Achilles Heel of many Arborists? Not a "Horticulturist"

[Tree Machine]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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...

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]

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]

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]

to lead, direct, evaluate and strengthen the profession.

Everyone should do this. Equally functioning, equally leaning.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

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]

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]

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.

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]

[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]

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: