the tree.. they are. 

IMO you cannot fully evaluate without the option of aerial inspection, and being able to do so makes you a better conslutant and arborist.


----------



## treesquirrel (Sep 16, 2007)

*Keep it going fella's*

opcorn: opcorn: opcorn: 

Now this is some fun reading........both educational with a flair of playground fighting!

My money is on Treeco


----------



## Tree Machine (Sep 16, 2007)

It's not a competition.

I agree with Ugly's insurance issues. I had a couple years where my liability insurance listed me as "landscape services". No discrespect to our brother green industry, but Arborists do things that landscapers and landscape architects do not do, and our danger level is potentially higher. I had to confront my insurer a number of times and they kept telling me Arborists fall under landscape coverage. I told them flatout that I felt, the way the policy was written, that if I had a property damage claim, doing what I do, that they could deny a claim based on that I didn't have insurance that covered what it was that I was doing.

They admitted they didn't have specific policies for Arborists. I said, OK, been nice doing business with you, but with as much risk as I face every day, I can't have my insurer BEING part of the risk. I went shopping and found an Arborist-specific policy from another insurer.


----------



## treeseer (Sep 16, 2007)

Justice said:


> If you inspect from the ground and have someone else inspect aerial issues, you are not inspecting the tree.. they are.
> 
> IMO you cannot fully evaluate without the option of aerial inspection, and being able to do so makes you a better conslutant and arborist.


Absolutely. I've learned that saying that to some ASCA members will not make you popular, but it's very obvious and very true.

My money's on me, but everyone is making good points. Individuals all draw their own lines on this stuff, according to expertise and preference.


----------



## senechal (Sep 16, 2007)

I'd argue that actively engaging in the balance of turf/trees/horticulture in day to day operations, you'd be effectively burning the candle at three ends and losing a great deal of your focus for any one particular field. 

Acquiring and retaining the knowledge is an obvious advantage for one's grasp of the environment they typically operate in, but aside from providing compelling data and converting jargon or latin to english for a client, I could see a lot of lines being blurred and a major saturation of my services occurring. 

Operating in a smaller region helps you appreciate the economic diversity angle as well. There are tiny companies scraping together change to send their up and comers off for hort diplomas or urban arboriculture apprenticeships and sure the fly by night landscapers and tree services are a disease to society, but the legitimate operators lead by example and struggle away with professionalism as a major priority. We gladly send work to these people, and very often is it reciprocated. 
On the other hand, perpetuating vast-sweeping biases does nothing for customer confidence and makes for uncomfortable confrontations on job sites. 

I have a diploma in turfgrass management and I can offer the client comprehensive advice from 5 years experience as an assistant superintendent at high end golf clubs, but clients barely want to take tree advice, let alone draw your opinions on their lawn. Leave the hort to horts. Leave the arb to arbs. I'll stick with arboriculture thank you very much.


----------



## Justice (Sep 16, 2007)

I agree "obvious"... so I don't see what the big debate is. Just being a climber does not make an arborist, just passing a test does not make an arborist IMO. All true arborists know some about turf and other woody shrubs. Either as vectors for insect, or disease, or just good PHC.

I suppose your abilities and/or practices will determine how good an arborist one really is. 

I understand how people who climb, and worked their way up to gain the knowledge have a different view on those who only consult or have never actually done the work. I would think it is tough to cover all the bases and really know without knowing "how". That is just my opinion. 

Just to add, I think being an arborist is a separatist thing. I am proud to be able to do what I do, and know what I know. I don't claim to be a landscaper, and would not appreciate a landscaper trying to tell me about aboraculture, or how to climb. 
We are in this field because it is different so I don't see whats wrong with that.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Sep 16, 2007)

oldugly said:


> Maybe landscape arborists should have THEIR own ISA cert. instead of making climbers and aerial workers get another one. separate jobs, insured at different rates, and performing different functions. Should all carpenters be electricians? Or all plumbers escavators? Maybe all contractors should be beauticians?.....Just stay out of my trees, and I will keep off your flowers.



I'm a Certified Arborist and a Certified Landscape Technician.

Every tree I plant (that alone) is Arboriculture.

For me, utilizing both certificates requires near identical science, knowlege and skill.

Every tree pruned, is landscape maintenence.

In fact, every arborist who mainly prunes and climbs landscape trees is a landscape maintenance worker, focusing on one component primarily. And if large trees only within a garden / landscape, then that's being a deluxe scale gardener. 

Its similar to how a forest is not trees, but everything in the forest.

To not understand that, one might not have been trained in multiple phases of horticulture.

I've heard similar comments from a landscape architect who had not performed professional pruning, and from landscape contractors who have only installed - but never maintained.

In almost every case, its the "one facet" professional who argues a difference in the science, knowledge and skill. And the thing that jumps out immediately, is their signicant lack of experience or work in multiple phases, otherwise they would comprehend its the same knowledge technical base being utilized slighty differently.

The professionals whom I meet with the greatest understanding of the single knowledge base, are typically men and women who have a balanced position - frequently, the superintendents / managers / curators of university campuses horticulture crews, arboretums / botanical gardens, etc.. They are full-phase professionals, using all phases of horticulture. They understand that there is no real separation of tree care and landscape garden care in regards to the primary "knowledge pool".

I see nothing wrong at all with people "specializing" in any niche, as long as they do it right. Any "distressing" matter, is merely a specialist who claims a distinction in the knowledge and skill base.

Even the stereotype "landscape maintenance" company SHOULD fully understand enough to pass the Certified Arborist test. How can they fertilize and do herbicide applications in turf where trees are present if they don't know such things?

How can they prune small medium size trees if they don't understand such things? Just one point alone: they could sunburn a big tree by the removal of foliage on a small tree at the wrong time of year.

So the point of the whole trade being WELDED together is etched in stone: its indisputable from the perspective of professionals who have practised basic mastery of muliple facets.

I've contracted the removal of many large trees, but had to postpone until winter to spare sunburn to gardens and OTHER small trees (arboriculture and gardening). Other times, irrigation has been installed, and arboriculture (tree) knowledge was essential to avoid trenching across the roots.

In fact, a third of my customers have been advised on how to route future irrigation lines for extra landscape and garden pop-up sprinklers. There is arboriculture as an essential component of consulting involving gardens. But when we are honest, we see that the garden consulting became, or was, tree consulting simultaneously.


----------



## treeseer (Sep 16, 2007)

Gosh Mario I am so used to disagreeing with you about risk on the buzz that this is hard to say--

You Are Right!  

The more you see the big picture, the more we look the same.

:blob6:


----------



## underwor (Sep 16, 2007)

I agree with Guy and Mario. I started in straight tree work, doing things *to* trees. As I have expanded services, since 1967, and then gotten into teaching, I find myself doing more things *for* trees, and at a higher price than before, since I am saving the tree, to work on it again in the future. If we put the right tree in the right place, we eliminate the need for some of the big tree work in the future. If we provide good growing conditions, we eliminate some of the defects that are likely to occur from damaged roots and stress. 
I teach my forestry students turf management, since most people want grass and trees in their lawn and the two do not naturally like each other. (Come visit the Great Plains and look for trees that were not planted. The same for finding grass in thick timber.) When we understand trees and all their associates, as Alex Shigo always pointed out, we better understand how to create the conditions to *help them coexist with people*, the true aboricultural job description. 
Nature designed each plant to grow to a certain size and age. She did not design them to fail. Therefore, if the arborist cares for the soil (where the plant gets everything, except sunlight and carbon dioxide) and plants the right plant in the right place, he will in theory never need to do major work, until the life expectancy of the plant is reached in 50 - 500 years. 
I realize that this is a simplistic look at the profession, but nature takes care of the tree, we take care of the customer and mitigate the effects that they have on the tree. And I charge the same for labor on this work as for the removal, pruning jobs, with much lower equipment requirements, and generally less liability. 
By the way I do still climb regularly and will until it is no longer fun or physically impossible. Almost every one of our hort and forestry students take the climbing class, so that they have the basics needed to check out something if need be, even though many never climb regularly on the job.


----------



## squad143 (Sep 16, 2007)

"I went shopping and found an Arborist-specific policy from another insurer". -Treemachine

I have this specific type of insurance as well. A lot of landscapers think they are covered, but are not. When bidding I inform the customer that I have Tree specific insurance and they should insist on it as well.

Very interesting topic. I myself am not an arborist or horticulturist, I do removals (guess I'm just a tree cutter). I do, however, make my customers aware that I am not an arborist and will refer them to one if they require one or if I feel the scope of the work requires one.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Sep 16, 2007)

underwor said:


> I teach my forestry students turf management, since most people want grass and trees in their lawn and the two do not naturally like each other. (Come visit the Great Plains and look for trees that were not planted. The same for finding grass in thick timber.) When we understand trees and all their associates, as Alex Shigo always pointed out, we better understand how to create the conditions to *help them coexist with people*, the true aboricultural job description.



Underwor...

Since there were no tree care classes at southern Oregon colleges, I offered a few at the local community college (community ed) for homeowners, landscapers or municipal workers; including a bit of turf education also, like the difference between intercalary meristem and apical meristem so the students could understand foliage removal more completely. That tied-in with the "would a nail in a tree move upward with age" questions (areas of cell division / cell elongation, etc.). Anyhow, it seemed to help them understand what was, and what was not happening in different plants and trees.

____________________


Different subject....

Tiny example: customers can be saved money by tree workers being able to recognize garden plants. Suppose we notice that an entire planting beneath a tree is Hosta, daylily, bishop's weed and Siberian Iris? In that case, we may ask people if they are willing to schedule major pruning of the tree, or trees, until winter, so limbs can be cut and dropped straight down, if other factors allow that safely. Possibly saving $100, $200 or more in labor.

If a planting beneath is azalea, odds are they are all brittle, and will remain standing, and the question wouldn't come-up. Everything gets roped-down.

There are about 8 customers per year that I recommend this for - about one every month and a half.

Some customers have pruning that can easily wait 7 to 10 weeks until autumn, and if I'm aware that they want some new trees planted (but without having to babysit them), their pruning can hold-off until October, and the trees can be planted while we are out there in many cases. That frequently chops travel time off the fees.

For each aspect of this horticulture (arboriculture + landscape gardening), I make sure they understand why the work was scheduled the way it was, and either the benefits that were gained, or how much money they saved. The advice helps them, but the communication enables the favor to be returned. That customer education retains customers and gains referrals. Best I can tell, it provides more income than what may seem to have been lost.

Landscape designers and architects...

I think these folks should know reams about trees too. It would do wonders for plenty of them to either work and clean-up with tree services, or, to watch a couple of arborist / ground-man teams for a week. Then they could grasp problems that designs could cause or avoid, and what's involved to prune and clean-up.


----------



## Tree Machine (Sep 16, 2007)

Bravo!

I'm seeing that I'm more a landscape manager than I thought.
A specialist in pruning at heights, I am not above pruning anything, I like it all. Like any of us, we tend to gravitate to what pays the best, but when you find yourself pruning dead stems out of your clients rose bushes or pruning the hydrangea off the side of the house when it's not even on your estimate, you're doing it because you simply love plants, big, small, woody, perennials, bushes, trees.

Crossing the line, if there is one, from arbo to hort really is necessary to be a more complete part of the big picture. Even the soil, as Dr Bob says, requires attention, though very few Arborists apply care below the root flare.

I find this thread thoroughly enlightening. Thanks to all.


----------



## Ekka (Sep 17, 2007)

I used to advertise ....

Garden maintenance, renovation and design. A lot of our work used to be rejuvenating or renovating old gardens and putting in new ones ... some trees etc would go, stumps out, in with the new, lovelly.

So what happened?

Every lawn man overnight became a landscaper, yep, they now had a lawnmower and a wheel barrow. :hmm3grin2orange: 

Then they slowly bought chainsaws and now you get the odd stump to grind as they bought grinders too. 

You'll be surprised how dominant in the tree market lawn mower mobs have become.

I dare to say those who are not willing to smell the roses may find themselves smelling the soup kitchen the way things are going. You certainly need to have broader knowledge and understand the larger picture. 

Times are changing, and unlike other professions it's no requirement to be either a lawmman, horticulturist or arborist to do our jobs (unfortunately). For those who have city ordinances to such, be thankful.


----------



## oldugly (Sep 17, 2007)

Well I now see the error of my ways, and I apologize to the intellectuals who tell me that I am a hack because I do not know the latin name for a petunia.

Yup, I am a separatist, specialist, or elitist, or just plain arrogant, if those are the labels you want to give me. I find it very offensive to be attacked for my lack of knowledge, and whatever knowledge I have to be negated because I did not have the option to spend four years in college studying flowers. MD, you are right...everyone who mows a lawn or plants a flower deffinitely knows tree work better than I do...definitely see that they are covered under the same licensing and certification boards. I can see why now that it is important I learn the latin name for a dandelion....otherwise I could never be an arborist.

ME, I will just continue trying to care for trees and customers concerns with them. Good luck with your gardens.


----------



## Tree Machine (Sep 17, 2007)

C'mon ugly. That sounds like taking offense where no offense was intended.
There's no attack here. Nobody's being put down. No need to get defensive. If you feel something was slung at you, use your quote tags and be specific.

Besides, horticulture isn't about latin names and classification. That's _Taxonomy_. Or for the specific study of woody plants (including trees), we go with _dendrology_.

A little knowledge of latin isn't a bad thing. For instance, what is horticulture? _Hortus_ is the latin word for 'garden plant' and _culture_, 'to grow' which includes planting and caring for.

_Arbor_ = tree
_ology_ means the study of
_Silvi_= forest

See?, that didn't hurt.

For more information on latin names, taxonomy and classification and grouping of all living things, see the text below. It's a classic, written two and a half centuries ago. This stuff has been around awhile and is used worldwide. Whether you or I choose to use it is just that, a choice.

So hang in there, _Oldus uglius_  
--------------------------------------------


----------



## beowulf343 (Sep 17, 2007)

underwor said:


> As I have expanded services, since 1967, and then gotten into teaching, I find myself doing more things *for* trees, and at a higher price than before, since I am saving the tree, to work on it again in the future.



I love the "arborists" that use this quote. Lets just talk the homeowners into dumping money into a hopeless cause.


squad143 said:


> Very interesting topic. I myself am not an arborist or horticulturist, I do removals (guess I'm just a tree cutter). I do, however, make my customers aware that I am not an arborist and will refer them to one if they require one or if I feel the scope of the work requires one.



You an me both, man. I guess that is why i am opposed to the arborist title. Someone tells me they are an arborist, i expect someone who knows about ALL aspects of working with trees. I expect someone who knows about planting, trimming, removals, climbing, buckets, fertilizer, cabling, latin names, etc. And there are a few arborists out there who do seem to know a good chunk of the field. But alot of them seem to specialize in just one or two fields. Maybe it should be called "an arborist specializing in......" That's why i'll never call myself an arborist-just a simple climber specializing in removals.

Funny-i know alot of loggers that work with trees alot more than most arborists, yet they never call themselves arborists.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Sep 17, 2007)

beowulf343 said:


> I expect someone who knows about planting, trimming, removals, climbing, buckets, fertilizer, cabling, latin names, etc. And there are a few arborists out there who do seem to know a good chunk of the field.



Actually, I've noticed that in our area, there are not a "few" of them, but plenty of them. And a few who know above what you listed. The reason is two-fold (at least):

1. Most enjoy trees and like learning about them.

2. They like to see the professionalism, wage potential and educational resources for the arborist profession increase.

My guess, is that if any tree workers don't know what you listed after doing tree work for quite a few years, it's primarily due to not enjoying the education associated with trees. And 1/2 the knowledge must be virtually free, or available through books that can be mailed anywhere. 

If a tree worker didn't go to college, but read books and read articles for 3 - 7 years, how could they not know most of those things? What's the answer? The answer has to lie with the tree worker's love or enjoyment for education, however they acquire it - whether books, seminars or school. There might be a few exceptions due to financial hardships, but in-general, it's got to boil-down to what people enjoy learning about.

It seems that its a matter of what people want to do in their spare time, and how much they are willing to invest in their profession.

If some folks don't want to learn as much about trees, that seems fine as long as they, and everyone else holds themselves forth to the community as what their capabilities really are.


----------



## treeseer (Sep 17, 2007)

beowulf343 said:


> I love the "arborists" that use this quote. Lets just talk the homeowners into dumping money into a hopeless cause.


As a self-described tree cutter, how do you judge what trees are hopeless? Sounds like a sales pitch for removals, in a word, arborphobia.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Sep 17, 2007)

treeseer said:


> beowulf343 said:
> 
> 
> > I love the "arborists" that use this quote. Lets just talk the homeowners into dumping money into a hopeless cause.
> ...



Actually, a well-rounded and trained arborist would be the most reliable and only option to really differentiate between what is "dumping money" and investing money. How could a "tree cutter" be relied upon to even conjecture that point? It would be like a 50/50 game of hit or miss.

It would be like someone who has limited automobile diagnostic skills, trying to decide whether a highly skilled automotive technician was doing appropriate repairs for modern vehicles.

Now, someone with limited skills could still fix a lot of stuff on cars right, say, replace tires, balance wheels, change light bulbs, maybe even replace the starter, filters or electronic ignition. But they would hardly be in a position to evaluate cost analysis and quality control pertaining to technician repairs like transmission rebuilds, on-board computers, crank replacement, etc..


----------



## treeseer (Sep 18, 2007)

oldugly said:


> ME, I will just continue trying to care for trees and customers concerns with them.


If we don't pay attention for the roots, the site and the associates, are we caring for the tree, or just half of it?


----------



## Tree Machine (Sep 18, 2007)

And this one goes along with what treeseer just said, I just got this question via e-mail this morning, 
*Have a friend who has a deck built around a large Ash Tree – Regular old style deck with about ½ inch opening between boards. The deck is about the size of the drip line or canopy of the tree. It is safe to do a new style deck where the boards are tight to each other ? They are concerned for the tree and water. Whatcha think ?
Thanks, Don*
Classic arborist question. I think the tree owners already know what the answer is, but they want a professional to acknowledge it. There's not climbing or trimming. The question is about site and roots.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Sep 18, 2007)

Tree Machine said:


> And this one goes along with what treeseer just said, I just got this question via e-mail this morning,
> *Have a friend who has a deck built around a large Ash Tree – Regular old style deck with about ½ inch opening between boards. The deck is about the size of the drip line or canopy of the tree. It is safe to do a new style deck where the boards are tight to each other ? They are concerned for the tree and water. Whatcha think ?
> Thanks, Don*
> Classic arborist question. I think the tree owners already know what the answer is, but they want a professional to acknowledge it. There's not climbing or trimming. The question is about site and roots.



That can be a compound situation depending on the area. East Medford properties have a situation similar to elsewhere, that I've read about, where homes have problems if soil dries and shrinks around the foundation, due to the type of clay soil. That's without any trees in the equation. As soon as we are including trees, soil, moisture, homes, decks and more, its not a matter just a good conversation.


----------



## beowulf343 (Sep 18, 2007)

M.D. Vaden said:


> My guess, is that if any tree workers don't know what you listed after doing tree work for quite a few years, it's primarily due to not enjoying the education associated with trees. And 1/2 the knowledge must be virtually free, or available through books that can be mailed anywhere.
> 
> If a tree worker didn't go to college, but read books and read articles for 3 - 7 years, how could they not know most of those things? What's the answer? The answer has to lie with the tree worker's love or enjoyment for education, however they acquire it - whether books, seminars or school. There might be a few exceptions due to financial hardships, but in-general, it's got to boil-down to what people enjoy learning about.



Ok, how about an example. I am a tree worker. I am interested in educating myself in my field (part of the reason i'm on this site.) However, my bucket experience is very limited. But, according to your logic, over the past 12 years i've been up in a bucket a few times, have read a couple of operation manuals, and have been to a few expos that had buckets on display. So am i able to tell people that i can run a bucket? Of course not, i leave it to the professionals. The fact that on-hand experience seems to have no place in your learning system is what worries me. May be different in oregon, but around here seems most guys specialize in two or three areas. "Doing a few things well is better than doing many things poorly." You used the car analogy-if i had a tranny go out, i would not take it to a "highly skilled automotive technican." Too expensive and how many transmissions do they deal with. I would much rather take it to a shop that does nothing but transmissions. The tech may get a half dozen a week, the tranny shop gets a half dozen a day. Who is better? Same with treework-need a removal climbed, call me. Need a tree cabled-call somone who specializes in it. Need a bucket trim-call the guy who has been doing it daily for 20 years. I will agree that broadening your knowledge base is a great thing. Personally, i have read up on most of the arborist techniques, have logged, have trimmed, have done line clearance, can climb spurless. Yet there are others out there who have their speciality in those other areas and can do a better job. 

What worries me, and i've actually seen it on this site, and just lately too, is guys who have read the tree-climbers companion, have climbed maybe 20 trees, and are calling themselves arborists.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Sep 18, 2007)

treeseer said:


> If we don't pay attention for the roots, the site and the associates, are we caring for the tree, or just half of it?



Just came across an interesting example in a neighborhood today, talking to a homeowner about a dead street tree: likely soil related problems. It's the neighborhood I worked in for like 5 weeks when we moved here, helping a landscape contractor who had his guys wrap root barrier panels around the tree holes like a planting pot (circular): put 3" of river / drain rock in the bottom to "improve drainage" and left the wire baskets on. Turned into a conflict that I'm sure was the reason for them releasing me.

Anyhow, this dead tree is probably dead due to over-saturated soil. Looks like irrigation zones running too long. Was not able to get an herbicide history, but it was on the low end of the row where accumulation could occur.

This tree, if replaced, seems to require an alteration in watering: changing the timer, possibly switching sprinkler nozzles to low volume at the downhill side, etc..

A classic example for an arboriist who understands turf care, irrigations systems, and herbicide applications. And where no lawn service currently in the nieghborhood would be able to remedy the situation.

If a landscape service helped-out, I'm certain that the arborist will need to watch the irrigation zones running to reach a solution.

Just stumbled upon this while distrubuting advertising today, so its not my project. But the problem could easily fit Treeseer's reply.



beowulf343 said:


> You used the car analogy-if i had a tranny go out, i would not take it to a "highly skilled automotive technican." Too expensive and how many transmissions do they deal with. I would much rather take it to a shop that does nothing but transmissions.



Then we may be partially talking about the same thing, except I that you may have side-stepped from the full context of my last replies. For example, if someone is going to work on the tranny connected to my Dodge's Hemi, they better be a highly skilled technician, because they will be opening it, as well as messing with a bunch of other stuff peripheral to it. Still fits what I said about people doing whatever they do as long as they represent what they do properly.

Only problem with that, is if there is a compound problem, or they have to diagnose a noise that may or may not be the transmission, they are greatly more limited than a technician who understands more of the vehicle, or is part of a team / shop with a larger abundance of training.

That's one reason I tend to work with full service auto repair shops these days, including a decent dealership repair / service shop.


----------



## oldugly (Sep 18, 2007)

Of course we look at the root systems of trees
Tree Machine...What did your example have to do with the type of grass in their lawn, or the style of flowers planted around their deck...Is their deck built by a certified arborist? MD would say it should have been, because one license and certification should cover everyone...at least that's the jist of his statements.
MD, says I need to be a horticulturalist, otherwise I am not a complete arborist. I agree with the reverse...a horticulturalist who is not an arborist is not complete, but I cannot agree that an all encompassing knowledge of all plant life is a neccesity to be an arborist.
I agree that root care is a necessity...anyone knows this...and that was not what riled my feathers to begin with.
Someone said no insults were thrown, and no offense was intended...I disagree with that completely.
A formally educated person will not banter with name calling, only define the name he refers to in a patronizing manner, and direct the definition to anyone who opposes his opinion, all the while referring to his own credentials, and not the point at hand.
I am not formally educated and therefore not inclined to follow those rules, but rather I am kind of forward in my opinions, and although I care little or none of what others opinion of me are, I am sensitive to the bigottry of the formally educated towards those who are not.
There was one statement made that said something to the effect that the main reason an arborist would not further his education was (although not said, defined in a manner which left no other interpretation) Laziness.
So in effect although I will not use my quote tabs as suggested, I will speak plainly that I can see through your patronizing manner, and yes I will respond to being called ignorant, lazy, a hack, and unqualified for my job. 
Should I take offense to that...I think so. 
Sir, you know nothing about me, to judge me so. Uneducated...yes. Stupid...I don't think so. 
This was your thread, you made your point, and I do apologize for dragging out my disapproval.
Good luck with your garden, I will still continue taking care of trees, be they Acers, Quercus, Tillia, or Ulmus...I will strive to do what I can for them.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Sep 18, 2007)

TreeCo said:


> M.D.,
> 
> Is it really that dry in your area? I hardly ever see trees that need irrigation except to get established.
> 
> Most irrigation I see is for the benefit of the lawn and most of the times is a detriment to the tree.



Being in a lawn, the tree would not need irrigation. Except for that the landscaper put most of them in encicling root panels - now the roots can't properly expand outside the (maybe) 30" circles.

As far as dry, Medford is fairly dry for Oregon.

The coast, a couple of hours west gets like 75 inches per year. Portland where I was at, gets 36" of rain per year. About 1/2 hour north of Medford in Grants Pass is 31" of rain per year. To the west of Medford by 20 minutes is where I live in Applegate Valley with a Jacksonville address and we get 27 inches per year. 20 minutes to our west, Williams gets 33 inches.

But Medford, and Ashland about 20 minutes south of it, get only 19 inches of rain per year, mostly between November and April.

By modification to irrigation, I mean getting rid of the excess that's flooding the steet tree area that happens to be right in the center of the emerald green overly saturated lawn. They are watering so much, its probably detrimental to the turf as well.



oldugly said:


> MD, says I need to be a horticulturalist, otherwise I am not a complete arborist. I agree with the reverse...a horticulturalist who is not an arborist is not complete, but I cannot agree that an all encompassing knowledge of all plant life is a neccesity to be an arborist.



The main thing I notice from your replies, is that you are only referring to partial contexts and parts of replies. You have not "hit the nail on the head" about what some of us have said, and it looks like you may have missed the point about much of what we haven't said.

In fact, I'm going to quote myself here so you don't drag some people into some tangent, if they just recently found this thread...



M.D. Vaden said:


> *but in-general, it's got to boil-down to what people enjoy learning about.
> 
> It seems that its a matter of what people want to do in their spare time, and how much they are willing to invest in their profession.
> 
> If some folks don't want to learn as much about trees, that seems fine as long as they, and everyone else holds themselves forth to the community as what their capabilities really are.*


----------



## oldugly (Sep 18, 2007)

MD.
I will desist now. YOu have won. Very good misdirection, and very good quotes. You can proudly justify your arrogance.
By referring to what people WANT to do with their SPARE time, and what they WANT to invest in their profession, my interpretation of this is that someone who does not have a vast understanding of plant life, (no matter how unrelated it is to tree work, care, or arborology) does not want to learn. Or would rather waste his spare time, or not invest in his profession. This, (to me, and I will have to say to most people, even if they do not use the word) is laziness. So in effect you are calling me lazy...because I do not know the difference between turf grass and crab grass.
Maybe I should put down the magazines I value, and get a subscription to "Lawns are US" or something.
You have redirected your comments to pull any blame away from you, and I am not going to get in a credential war with you. You are obviusly educated, I am not.
You win, I quit. But you won at a cost...I use to really respect you and your posts.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Sep 18, 2007)

oldugly said:


> You win, I quit. But you won at a cost...I use to really respect you and your posts.



I don't labor for respect, nor work or contribute to win. It's just one reason my website doesn't say "#1 in the industry" or something like that.

To everyone else...

"To Hell in a Handbasket" would be one real cost we should always keep in mind.

For me, I've only reached part way up the ladder of education, but am thankful for the educated and educators in our field.

If our industry were to depend SOLELY on people with minimal education in arboriculture to lead, steer and strengthen our profession, the integrity of arboriculture would go to hell in a handbasket.

The industry needs every level of education, from near nil, to the Phd, as functioning participants (as long as they don't work outside their scope of ability).

But to lead, direct, evaluate and strengthen the profession, we need to lean on those who have invested their time in educational resources.


----------



## treeseer (Sep 18, 2007)

M.D. Vaden said:


> to lead, direct, evaluate and strengthen the profession.


Everyone should do this. Equally functioning, equally leaning.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Sep 19, 2007)

M.D. Vaden said:


> The industry needs every level of education, from near nil...



I would say from OJT to PhD. I do not think the brush-draggers are arborists. Some may be in training, but many will quit before their first year.


----------



## squad143 (Sep 20, 2007)

treeseer said:


> As a self-described tree cutter, how do you judge what trees are hopeless? Sounds like a sales pitch for removals, in a word, arborphobia.



Well in my part of the world, if the tree has not had leaves on it in the past year, I would remove it. 

If they were building an addition onto their cottage and the tree is in the way, I would remove it.

If a recent wind storm has uprooted part of the base and the tree is overhanging the building or hydro wires, I would remove it.

Pretty much sums up about 90% of my work. Thus, no need for me to be an "arborist".

Now if the tree looks as if it is dying and the customer really wants to keep the tree, I'll recommend they hire the services of an arborist to find out what is wrong with the tree and a remedy, if any. In most cases the tree dies and I'm called back a year later to remove it.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Sep 21, 2007)

squad143 said:


> Well in my part of the world, if the tree has not had leaves on it in the past year, I would remove it.
> 
> If they were building an addition onto their cottage and the tree is in the way, I would remove it.
> 
> ...



It seems that recognizing a dead or severely damaged tree is not exactly the "judging" he meant, but close enough for removals.

And what your wrote exactly fits what I put in the Arborist / Pattern Maker thread about how modern arboriculture as virtually brought 2 professions to pass, rather than one. It would be just as easy for an arborist who doesn't specialize in removals and rigging to send work to a removal expert, as the other way around, too.

By no leaves for a year, I'm guessing that you meant the entire span of a year, because I've seen a few trees defoliate in May, and get new leaves the following March or April: 10 month defoliation - although those were mostly newly planted and nothing slated for big tree work.

I recall a couple of tall conifers like white fir, defoliated by insects, but to be revived with replacement needles the following year. Not common, but not unheard of.

Near Portland, I've seen at least one company that does not appear to call themselves an arborist or a tree service, but is more of an "urban logging" company. They most closely fit the tree cutting / removal niche.

I know of at least one tree service that almost removed a deciduous conifer in Oregon, going on the observation of just 5 months defoliation. It was a matter of Tree ID. But then again, it shows that the lack of foliage is not the only part to consider. This person soon after went to college for some tree classes, and advance further in study to become a Certified Arborist.


----------



## squad143 (Sep 21, 2007)

[QUOTE=M.D. Vaden;764160
By no leaves for a year, I'm guessing that you meant the entire span of a year, because I've seen a few trees defoliate in May, and get new leaves the following March or April: 10 month defoliation - although those were mostly newly planted and nothing slated for big tree work.


Seems all our deciduous trees loose their leaves around Oct.-Nov. only to get them back in 5 or 6 months. (LOL).

Other than "hazard trees" or "in way of new construction", most of my removals have not had any leaves or needles on them for 12 months and longer. No doubt about it, the tree is dead. 

A lot of my customers have built their dream house/cottage in woods only to call me a couple of years later when a lot of the surrounding trees have died off. I've seen many grounds re-landscaped with fill extending up to 3 feet on a trees trunk. 

I just recently finished removing a (what was once a beautiful) rather large dead maple. The customer tells me that he purposely built his cottage 30' further back from lake so that they would not have had to remove this lovely tree. I didn't have the heart to tell him that he should have consulted an arborist and included the cost in his site planning/construction. 

People will build a $200,000 - $800,000 building and not spent a cent on hiring someone to take care of the trees that drew them to the area in the first place.

If I'm off topic on this thread, I apologize.


----------



## treeseer (Sep 21, 2007)

M.D. Vaden said:


> I know of at least one tree service that almost removed a deciduous conifer in Oregon, going on the observation of just 5 months defoliation. It was a matter of Tree ID. But then again, it shows that the lack of foliage is not the only part to consider. This person soon after went to college for some tree classes, and advance further in study to become a Certified Arborist.


My foreman in the early 70's caused the company to fork out $3k cuz he ordered a tamarack with brown needles removed. I don't know what he did after that; I bailed out of the utility game shortly after.

squad you're plenty close to the gist of the thread; no worries.:jester:


----------



## Justice (Sep 22, 2007)

treeseer........

tamarack with brown needles.......

thats just a dead pine tree!!

LOL


----------



## Tree Machine (Sep 23, 2007)

We get bald cypress that die like that, too.


----------



## Justice (Sep 23, 2007)

LOL

Funny but true! Get calls every year for new home owners ..."why did my pine tree die?""

Hopefully you get there before its too late.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Sep 23, 2007)

Justice said:


> LOL
> 
> Funny but true! Get calls every year for new home owners ..."why did my pine tree die?""
> 
> Hopefully you get there before its too late.



And in winter when they call like that, its it's own little angle. Needles on the ground, they think its dead, and its not a pine, and they don't know what it is. So is it a cedar of Lebanon that lost its needles, or is is a larch that should be without needles. If removal is not needed, hopefully they need pruning so the trip was not a waste of time.


----------



## treeseer (Sep 23, 2007)

M.D. Vaden said:


> If removal is not needed, hopefully they need pruning so the trip was not a waste of time.


If it's a paid consult, no worries. If not, the watchful arborist will find some maintenance work to sell. I'd think the tree owner would be so grateful they'd let you get busy and pay for your time.


----------



## treesandsurf (Sep 27, 2007)

I agree. If you can see the larger picture you are much more valuable than someone who only see's the trees in a landscape. Also, for the arborist often times the more professional and appropriate decision should be removal and replanting. So many trees are just not suited for the conditions that humans subject them too. 

If the arborist has the ability to recommend removal, and THEN recommend an appropriate species for re-planting for that particular situation... well then that arbo is one bad mofo.  

jp


----------



## Ekka (Sep 27, 2007)

I know of some crazy tree cutters who'd bring a tree down faster than most arborists would tie a knot.  

What I find ironic is the number of customers who I've cut down trees for seeking the services of a "horticulturist" from a nursery ... that's exactly where things went wrong in the first place, wrong tree, wrong spot etc.

Just the other day I was in a nursery where the horticulturists spend 99% of their time around potted saplings and flowers tagging up Leopard trees. The tag said the trees grow to height maximum of 10m and width 6m.  

Perhaps so if you plant it in the pot!

As a fellow arborist diagnosed his work load he realised with 40% or so of their work being pruning that many a nursery is still selling wrong tree wrong spot. Doesn't help when tags are a mile out on information either.

Frankly, the mix has to be horticulturist/landscaper/landscape maintenance/arborist.

Anyway, here's a pic of a leopard tree and they do get bigger than this!


----------



## treeseer (Sep 27, 2007)

Nice tree there Eric. Is it in the wrong spot just because it needs pruning? 

I think not.

Arborists should sell arboriculture first, and removal/replacement only when arboriculture will not meet the owners' goals. imo.


----------



## Ekka (Sep 27, 2007)

treeseer said:


> Nice tree there Eric. Is it in the wrong spot just because it needs pruning?
> 
> I think not.



Well, here's some of the facts.

The neighbour now has a tree trespassing the boundary, dropping mess onto his roof and driveway.

Leopard trees drop a very hard seed the size of a matchbox, not nice on cars, mowers or to slip on. Also they are noisy when they drop so during the night you get woken by these seeds dropping on the roof and sometimes rolling/sliding down to the gutter. What if you had an expensive car parked on the driveway?

Then the trees are semi deciduous and have a fine leaf, about the size of your little finger nail. The leaves tend to stick to things and not blow away. Many times they work their way into the cars ventilation/airconditioning system and you get blasted with dried leaves or a crunching as the fan mulches them.

The trees distance from the house is closer than it's height, this violates AS 2870-1996 standard for foundations in reactive clay soils.

In the amended attached picture below the guy on the right could cut back to boundary (target cuts irrelevant) what is shown in red. Also the building could likely be cracking where the pink x's are. Either way the guy on the right could put the tree owner on notice for a subsidence and consequential $20K plus under pinning bill.

All in all knowing the big picture, the consequences and the regulations pertaining to more than trees one could say very poor planting decision.

Oh, an engineers recommendation would be removal of course but failing that topping to height what the distance is from the house ... yes, if the tree is 10' away from the house then it cannot exceed 10' in height.

They are the facts, scream what you like for the tree however if I were the neighbour I'd put the owner on notice (legally) and suggest if he wanted to retain the tree he build an appropriate engineered root barrier which last time I looked was a 2m deep, 300mm wide reinforced concrete wall, that will stop the roots and hold soil in place not allowing subsidence and movement.

So, you also need to know engineering standards, or try to plead ignorance when ya ass is sued for poor landscape selection/design after the owner has to underpin.

Oh, one last fact, the guy could have planted it where the blue X is and kept the whole tree and it's associated issues to himself!


----------



## treeseer (Sep 27, 2007)

interesting story. many other issues besides branch pruning. no questions except the AS 4373 deal about distance and soils; overkill?.

what is that thing on the pole in the yard, a light to shine on the street?

tree located originally maybe due to turf worship; people want their lawn and the tree too, despite reality.That, and maybe the nursery chap said it was a small tree at maturity!


----------



## treesandsurf (Sep 28, 2007)

treeseer said:


> Arborists should sell arboriculture first, and removal/replacement only when arboriculture will not meet the owners' goals. imo.



Well of course, if people planted the right tree for the right place we wouldn't have a job (for the most part). 

But the fact remains that many times 'arborists' simply become 'vegetation managers' because their clients don't want that large looming tree to look so dangerous, or block their views or drop so many fruits on the lawn etc. etc. etc. 

jp


----------



## Ekka (Sep 28, 2007)

Spot on Treeseer.

I dont make the rules just have to know them.

It is a beautiful tree and if I were asked to do the fence line cut I'd walk!

Turf worshipping has gone away now with the drought, would have been a nice mulched shady garden with winter and summer flowering shrubs beneath, could have been a real eye stopper, but lawn ruled the day, however the new era of water conservation and small trees is coming.

Guy, I have seen too many cracked houses this year, they all crack on the side of large trees, it's no coincidence. Brisbane usually escaped the issue due to their 1200mm per year rainfall, however 3 years of maybe 500mm with long periods of no rain has brought us in line with other states and their associated clay engineering problems.

The irony of AS4373 pertaining to pruning is when it comes to fence line cutting the rule is throw away to a certain degree. If the neighbour refuses access and cutting beyond the fence line (aiming for target cuts) then you get a fence line stub job. I avoid it like hell but have done it on some species that can take it like lillypilly and fiddlewood, but not decent big trees, that's just not on.

Also spot on Treeandsurf, there'd be little arb work without nuisence trees/branches etc. In fact not so long ago in a publication here there was a story about the new urban environment ... trees only in parks and footpaths due to the ever decreasing size of building blocks and the increase of townhouses etc. The future seems to be flowering shrubs for the most part of new suburbia.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Sep 28, 2007)

treeseer said:


> tree located originally maybe due to turf worship; people want their lawn and the tree too, despite reality.



That accounted for a few trees "shoved in corners" here too.

But one other aspect in our area causes that as well...actually 2 aspects...

1. Landscape designers tuck the trees in corners. Looks cute intitially, but is way out of proportion after 10 or more years. I call it "tree in the corner syndrome" as one of the great landscape design defects.

2. In new home construction, where installations are on a not-so-generous budget for the yard, the landscapers expenses are less if they don't have to haul away any sod. 500 square feet is the minimum order on a pallet. By making the front beds more narrow, and tucking trees into corners, they can install almost all of their sod, and have none to haul away: saving time and money. 

#2 is what I'd call "window display" arrangement, and not any kind of real horticulture. And, wouldn't just be an "Achilles Heel" of a landscaper, but Gangrene of the landscaper.


----------



## underwor (Sep 28, 2007)

*Sustainable Landscaping*

Have you seen the articles about establishing a certification system for sustainable landscaping. This is much like the sustainable forest management or sustainable agriculture. Do you think it will lead to more responsible landscaping? I think I will bring it up to our landscape students and see what they think. Here is a link to one site on the subject at University of Minnesota. 

http://www.sustland.umn.edu/


----------



## Boa07 (Sep 28, 2007)

Ekka's observation of the state of affairs in Queensland is sadly accurate for the most part....thankfully the rest of the country is not as unhinged as our state, NSW now has the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 and has been able to slap down numerous ridiculous claims placed against trees for leaf flower and fruit drop  ....Unfortunately it is unlikely that we will adopt the powerful piece of legislation anytime soon, by the time Queenslanders realise the true value of the urban forest they are so addicted to slashing down  they will have created the kind of inhospitable environment none of us wish to live in.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Sep 29, 2007)

underwor said:


> Have you seen the articles about establishing a certification system for sustainable landscaping. This is much like the sustainable forest management or sustainable agriculture. Do you think it will lead to more responsible landscaping? I think I will bring it up to our landscape students and see what they think. Here is a link to one site on the subject at University of Minnesota.
> 
> http://www.sustland.umn.edu/



Couldn't get it to load the link tonight. But it will probably work later. I'll try tomorrow after work.

I wonder if what you mean by sustainable landscaping is related to an article I submitted to a landscape designer association newsletter. Basically, it stated that pruning and knowledge of pruning, was among the highest priorities of knowledge that a landscape designer would need to design long-term landscapes. In other words, a landscape designer would need to be an expert of pruning needs for plants, as well as the growth habits of plants and trees.

The concept is that if any plant or tree is to remain indefinitely in a landscape, there has to be a pruning solution for it. The tree or shrub must always be capable of being steered in some direction - manipulated. Or, it must be able to handle a cut-back - like where Yew can make new buds from bare stubbed stems, but arborvitae can't.

Many landscape designers were not highly excited about that subject.


----------



## treeseer (Sep 29, 2007)

M.D. Vaden said:


> I call it "tree in the corner syndrome" as one of the great landscape design defects.
> 
> #2 is what I'd call "window display" arrangement, and not any kind of real horticulture. And, wouldn't just be an "Achilles Heel" of a landscaper, but Gangrene of the landscaper.


Painfully accrate here too and around the world it seems. I'm currently butting heads with a designer who insists on imposing a "structure" outside a ballfield with broad turf, trees in circles, using 25 red maples when I've documented dozens of well-adapted species that do very well in the area, and a community need for shrubs and perennials instead of lawn to mow.

They are a stubborn bunch, who seem to see themselves as endowed by their Creator to create cookie-cutter visions that barely consider the site, and ignore maintenance. If I see another bed of oaks 6' apart I'd like to tear one out of the ground and whup it upside their heads. The least we can do is get their planting specs right:

"9.	The planting diagrams are out of compliance with national standards ANSI A300 (Part 5), which require the trunk flare to be at or just above grade. The ASLA is a signator on these standards, so all members are required to follow them.
The plan refers to the “root ball”, an artificial location with no biological significance. The earth saucer inside the dripline and the narrow prepared area are also out of compliance. New plantings will establish much better with lower maintenance if large natural areas are prepared, instead of small planting holes, each surrounded by invasive turfgrass."


----------



## woodchux (Sep 29, 2007)

I'd be happy if the landscapers would just stop planting row after row of trees directly underneath the powerlines.


----------



## Ekka (Oct 1, 2007)

treeseer said:


> trees in circles, using 25 red maples when I've documented dozens of well-adapted species that do very well in the area, and a community need for shrubs and perennials instead of lawn to mow.
> 
> They are a stubborn bunch, who seem to see themselves as endowed by their Creator to create cookie-cutter visions that barely consider the site, and ignore maintenance. If I see another bed of oaks 6' apart I'd like to tear one out of the ground and whup it upside their heads.



Over here just switch the trees for palms!

Another job coming up this week, 26 palms getting the royal removal ... and that's after the customer already has had 9 out prior.

At least you can do something with a tree but leaves on a stick, aint much you can do about that! :chainsawguy:


----------

