Vaden and treeseer from your posts I know you two have forgotten more then I know about trees. In the mean time I keep reading and listening.
The ideal arborist would have to climb. As you know on the west coast of NA the stands [whats left anyways!] are comprised of massive tall trees having their own ecology in the canopy. The only way to interact with them is to get up there.
I try to look at statements from both sides, and apply the ideas to as many situations as possible, to see if any ideas hold-up, poop-out, or could be thought of differently.
One thing that came to mind, was an earlier reply that in essence said that the authority or the expert is going to be the one in the tree. It wasn't till today that I remembered that I have not seen a CA climber arborist OWNER climb each tree done by one of their employed arborists to determine the competence of the work.In other words, it's available to see and know a heck of a lot from the ground.
Then the "need to climb" for the skyscrapers of tree work came in consideration too. I was trying to think of comparisons that were useful, without twisting matters. What I've seen for a couple of days, is some climbers promoting that you have to virtually do and know all that can be done with trees, to the greatest limits, to really be an arborist.
Then I recalled firefighting. To apply the same logic - or mislogic as I say - a firefighter of an urban residential area, would not really be a firefighter unless they had done virtually everything involved with firefighting. They would need to be trained and have experience for warehouses, real skyscrapers, and for forest fires. Since forest fire fighting frequently involves flying very large aircraft, and releasing water and fire retardant, that also would have to be done by ANY firefighter, for them to REALLY be a firefighter. And that would include getting the pilot license. Such reasoning also mandates that each firefighter would need to continuously do every size and type of firefighting, and keep and use any and all equipment.
Most firefighters get a lot of training, but it's certain that there are specialties and specialized equipment from department to department.
Soon we see that it's just some arborists that try and manipulate ideas and reasoning that way. Physicians don't.
Can you imagine a family physiciaan only being a real physician if he did everything and had all the equipment used in the medical field. He'd have to be fully trained in brain surgery, heart surgery, dentistry, etc.. Because that's exactly what it would take to apply the logic that climbers are trying to use, about defining an arborist.
So no - nobody has to climb to be an arborist. Likewise, a climber does not have to use an orchard ladder or hand pruners to be an arborist.
All they have to do, is be trained in proper tree care, be experienced, and work safely and competently with whatever size and scope of work they decide to undertake.
That's called common sense and flexibility. And that common sense is what a lot of the real-world is using.
Can you imagine a kitchen remodeling specialty contractor or a single level home builder not being a REAL contractor because they don't build high rises. Can you imagine the laughing to scorn that would be aimed at a high-rise builder who tried to make people think that a typical home builder was not a contractor? Or that a kitchen remodeler was not a contractor.
The situation would be both embarrassing and confusing.
That leads me to wonder what kind of ego or fear, leads people to miss the common sense logic that society can effectively succeed when people specialize and work within the limits of their knowledge and equipment.
Basically, I've never heard this kind of "have to do it all to be one" reasoning from any profession except some climbers.
Remember, arboriculture IS horticulture. In addition, what an arborist IS has been defined by what "arboriculture" is. When tree workers really get honest about all this, what needs to be defined is tree professional's reasoning, not what an "arborist" is.
Your posted mentioned the "ideal arborist" - it ain't a climber.
If a climber wants to retire from climbing and provide consulting and estimating, if they give it 100% in that niche, they are the ideal arborist. If another arborist decides to switch to starting a company like Big Trees Today in Oregon, and specialize in tree planting and large tree transplanting, if they give it 100% they are the ideal arborist. If another arborist decides to specialize in diagnosis, pesticide control and organic tree care, if they give it 100%, they are the ideal arborist. And if a climber decides to specialize in climbing giving it 100% in that niche, they are the ideal arborist.
Please leave yourself open to reconsidering that "perfect" does not equal "everything".
The firefighting example earlier, or contractors or phycians, were written to show just how big of a burden some climbers want to place on the arboriculture trade. They want to impose their will on the tree trade, to remove flexibility, and hand-cuff many arborists to the notion of MUST DO ALL to be considered a REAL aborist. It's sort of an imperial mindset, since it places an impossible burden on THE WHOLE.