Becoming and Arborist

[M.D. Vaden]

The C in my Certification (MCA) stands for certified. The original poster was not a CERTIFIED arborist. Only a Qualified one thats all. I was getting ruffled listening to guys bash CA. The MCA is what ALL other tests in the country are based on, like it or not! And I am quite proud of my designation.

Thanks for the input............:spam:

And yes you are 100% correct I meant implies. I was watching Fox News and they were talking about some court case at the time and use the term implicates........

Ahh.. hah... Now you are ready to come out to Oregon and take the landscape board exams

1 in 10 pass the entire exam first time through.

Not a big part on trees - mostly all aspects of planting and landscaping - but a fine challenge for the heavyweights.

T. Collier of Collier Arborcare was the last arborist I heard of to pass that Oregon exam, although there may be a few I didn't hear of.

In Oregon, you cannot advertise the planting or transplanting aspect of trees without the landscape license.

(Sort of odd in one way - not in another way. An inconvenience to many).

I took both exams not too far into the past. The landscape exam has toughened a lot since I took it, but it was still mildly brutal even with all my college and years of experience. The arborist CA exam has barely changed since I took that one 4 years ago.

For toughness, I'd say that on a scale of 1 to 10, that:

ISA's CA exam is a #4 to #5

Oregon landscape exams are a #9 to #10

So if someone wants to be certified in Oregon and legally advertise all aspects of arboriculture including the planting, they have a very high bar to clear.

The way the licensing in Oregon is structured, it causes debate. When I was on the license board, I was all for more license categories so that an arborist could be licensed under the landscape board for say pruning and just planting trees, but not for other landscaping that they were not tested for.

Other board members seemed to complain that more license categories would make enforcement too hard. My belief is that enforcement's challenge is not based on numbers of categories in a license, because people can cheat no matter how many categories they have.

As our industry becomes more specialized, its only logical to have more categories. Otherwise, to test everybody for everything, becomes like expecting physicians to be tested for every single facet of "medicine" all at once. Can you imagine making a doctor pass extensive tests for dentistry, optometry, gynicology, obstetrics, etc., all at once? No way.

 

[treeseer]

As our industry becomes more specialized, its only logical to have more categories. .

Agreed; like Muni, Util, CTW, BCMA, Aerial Lift...maybe Risk in the future...

I've had a lot of hort, so I'd like to take that OR test. Heck, if Collier could pass it,...

 

[BostonBull]

MD

That test sounds extreme! In a good way. I would need a LOT of studying, but I think it would be quit the feather in my hat.......

 

[M.D. Vaden]

Agreed; like Muni, Util, CTW, BCMA, Aerial Lift...maybe Risk in the future...

I've had a lot of hort, so I'd like to take that OR test. Heck, if Collier could pass it,...

In one way, I hate licensing for myself, but the current state of affairs seems to justify the need due to the number of people who cause problems by offering their services when they don't have the ability needed to be relied upon.

Odds are, you would do well on that landscape exam.

I think that California has a very similar arrangement, but licenses are not reciprocal. Now that, I'd like to see.

It seems like a pain, that one state's city near a border, can't supply a landscaper - easily - for the other state's city over the border.

I mean, it can happen, but not in a practical sense for temporary things. For example, there is a huge company in California that specializes in moving massive trees. Similar to Davey, or whoever that other big outfit is.

Anyway, those companies probably out-qualify 99.9% of anybody in Oregon, to contract huge tree removal. Yet, they can't take a temporary contract in Oregon unless the owner passes the Oregon landscape exams, or, hires an Oregon INDIVIDUAL who has passed the exams, as an employee.

Last summer, I called the administrator of the landscape board to talk about this. He had a point that it could be a bit of a pain to offer temporary permits to bypass the test, because some companies would abuse the system to "buy" licenses. And, it would be inconvenient.

The decisions on this are complicated by a majority vote from 7 board members, and the administrator who is part advisor. Our administrator did have a lot of experience, so he is worth listening to.

Anyway, some decisions go back and forth as members come and members go.

Personally, I'd prefer to take a bit more complicated approach to licensing, and see if the extra load on the board's backs could take a bit of load off the contractor's backs. With maybe just $10 extra per year from each licensee, it could be done with an extra person on staff.

Right now in Oregon, the only 2 tests that offer a first line of defence are:

ISA's arborist tests
Oregon Landscape Board exams

Reason being....

The Landscape Architect Board exam occurs over 2 to 3 days from what I understand (understand from other L. architects). And I was told that the PLANT KNOWLEDGE aspects of that exam are being stripped-bare, to where very little emphasis is being placed on horticulture and plant science.

It may occur in landscape architecture degree programs, but you don't need a degree or experience with an LA to qualify for the exam. It can be substitute experience that is related.

The LA exam given in Oregon, appears to deal heavily with procedure, safety, codes, engineering, etc.. Basically health, safety and other issues. Which are great in themselves. But to diminish the horticulture aspect ???

 

[lxt]

You are a climber, if you stop climbing you were a climber, and as such have every right to make suggestions to people about climbing. People who direct me who have climbed get some respect, right off the bat, because they have Actually Done the Work and know what they are talking about. That ain't my beef, never was, if you have done it you are in the pack.

Exactly!! atleast you were a climber, what arborist definition are you talking about? ISA has many as far as arborist goes, why is that?

LXT............

 

[treeseer]

Exactly!! atleast you were a climber, what arborist definition are you talking about? ISA has many as far as arborist goes, why is that?

Because an arborist is anyone who can manage urban trees, with or without ropes and saws.

I may run with the dogs, and climb and cut and all, but I am not sure I am 'in the pack", whatever that is.

 

[clearance]

Because an arborist is anyone who can manage urban trees, with or without ropes and saws.

I may run with the dogs, and climb and cut and all, but I am not sure I am 'in the pack", whatever that is.

Come on buddy, I have shown you respect. Do you really think that someone who is ISA certified, maybe a professor, an engineer at the same time, but who has never climbed, knows more about climbing than you? Should they be telling people how to climb, what to do, telling them to climb stone cold dead trees? Mangage urban trees, uhh, whatever.
I like the idea I had some time back, I think arborists that work for a city or municipalty, but who do not run a saw or climb, should really do something every day. And that would be to plant decent trees (conifers, in B.C.) on city property and private property (with permission). That way we would have more trees, better trees and they would have made valuable use of thier time. What do you think of that? Beats having them driving around aimlessly, going to meetings, annoying the real tree men, does it not?

 

[underwor]

I have known many people in the past 40 years who may or may not have ever climbed a tree, but they possessed a great knowledge about how trees work, both biologically and mechanically. As a climber early in my career and as an educator now, I was able to use the knowledge these arborists (those who care for trees, shrubs and woody vines) shared to make my work in the tree more efficient, safer and more beneficial to the organism and its environment. The big change since 1967 was that we used to do a lot to trees where now we are learning that if you do things for trees, the trees can do most of the rest for themselves.

The doing for includes placing the right tree in the right place, providing a good growing media, protect them from well intentioned but misinformed owners, mediating possible conflicts with modern society and trees, and not messing with mother nature too much.

The doing to part which is still important is stepping in after events that are often caused by things beyond our control (wind, fire, genetic defects, odd growth forms, etc.), when conflicts arise between society and trees (line clearance, poor decisions in tree (or house) selection and placement), and when trees are asked to perform a function outside their normal realm of shade, CO2 sequestration and providing natural beauty (framing a vista, as an accent in a manmade work of art, etc).

The complete arborist knows a little about all the domains of tree care. Not everything there is to know, but enough to have an idea of what right looks like in the system. From this they should be able to recognize when something is wrong or when a tree disorder exists. They then can use their knowledge or that of a pathologist, tree worker, hazard specialist, soil scientist, botanist or other tree care specialist (arborist) to correct the disorder and get the tree back on track or remove it if that is the proper action.

The only way that an arborist continues to improve is to regularly visit with others in all aspects of the field who possess more knowledge than he does. If I do not listen to others, and sort out what I can use and what is (in my opinion) questionable, I will be recycling the same stuff forever,while the trees and pressures of society pass me by.

I hope my lectures don't ramble this much!!!

 

[ropensaddle]

I have known many people in the past 40 years who may or may not have ever climbed a tree, but they possessed a great knowledge about how trees work, both biologically and mechanically. As a climber early in my career and as an educator now, I was able to use the knowledge these arborists (those who care for trees, shrubs and woody vines) shared to make my work in the tree more efficient, safer and more beneficial to the organism and its environment. The big change since 1967 was that we used to do a lot to trees where now we are learning that if you do things for trees, the trees can do most of the rest for themselves.

The doing for includes placing the right tree in the right place, providing a good growing media, protect them from well intentioned but misinformed owners, mediating possible conflicts with modern society and trees, and not messing with mother nature too much.

The doing to part which is still important is stepping in after events that are often caused by things beyond our control (wind, fire, genetic defects, odd growth forms, etc.), when conflicts arise between society and trees (line clearance, poor decisions in tree (or house) selection and placement), and when trees are asked to perform a function outside their normal realm of shade, CO2 sequestration and providing natural beauty (framing a vista, as an accent in a manmade work of art, etc).

The complete arborist knows a little about all the domains of tree care. Not everything there is to know, but enough to have an idea of what right looks like in the system. From this they should be able to recognize when something is wrong or when a tree disorder exists. They then can use their knowledge or that of a pathologist, tree worker, hazard specialist, soil scientist, botanist or other tree care specialist (arborist) to correct the disorder and get the tree back on track or remove it if that is the proper action.

The only way that an arborist continues to improve is to regularly visit with others in all aspects of the field who possess more knowledge than he does. If I do not listen to others, and sort out what I can use and what is (in my opinion) questionable, I will be recycling the same stuff forever,while the trees and pressures of society pass me by.

I hope my lectures don't ramble this much!!!

Yeah and arborist should deal with minimizing stress factors
as they relate to trees,as unless they planted them or know the history
a lot of detective work will be necessary most times to locate cause
of a symptom. I would think a good arborist would know treating just
the symptom,will not ensure good health. The problems I think being
referred to here, ether real or imagined fall into personality issues and
even self esteem issues. I have experienced many of these at the hands
of my superiors,no one wants to have someone govern them from office
chair or the ground. I complained about it for years and am now studying
to prepare for when my climbing skill lessens. I feel education needs to
be combined with experience,many college boys don't have a clue as
to courage and skill level required to climb hard core trees. The idea
of some college boy leading field work is a safety hazard as respect
has never been earned.

 

[treeseer]

clearance, I like your idea that every desk jockey administrative arborist should regularly get their hands on the trees and in the earth. I also think it reasonable that every field arborist regularly get their hands on information that is new to them, and outside their present realm.

That way, in time, all our expertise will be wider, so we will go outside of it less. No good for a nonclimbing arborist to tell a climber how to climb, or a bush arborist telling urban arborists to cut down trees:greenchainsaw: instead of managing them.

underwor said it best.

 

[bigshea13]

Becoming an arborist is a milestone from reaching a level
of personal achievement! I would say knowledge obtained
in study would give you a clearer view of what an arborist
truly is. I used to think similar to clearance until preparing
for the test, as a very well seasoned climber I understand
the fear of someone knowing a little more than you.
When that finally becomes a driving force to learn new
ways and practice you have caught on and learning
becomes a desire.

holy ####! thats exactly where it begins! how true that statement is. the fear of someone being more useful than you

 

[M.D. Vaden]

Come on buddy, I have shown you respect. Do you really think that someone who is ISA certified, maybe a professor, an engineer at the same time, but who has never climbed, knows more about climbing than you? Should they be telling people how to climb, what to do, telling them to climb stone cold dead trees? Mangage urban trees, uhh, whatever.
I like the idea I had some time back, I think arborists that work for a city or municipalty, but who do not run a saw or climb, should really do something every day. And that would be to plant decent trees (conifers, in B.C.) on city property and private property (with permission). That way we would have more trees, better trees and they would have made valuable use of thier time. What do you think of that? Beats having them driving around aimlessly, going to meetings, annoying the real tree men, does it not?

I think that approach is a bit narrow in scope. It eliminates many aspects of "management".

An arborist's ONLY responsibility is to understand tree care. But a managing arborist either needs to understand climbing (if needed), or manage someone who is able to handle that aspect.

Being a "climber" is an optional skill. Operating a chainsaw offers ZERO qualification toward being an arborist. That's because chainsaws are used in other trades like construction to cut beams, etc., and the use of the saws must be done for that likewise, as a skill. Likewise, climbing is a "skill".

In a municipal system, the best supervisor for the urban forest or arboretum will be a Certified Arborist or the equivilent for management. As far as the trees and climbing go, they can delegate that job to someone who is equally qualified as an arborist, or more skilled at climbing and rigging.

Tree care programs should never be managed by placing climbing and chainsaws as the top priority, but by having arboriculture as the top priority.

Should the managing arborist also be good at climbing, that would be handy. But then that would only last so long anyway.

It's a bit unwise in a big urban area, to keep the top level arborist up in the trees, otherwise they cannot properly coordinate all the programs that must be managed.

Even a Certified Arborist need not always be able to climb within their own company. Anything can be managed.

 

[lxt]

Because an arborist is anyone who can manage urban trees, with or without ropes and saws.

I may run with the dogs, and climb and cut and all, but I am not sure I am 'in the pack", whatever that is.

I thought part of the ISA definition for an arborist was; A professional involved in the practice of arborculture dealing with the management & maintenance of trees.

ISA has broke this definition in to sections to promote Certification(s) within a Certification, Nice for them!! means more money!! contradictory to the Title though. This is my problem with them.

Part of an Arborists function & a main function at that is the maint. aspect of trees!!! which would mean having the ability to.......CLIMB!!

Matt, If it will get you a couple dollar an hour raise do it!! but understand it will cost you & to keep up the Cert. will cost you, unless Bartlett is footing the bill, Good Luck in whatever you choose!!

LXT.............

 

[M.D. Vaden]

I thought part of the ISA definition for an arborist was; A professional involved in the practice of arborculture dealing with the management & maintenance of trees.

ISA has broke this definition in to sections to promote Certification(s) within a Certification, Nice for them!! means more money!! contradictory to the Title though. This is my problem with them.

Part of an Arborists function & a main function at that is the maint. aspect of trees!!! which would mean having the ability to.......CLIMB!!

Matt, If it will get you a couple dollar an hour raise do it!! but understand it will cost you & to keep up the Cert. will cost you, unless Bartlett is footing the bill, Good Luck in whatever you choose!!

LXT.............

There it is again.

Trying to make managing trees identical with managing people & skills.

A bit of overlap, but miles apart.

 

[clearance]

holy ####! thats exactly where it begins! how true that statement is. the fear of someone being more useful than you

Welcome to the site. I got no fear, if someone can help with my knowledge, I'm all ears. Now, as far as being usefull, who is more usefull at treework, that is the actual work, me, or some textbook hero who can't even start a saw?

Now M.D. Vaden, and others, my point is, and has always been, those who have never done the work, only read and talked about it, should never be telling tree guys how to do thier job. They can say what they want cut down, what is to be saved, etc, but they should leave how its done the experts. Do you not agree?

And another thing, there is absolutely no requirement for even the littlest amount of common sense in an ISA arborist, none. If they have it beforehand, thats great, otherwise, watchout!! Thats why they often make poor decisions, poor decisions that risk lives and cause property damage.

 

[lxt]

I think that approach is a bit narrow in scope. It eliminates many aspects of "management".

An arborist's ONLY responsibility is to understand tree care. But a managing arborist either needs to understand climbing (if needed), or manage someone who is able to handle that aspect.

Being a "climber" is an optional skill. Operating a chainsaw offers ZERO qualification toward being an arborist. That's because chainsaws are used in other trades like construction to cut beams, etc., and the use of the saws must be done for that likewise, as a skill. Likewise, climbing is a "skill".

In a municipal system, the best supervisor for the urban forest or arboretum will be a Certified Arborist or the equivilent for management. As far as the trees and climbing go, they can delegate that job to someone who is equally qualified as an arborist, or more skilled at climbing and rigging.

Tree care programs should never be managed by placing climbing and chainsaws as the top priority, but by having arboriculture as the top priority.

Should the managing arborist also be good at climbing, that would be handy. But then that would only last so long anyway.

It's a bit unwise in a big urban area, to keep the top level arborist up in the trees, otherwise they cannot properly coordinate all the programs that must be managed.

Even a Certified Arborist need not always be able to climb within their own company. Anything can be managed.

Pretty much goes against what I just posted, I couldnt disagree more with this post. Managing Arborist!! WTF Manage a Climber or someone able to handle that aspect?? If you dont climb then dont manage a climber thats ridiculous!! & will get you no Respect!

this is what I just went through, read my thread arguement with an arborist!! I will be D@#med if that guy will mangage me! & honestly some posted stating how nice I should be, like I should kiss his rear!! I was nice, to the point & even tried engaging in conversation, do I respect him? I respect his knowledge, position & as a person, but as an Arborist....NO!

your post goes against what the definition of an Arborist is by ISA standards, a certification within a certification, I think many like this!! simply because it gives them the ability to "manage" as you put it! & not do the dirty work so to speak!!

Clearance...you can show them respect, its a two way street, I just did it!! & in the end they will give you none!! cuz their certified & in their mind think they are the saviour`s of the tree world, Shigo is god & their books cant be wrong( they`re written by million dollar a yr professors ya know!), That mind set from them sickens me!! these book writters have very little real world exp. if any!!

They take what once was a Reputable, Earned, Proud Designation & bastardize it for monetary gain, cheapening the requirements & making those who have obtained it feel like they have accomplished something that former requirements would have left them out in the cold & they did it for the money!! Hows that make you feel?

LXT................

 

[bigshea13]

Sherlock Holmes: "Don't theorize without the facts."

Clients enjoy being in on the mystery, seeing me paging through the references and pointing to the plant or pest they are wondering about.

Doctors who theorize first can be dangerous. If they guess "lymphoma" before looking at the evidence closely, they can miss leukemia, and the untreated or mistreated patient gets closer to death.

This is no good, believe me.

:censored:

well put

 

[clearance]

Clearance...you can show them respect, its a two way street, I just did it!! & in the end they will give you none!! cuz their certified & in their mind think they are the saviour`s of the tree world, Shigo is god & their books cant be wrong( they`re written by million dollar a yr professors ya know!), That mind set from them sickens me!! these book writters have very little real world exp. if any!!

They take what once was a Reputable, Earned, Proud Designation & bastardize it for monetary gain, cheapening the requirements & making those who have obtained it feel like they have accomplished something that former requirements would have left them out in the cold & they did it for the money!! Hows that make you feel?

LXT................

I agree with you, except for the little I do know about the late Dr. Shigo, who wrote a pretty cool book about utility work a while back. He said that if you are not trained and experienced, do not work around powerlines, he wouldn't have some cull telling a good treeman how to do that job.

I have met many ISA types, I have been directed by them, have done what was was on the list of work they gave us, shaken my head more times than I can remember. I think one of the reasons that non working arborists often show little respect for the men is that they are intimidated. Not so much by the hostile stares, but because they are unworthy and know it. I mean, what if you were the captain in some WW2 battle and you said "Men, I know we are out numbered, but go and take that hill from the Japanese, I have some important paperwork to do in my tent"

That kind of stuff doesn't fly, out there in the real world. I could go on and on with examples of outright incompetence by ISA arborists but why, you are right LXT, many of them figure the sun shines out of thier azz.

 

[M.D. Vaden]

Pretty much goes against what I just posted, I couldnt disagree more with this post. Managing Arborist!! WTF Manage a Climber or someone able to handle that aspect?? If you dont climb then dont manage a climber thats ridiculous!! & will get you no Respect!

The major obstacle to that approach, really shows its face when you take your model of an ideal arborist, and remove them from their "safety net" for their philosophy - an environment to climb. An equally big obstacle is below in bold print at the end.

Take your model arborists, and drop them into an environment where there are no trees to climb, but of great enough value to need arboriculture. If therefore their climbing skills are irrelevant and cannot be used, your logic dictates that they are no longer arborists.

The important part about arboriculture, is that arboriculture exists even if climbing gear was not existent. Arboriculture exists even if someone does not have a hand pruning saw.

So the "arena" among arborists is not climbing at all, but the "arena" is the presence of trees.

It would be equally foolish if I tried to claim that because some arborists spent 100% of their time in trees, and none planting, that they were not arborists.

The important part, is do they understand how to plant trees. Do they know their aboriculture or not? If they know how to plant, they still can prune and climb trees, but manage and oversee the planting.

There may be an even greater obstacle to your presentation of opinion...

If you think that a Certified Arborist cannot manage from the ground, like for a city like Los Angeles or Boston, without him or her being a skilled climber, there is a logic dilemna.

So that CA can't manage other CAs, but the upper city management with no hort experience can hire and manage a climbing CA?

And in that, I disagree with you by giving more credit to a managing CA, than I would do a non-horticultural city management professional. The way I see it, is if another manager can supercede a climbing arborist and the work can be done right, then a managing CA with expert tree knowledge can even more effectively manage CAs and climbers.

To think otherwise, we cut off our leg of logic, by neccessitating that every level of city management above the urban forester, must be a climbing CA - all the way to the mayor.

 

[OLD CHIPMONK]

recently contacted ISA about reupping my arborist certification. They have a drive going for new members, a real, inexpensive price. Then I beleive the yearly membership is based on a percentage of the company gross. Does anyone know the details? Not cheap anymore ?