Certified Tree Risk Assessor

[lxt]

Seer Im not complaining............Im just stating the painfully obvious: that Tree risk certification is a joke & completely un-necessary!

Furthering ones education.....totally agree & I see nothing wrong with making this part of an already sanctioned credential, but to continue to "create certs" is making this trade a joke.............look at all other trades, professions.....they dont have multiple certs like we do...........plumbers License..but hey how about flux application certification, certified soldering specialist, faucet repair specialist...........& on & on!!

according to you Seer...........hey why not make plumbers have all that, hell its only .23cents a day!! WHY? cause its a ####ing laughable joke & an insult to those holding Certifications that an entity keeps creating BS certs in addition to what we already have, take what we have & build on that.....................actually at this rate I could only hope the Govt would step in & provide a state arborist license................take your CEU test at home, pay your renewal & bingo.............no tree work can be done in any county through out the state unless the business has a state licensed arborist on staff!!! then we wouldnt need ISA & their BS created Certs.............Awe...thats right then no one would read those articles that you write..........what a relief it would be.

you want additional education that means something? go to college & get a horticulture/forestry degree & then add on to your major & get a degree in Geology......ya think the BMCA is better than all that? Not a chance!




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

 

[Corymbia]

Sorry missed these comments because you imbedded your response in the quote.

Never had an insurance adjuster ask about a practical solution, if the trees down? LXT................

With risk we are not concerned about a practical solution but a practicable solution. Removing a tree that provides a number of benefits and that poses an very small risk, particularly when there are higher risks that could be abated withe the same resources risk may be practical but is not is not practicable

Here is where you answer your own questions...........if all trees pose an element of risk & we already know this? Then that just makes a certification for such un-needed, cause we are assessing a risk that was already there. LXT................

The fact that we know that all trees pose a risk does not mean that we have any idea of what the level of risk is from any tree or that we have any idea about how to go about identifying a tree that has a level of risk that is unacceptable.

Certification will not magically do this. It is only knowledge and skills that will do this. It is like flying a helicopter ... you don't need a licence (certificate) to fly one (ignoring legal requirements) but if I was going to pay for a helicopter ride I would want a certified pilot. Doesn't mean that he is more capable than the uncertified pilot just means that he has been prepared to provide some element of confidence by a third party that the pilot has such skills and knowlege.

If you put this in to play then....hell, there really is no need for a tree risk assessment by a certified person cause weather healthy or defective it may or may not fail..............would be like selling the glass is half full or half empty, "yes ma`am your tree might have a limb fail....but then again the one in concern may be ok & another could fail" so what kinda tree risk are we selling? sounds like the kind that a home inspector would sell with all the disclaimers.........Why even bother? LXT................

Risk assessment is not about prediction, nor is it necessarily about precision. Risk assessment is about, as far as it is reasonably practicable, providing a reasoned determination of the risk using the available information. This is why we need to offer better training, so that arborists understand what they need to do, where, when, why and how. Certification is intended to give the consumer a degree of confidence.

It is hard to believe but sloppy and or incompetent risk assessments have recently cost one city in Australia $1,000,000 with only one tree to date being cut down. Look up Laman Street Figs.

 

[Corymbia]

Seer Im not complaining............Im just stating the painfully obvious: that Tree risk certification is a joke & completely un-necessary!

Furthering ones education.....totally agree & I see nothing wrong with making this part of an already sanctioned credential, but to continue to "create certs" is making this trade a joke.............look at all other trades, professions.....they dont have multiple certs like we do...........plumbers License..but hey how about flux application certification, certified soldering specialist, faucet repair specialist...........& on & on!!

according to you Seer...........hey why not make plumbers have all that, hell its only .23cents a day!! WHY? cause its a ####ing laughable joke & an insult to those holding Certifications that an entity keeps creating BS certs in addition to what we already have, take what we have & build on that.....................actually at this rate I could only hope the Govt would step in & provide a state arborist license................take your CEU test at home, pay your renewal & bingo.............no tree work can be done in any county through out the state unless the business has a state licensed arborist on staff!!! then we wouldnt need ISA & their BS created Certs.............Awe...thats right then no one would read those articles that you write..........what a relief it would be.

you want additional education that means something? go to college & get a horticulture/forestry degree & then add on to your major & get a degree in Geology......ya think the BMCA is better than all that? Not a chance! LXT.....................

They are all interesting points. Remember that certification is voluntary so you don't need to get certified.

I agree that good education is the key element to moving forward. No one is compelled to get certified or trained for that matter but I have generally found that there are benefits to learning more, having my skills and knowledge assessed and in supporting industry initiatives such as certification. I became certified in 1990 and it was more than another 10 years before certification was even available in Australia. I personally believe that making money in the profession also means supporting initiatives developed by the industry and giving back to the profession.

 

[lxt]

They are all interesting points. Remember that certification is voluntary so you don't need to get certified.

I agree that good education is the key element to moving forward. No one is compelled to get certified or trained for that matter but I have generally found that there are benefits to learning more, having my skills and knowledge assessed and in supporting industry initiatives such as certification. I became certified in 1990 and it was more than another 10 years before certification was even available in Australia. I personally believe that making money in the profession also means supporting initiatives developed by the industry and giving back to the profession.

Certification is voluntary???? Funny how ISA & TCIA lobby to make it a requirement, I dont see it as voluntary when a job or contract requires it, so this particular part of the discussion is a point that can get a little hairy!!! why would any one make a Cert a requiremnt to obtain a job or a contract? who does this help? there is a deeper reason than "Voluntary" becomes "Mandatory".

I have to disagree on your last comment: making money in a profession means supporting & giving back to it............REALLY? Well let me see..........I am the one who entered the trade, went through the grueling apprenticeship, worked in all weather conditions, hung out over the lines to remove hang, helped out neighboring states in disaster relief.........Pay my taxes & oh so much more... I did all this to get skilled & become good at what I do, No "volunatary Certification" did any thing for me...except cost me!!

So....the give back to my profession is done by me working safe, providing jobs, continuing to educate myself & every now & then provide a free service to the community.............thats giving back...............Now what will the ISA do for me? drum up new certs, lobby utilities, govt agencies to try & make their voluntary cert a requirement for the job/contract all the while Seer wants us to believe it only costs .23 cents a day............what a jackwagon............his math is as bad as his articles, .23cents a day is $83.00 & sum change annually............he better recaculate!!!!! Renewal is just the begginning of the Cert process......theres a lil more to it than that!

Dont mind certs or a license..............BUT, lets build & better that path instead of creating stupid crap along the way!!!




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

 

[Corymbia]

I have to disagree on your last comment: making money in a profession means supporting & giving back to it............REALLY? Well let me see..........I am the one who entered the trade, went through the grueling apprenticeship, worked in all weather conditions, hung out over the lines to remove hang, helped out neighboring states in disaster relief.........Pay my taxes & oh so much more... I did all this to get skilled & become good at what I do, No "volunatary Certification" did any thing for me...except cost me!!

So....the give back to my profession is done by me working safe, providing jobs, continuing to educate myself & every now & then provide a free service to the community.............thats giving back...............Now what will the ISA do for me? drum up new certs, lobby utilities, govt agencies to try & make their voluntary cert a requirement for the job/contract all the while Seer wants us to believe it only costs .23 cents a day............what a jackwagon............his math is as bad as his articles, .23cents a day is $83.00 & sum change annually............he better recaculate!!!!! Renewal is just the begginning of the Cert process......theres a lil more to it than that!
LXT................

That is an interesting perspective and if you were climbing using 3 strand rope and a boson's chair, making flush cuts and painting them, then I might agree but there have been great steps forward in the last 50 years and these are the result of people in the profession often giving generously of their time and knowledge. This is a part of the education and growth of a profession. Voluntary Certification has resulted in improved standards and quality of work. This has benefited the profession as a whole.

Again if you believe the whole new certification thing is not working or doing anything you are free to opt out and save the $100 or so a year. I agree that it involves more than just money it requires time off and the cost of training as well. In Australia, Chartered Engineers are required to do 40 hours of ongoing study every year for each specialty they have, so for some that is 80 to 120 hours a year. Of course being a Chartered Engineer like being a Certified arborist does have its advantages … if it didn't you would just be ignoring this issue altogether.

You also need to be aware that the people who work for the ISA are not just screwing the system or earning a fortune. They are some of the nicest hardest working people that serve our profession.

Dont mind certs or a license..............BUT, lets build & better that path instead of creating stupid crap along the way!!! LXT................

Whilst there are some strong adjectives I do believe that there is great merit in this comment and I believe that in time there will be improvements. Online education is one that I believe is very important and I know that this is becoming more readily available. Likewise, combining various certifications making particular upgrades mandatory and better tailoring related education and training are also important. It is easy to point out the problems with a T-Model Ford but without it the current face of mass produced and even custom built vehicles would not be the same. The same applies with certification. It is the best we have at the moment and unless there is constructive ideas it will not go forward. Likewise if the improvements are too quick or too early it may not get support ... just think about Ford's Edsel.

 

[jefflovstrom]

Hey Mark,
You bored?
Jeff
I see the point LXT is making and I just say it is regional.
I got nothing against you but you need to come to grips with who you are talking to.
Jeff

 

[lxt]

Hey Mark,
You bored?
Jeff
I see the point LXT is making and I just say it is regional.
I got nothing against you but you need to come to grips with who you are talking to.
Jeff

what are ya saying Jeff?......LOL

I am wondering if Corymbia is the same guy as "outtamytree", if so that would explain it!! Whats funny is all the defenders bring up 3-strand rope, flush cuts & other out dated practices.........but they forget that was the Norm back then, funny how there were less fatalities in our industry then compared to now.......uh? so I could argue that all the modern advancements in gear have created a less safe enviroment...........But that would be false......its the unskilled that have created these statistics & will continue to add too them untill something is done.

ISA..........hard working nice people, I agree!!! however they are also lobbyists & would like to be the "authority" in our industry as to who can or cant perform tree work by way of making their "voluntary" Certs a mandatory & possibly a legal requirement!

Its not the Opting out & saving money part that is the problem...........its the over creating of credentials that should be part of what certs are already there!!!! this is what I dont get with all you guys defending this?, Im not against an additional domain for certification but against a whole new cert in & of itself!

stranger yet......you mention education & growth of a profession, then tell me why the CA test no longer includes tree ID? yeah lets eliminate that & create another cert!! C`mon, lessen one cert to create another! & as far as the differences in giving back to a profession go, I guess I feel that I had to pay my dues, taxes & go through apprenticeship hell to get where Im at & now some entity thinks they should be able to "require" me to reach in my pocket to pay them????? they can lick where the dog cant reach!!

its bad enough that uncle sam keeps taking, health care is un-affordable, work is uncertain (unless a storm comes through) & Now there are some who feel that giving back is just par for the course by paying for un-necessary certifications.....heres a novel Idea:

How bout ISA make their CA requirement stricter? make people show proof of climbing exp or require those with less than 5yrs in the trade to undergo a skills test, put all these bogus certs under the CA designation & make sure people have a rudementary understanding of all these things..............maybe even put the tree ID section back in there? wow, imagine a CA needing to ID trees? So instead of watering down existing certs so that the masses can achieve such for money sake & creating a false sense of achievement leading to injury & fatality.....step it up & make it respectable again!!!!!!!!





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

 

[ClimbMIT]

Wow what a topic here? It's a shame some people like uh, I don't know (Treevet) has to put everyone down to make himself feel better. I am for certifications. Working on my AC for the state, (mandatory but not regulated) I have worked many years without one. I can understand where LXT is coming from. I was recently a professional firefighter and I have a book full of certs! Thank God I didnt have to pay for them but it did take time when i could have been working on the side. Educate the public about the importance of trees, make certain certifications like TRA optional, and let the customer decide what to do. Besides thats what will happen anyway. I prefer to trim a tree anyday over removal but I am not going to walk away from a job because the customer doesn't want to try and save a tree that is a nuissance on their property. I prefer pruning it's job security, 2nd good for the enviroment, and many other positive health benefits for people. I am going to get as many certs as I can, but I say we keep that a choice! That can also be a good selling point to our customers

 

[Corymbia]

what are ya saying Jeff?......LOL
I am wondering if Corymbia is the same guy as "outtamytree", if so that would explain it!! Whats funny is all the defenders bring up 3-strand rope, flush cuts & other out dated practices.........but they forget that was the Norm back then, funny how there were less fatalities in our industry then compared to now.......uh? so I could argue that all the modern advancements in gear have created a less safe enviroment...........But that would be false......its the unskilled that have created these statistics & will continue to add too them untill something is done. LXT................

No I am Corymbia (Mark Hartley). Your point that this was the norm back then is precisely my point. We have moved forward as a result of the education and training offered in our professional and one of the major driving forces in this regard is the ISA and its members.

ISA..........hard working nice people, I agree!!! however they are also lobbyists & would like to be the "authority" in our industry as to who can or cant perform tree work by way of making their "voluntary" Certs a mandatory & possibly a legal requirement! LXT................

I am not sure that the ISA have or engage the services of lobbyits. I could be wrong. Perhaps the move forward is a result of the profession and the larger government and commercial consumers pushing in that direction and I am not sure that expecting and working towards higher levels of professionalism is necessarily bad.

Its not the Opting out & saving money part that is the problem...........its the over creating of credentials that should be part of what certs are already there!!!! this is what I dont get with all you guys defending this?, Im not against an additional domain for certification but against a whole new cert in & of itself!LXT................

I get that. Here in Australia it is not such an issue because more and more of our government regulations require arborists to be properly trained. On average it is now a training program over 3 year (about 40 days a year) plus on job training to be an arborist. The Diploma of Arboriculture requires about 1,200 of study and is likewise a prerequisite to providing many reports that are required. The impact has not hurt the profession rather it has been improving it. As everyone works to upgrade and continuously improve it has been transforming the profession.

stranger yet......you mention education & growth of a profession, then tell me why the CA test no longer includes tree ID? yeah lets eliminate that & create another cert!! C`mon, lessen one cert to create another! & as far as the differences in giving back to a profession go, I guess I feel that I had to pay my dues, taxes & go through apprenticeship hell to get where Im at & now some entity thinks they should be able to "require" me to reach in my pocket to pay them????? they can lick where the dog cant reach!!LXT................

I do not sit on the certification committee so I cant tell you why ID is no longer in the CA test. I can say that you can probably be a great climber and do beautiful pruning work without being able to identify the tree that you are pruning. In addition I did my certification in Ca. Spent 2 days there learning the trees. Like many people I now work in an area where the trees are very different to those in my CA exam. As I have already said there is a clear need to undertake ongoing improvement in the way that training, education and certification are performed.

Let me say again, no one is requiring you to reach into your pocket. You are only going to do that if you feel that there is a net advantage. If there is a net advantage then who cares.

How bout ISA make their CA requirement stricter? make people show proof of climbing exp or require those with less than 5yrs in the trade to undergo a skills test, put all these bogus certs under the CA designation & make sure people have a rudementary understanding of all these things..............maybe even put the tree ID section back in there? wow, imagine a CA needing to ID trees? So instead of watering down existing certs so that the masses can achieve such for money sake & creating a false sense of achievement leading to injury & fatality.....step it up & make it respectable again!!!!!!!! LXT................

I agree, Certified Arborist to include everything in the BCMA ... hell just do the BCMA or go get a degree in Arboriculture ... Do you have your BCMA yet? I suspect not simply because there are not a lot out there who have a BCMA. You see you are already declining qualifications because they currently don't serve to be to your advantage.

 

[Corymbia]

Hey Mark,
You bored?
Jeff
I see the point LXT is making and I just say it is regional.
I got nothing against you but you need to come to grips with who you are talking to.
Jeff

Yes Jeff, still on my back with my leg in the air. They say I wont be walking until next year

I get the differences and understand that many Americans find any form of governance somewhat unpleasant and over-governance completely abhorrent.

However, in spite of agreeing with LXT that Tree Identification should be in the certification exam, many trees are needlessly removed or destroyed each year because arborists struggle to understand and perform risk assessments on trees that are reasoned and scientifically based. I have no doubt that you and LXT get the deal but apart from making Risk Assessment mandatory and making all Certified Arborists do the upgrades. Can you imagine the outcry if you did this.

 

[lxt]

No ones declining Certification!

I think if you & others want this trade to be recognized......then why not have it a degreed course through colleges? nurses go to college, plumbers/electricians go to trade schools, mechanics are ASE certified & go to school......so to use the analogies that you do in regards to this trade in comparison with others...then lets make a standard for such & stick to it!!!! not add at will

Again you miss the point........ISA & their Certifications are voluntary, however: many utilities, municipalities and such require a CA certification as a job requirement...........How did that happen? ya think Mr utility just woke up one day & said lets make our vegetation program require ISA CA`s to fill the position?......its called grease the palms of those who can catapult your organization to a higher level

You can argue that this trade has moved forward.......but check the fatality rate! in this regard it has moved backwards......so we call a round over a crown reduction, eliminate flush cuts & replace them with collar cuts & now dont paint the cuts it does nothing....! you can change terminology, change practices & make advancements in gear/equipment.....FOR NOW this is the best we can do, but in the future im sure our ways will be thought of as neanderthalic & mabe what we have come to think is good is really not so good!!! who knows?

Higher levels of professionalism dont come with Certifications/licenses or other...........it comes from responsible individuals who repetitively do the job day in & day out & know what works & does`nt..........not some standards committee of book schooled professors hoping to sell another version of "tree biology" or what have you!!

Tree Id was no doubt removed because it presented a difficult domain....so remove it & make the test easier so any one can obtain certification, I would like the standards you have in Australia to become a CA, I dont want it easier....I want it harder...I took the exam awhile back after arguing with treeseer about it not being all that & I with limited study time (really didnt care) took the exam & passed it with an overall grade of 92%

That included the tree ID..........I was dissappointed in the fact the test was as easy as it was, but maybe thats cause I stay up on all the newest studies & read constantly, the BMCA I really dont even know how you go about taking cause of having to earn points in certain categories............I wouldnt mind studying & sitting that exam, it would be nice if there was a study guide for it!!!




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

 

[Corymbia]

No ones declining Certification!

I think if you & others want this trade to be recognized......then why not have it a degreed course through colleges? nurses go to college, plumbers/electricians go to trade schools, mechanics are ASE certified & go to school......so to use the analogies that you do in regards to this trade in comparison with others...then lets make a standard for such & stick to it!!!! not add at will LXT....................

I agree. I am currently working on my degree.

Again you miss the point........ISA & their Certifications are voluntary, however: many utilities, municipalities and such require a CA certification as a job requirement...........How did that happen? ya think Mr utility just woke up one day & said lets make our vegetation program require ISA CA`s to fill the position?......its called grease the palms of those who can catapult your organization to a higher level LXT....................

I understood that. So if you want the work along with the associated profits etc then you need to toe the line. As a result there is a financial incentive to getting the certification. Firstly a portion of the potential contractors will be eliminated because they are unwilling or more likely unable to comply and this is obviously an advantage for contractors that do comply. Seeing that everyone who does the work is in the same situation it impacts on the costing structure the same and as such the arborist is not disadvantaged and the utilities, municipalities etc get and pay for what they want.

You can argue that this trade has moved forward.......but check the fatality rate! in this regard it has moved backwards......so we call a round over a crown reduction, eliminate flush cuts & replace them with collar cuts & now dont paint the cuts it does nothing....! you can change terminology, change practices & make advancements in gear/equipment.....FOR NOW this is the best we can do, but in the future im sure our ways will be thought of as neanderthalic & mabe what we have come to think is good is really not so good!!! who knows? LXT....................

I agree, fatalities are still unacceptably high but the quality of tree care has improved markedly.

Higher levels of professionalism dont come with Certifications/licenses or other...........it comes from responsible individuals who repetitively do the job day in & day out & know what works & does`nt..........not some standards committee of book schooled professors hoping to sell another version of "tree biology" or what have you!! LXT....................

I have to say this is in contradiction to the previous paragraph ... there are many individuals who are not responsible, who take risks, who use unsafe work practices and who know very little about trees.

Tree Id was no doubt removed because it presented a difficult domain....so remove it & make the test easier so any one can obtain certification, I would like the standards you have in Australia to become a CA, I dont want it easier....I want it harder...I took the exam awhile back after arguing with treeseer about it not being all that & I with limited study time (really didnt care) took the exam & passed it with an overall grade of 92% LXT....................

Have a go at he BCMA. I know that when I did the certification exam 21 years ago I thought it wasn't as hard as it could/should be.

That included the tree ID..........I was dissappointed in the fact the test was as easy as it was, but maybe thats cause I stay up on all the newest studies & read constantly, the BMCA I really dont even know how you go about taking cause of having to earn points in certain categories............I wouldnt mind studying & sitting that exam, it would be nice if there was a study guide for it!!! LXT....................

Lxt, the issue I have is not people like you and me who keep up to date, the issue I have is with those who don't and who, as a result, bring down the standards of the profession. As a result I cop the new qualifications. Just 3 years ago I went back and spent 18 months upgrading my qualifications only to have then made obsolete a few months ago so I have just gone back to upgrade the qualification again. I expect that others will say get stuffed and that is their choice but then they shouldn't be out there saying they have the same qualifications.

 

[jefflovstrom]

As long as the conversation is cool, I think LXT and Mark are kinda and kinda not on the same page. Because now I kinda see what Mark is saying.
Jeff

 

[Corymbia]

As long as the conversation is cool, I think LXT and Mark are kinda and kinda not on the same page. Because now I kinda see what Mark is saying.
Jeff

I think we basically agree but we are both coming at it from a different direction. We both agree that training and skills are great and continuous improvement is important and we like the advantages that come from improving ourselves. We both agree that this or any other certification system is not ideal and we agree that something needs to be done to improve it. In a perfect world you would start again but it is not so easily done particularly when the certification program has been running for 25 years. In part, I think that is why the BCMA program was developed.

 

[treeseer]

Briefly addressing some of the wild guesses above:

Tree ID was taken out because of regional differences, uneven availability of good images, and the inability to do it on a computer. It was replaced with taxonomy, how to ID plants by pattern of growth by using a key. Opposite/alternate and so on. (See December AN for more on that) More universal, more fair, is what i have heard.

I wrote 2 CEU articles 5+ years ago and had no others planned, so I ain't got a dog in that hunt of providing ed. materials. The BCMA does cost $83.33/year to maintain. Look at the list--I could get all needed CEU's for no extra $ spent.

There are more casualties reported now in part because there is more reporting.

The standards committees that I have seen (as a nonmember) have researchers yes but many more arborists from the field who give their time for their profession. No commercial bias that I could tell.

ISA does not lobby that I know of; TCIA does to some extent. One chapter that i know of spent big buckets on lobbying for a state, (NOT an ISA) cert, and it was largely wasted; a lesson that I hope will not be lost on others

The Risk Qualification is coming out because the new Risk BMP is ~100 pages of what will be very new material for those who have relied on obsolete training, instincts, and what they call common sense. The need for knowledge to be a bigger part of a more systematic and defendable TRA process has long been recognized. no I'm not an author of it but I will be a user!

LXT, you may want to check on the facts before ranting any more speculations--some are waaaay off. :taped:

Mark, hope the leg gets better--my shoulder gets cleared to climb by January, and the Geezers TCC. Any 60+ climbers, cmon down and compete for the Uber-Geezer comp!

 

[lxt]

Regional differences........thats ridiculous & just goes to show how watered down the Cert has become.....you & others compare our trade to nurses, electricians, plumbers...etc all the time............funny those trades go by the codes/med journal for that particular area, if you live in a certain region/chapter then you should now the trees in that location & be tested accordingly.

Casualities.......well seer you might want to check osha records/WC claims & the internal accident reporting systems @ the large companies......Cause I have worked & trained under the safety guy(s) @ Davey, Asplundh, Lewis, etc... & even they claim (using statistical data) that injuries & fatalities are more prevalent now than 10-15yrs ago.....kinda debunks your claims, maybe a lil more checking on the facts before you post?

Both entities Lobby........C`mon, I have been to chapter meetings & training sessions where the proctor has literally informed of what is on the horizon.........ISA & TCIA are in bed together & both make attempts through each others resources to gain a mandatory foothold in the work place of this trade by making Certs a "requirement".........why do you think they keep coming up with Certs? use your "commonsense"......ah thats right you need certification to replace it!! all the large companies have an in house climber training program (apprenticeship) they have aerial rescue & aerial lift training (certification) so why in the hell does ISA duplicate it when it already exists?..............Money!!

The committee you speak of for credentialing consists mostly of non climbing arborists with some field input that really never gets put into print, 100 pages of tree risk info & its all new...........I have to laugh at this........who wrote it? tell ya what when the author of that publication goes outta state, works the storm for 12-14hrs a day & is faced with risks of all sorts including electrical..........then that author/committee has a right to create a BMP.............other than that.........they`re opinion isnt worth the 100 pages of TP its written on!

The long & short of it is if you`re gonna try to make a Cert a requirement.....fine, but dont water it down to a point where everyone can obtain it, it should be of a professional standard & I think right now the standard is more on creating than on building, Ansi, BMP`s will always change..............common sense if you have it usually gets better within a trade due to constant repetitive work that enlightens you about natures abilities, short comings & other tree related workings/dangers that exist, this is called experience & time is the teacher...............not a $10 book


Build what we have, make it better & then you wont have to make it a requirement....it will just be sought after for what it is........."professional standard of the trade"



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

 

[lxt]

I agree. I am currently working on my degree.



I understood that. So if you want the work along with the associated profits etc then you need to toe the line. As a result there is a financial incentive to getting the certification.



I have to say this is in contradiction to the previous paragraph ... there are many individuals who are not responsible, who take risks, who use unsafe work practices and who know very little about trees

toe the line? thought thats what I was doing when I entered this trade & what I do everytime I go airborne, Financial incentive..........I literally make less now than I did years ago wage wise!!!! maybe in certain locations there is financial incentive but not here.............I wish there was though!

your statement of its a contradiction holds no merit as stated............I have seen CA`s who are just starting to climb that are dangerous as hell.............seen degree holders in forestry write work orders stating cherry tree & its an Oak, I think things are a little backwards dont you? lets get a Cert then learn to climb? Degree means nothing in this field & I have witnessed it first hand, worked beside a guy w/masters degree in landscape Arch & Horticulture.......his stupidity got him fired & many other degree holders whos ID skills are terrible, they`ve never climbed...etc... So its not a contradiction....its the witnessed truth.

some of the dumbest people I know have degrees!!! yes it goes both ways, but we expect the person with a degree to know better than the guy snapping his suspenders....................it just doent always work out that way, funny isnt it?

you have heard the: "a degree in commonsense" & "experience is the best teacher" phrases? Now you know why!


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

 

[Corymbia]

............I have seen CA`s who are just starting to climb that are dangerous as hell.............seen degree holders in forestry write work orders stating cherry tree & its an Oak, I think things are a little backwards dont you? lets get a Cert then learn to climb? Degree means nothing in this field & I have witnessed it first hand, worked beside a guy w/masters degree in landscape Arch & Horticulture.......his stupidity got him fired & many other degree holders whos ID skills are terrible, they`ve never climbed...etc... So its not a contradiction....its the witnessed truth.

some of the dumbest people I know have degrees!!! yes it goes both ways, but we expect the person with a degree to know better than the guy snapping his suspenders....................it just doent always work out that way, funny isnt it?

you have heard the: "a degree in commonsense" & "experience is the best teacher" phrases? Now you know why!


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

I have to agree that a degree doesn't make you competent by default. Neither does experience resolve problems since practice does not make perfect ... it makes permanent. I believe as you do that the profession ideally needs to be about both theoretical and practical. There are a whole pile of guys out their doing tree work, perhaps myself included, who simply do not have enough of one or sometimes even both theory and practical skills.

LXT, life is not the way it is meant to be, it is not fair, it is not anywhere near ideal however arboriculture is a profession where grass roots guys and graduates need to work together rather than try and out trump each other and you know I say that sometimes finding it difficult to deal with the pontificating arrogance of some of the despots in the profession but even they have value to add to the profession.

 

[lxt]

I have to agree that a degree doesn't make you competent by default. Neither does experience resolve problems since practice does not make perfect ... it makes permanent.

LXT, life is not the way it is meant to be, it is not fair, it is not anywhere near ideal however arboriculture is a profession where grass roots guys and graduates need to work together rather than try and out trump each other .

Well practice doesnt make perfect........Hmmmm, maybe not, But I dont want the guy with just book knowledge doing my Heart surgery..........I want the guy with a 1000 surgeries under his belt who has seen the best & worse of things!! so practice will make you better!!

Life isnt fair...............but thats not the issue here.....the issue is certification!



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

 

[treeseer]

We all agree that the the certification process would benefit from more field experience. As for the other half of the equation, verifiable experience through research is also needed. Here is <10% of what's in http://www.isa-arbor.com/education/resources/educ_Portal_Risk_Citations.pdf

Tree Risk Literature Review Bibliography
Last Modified: January 3, 2009
1. Abbott, R. and K. Miller. 1991. Utility tree damage claims. Arbor Age.
2. Abdollahi, K. et al. 2007. Gulf coastal urban forest hazard assessment and remote
sensing efforts after hurricanes Katrina and Rita. in Seventh Symposium on the Urban
Environment.
3. Achim, A. et al. 2005. Modeling the vulnerability of balsam fir forests to wind
damage. Forest Ecology and Management 204:37-52.
4. Adams, J. 2007. Dangerous trees? Arboricultural Journal 30:95-103.
5. Albers, J. and E. Hayes. 1993. How to detect, assess, and correct hazard trees in
recreational areas. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota.
6. Albrecht, W., K. Bethge, and C. Mattheck. 1995. Is lateral strength in trees controlled
by lateral mechanical stress? Journal of Arboriculture 21:83-87.
7. Allen, J. 1992. Trees and their response to wind: Mid Flandrian strong winds, Severn
Estuary and Inner Bristol Channel, Southwest Britain. Philosophical Transactions:
Biological Sciences 338:335-364.
8. Alméras, T., A. Thibaut, and J. Gril. 2005. Effect of circumferential heterogeneity of
wood maturation strain, modulus of elasticity and radial growth on the regulation of
stem orientation in trees. Trees - Structure and Function 19:457-467.
9. Amtmann, R. 1986. Dynamische Windbelastung von Nadelbäumen (Dynamic wind
load on coniferous trees). Forstl Forschungsber, Münch, Germany.
10. Ancelin, P., B. Courbaud, and T. Fourcaud. 2004. Development of an individual tree- based mechanical model to predict wind damage within forest stands. Forest Ecology
and Management 203:101-121
11. Anderson, L. 1988. Legal liability for defective trees in the United States. Landscape
and Urban Planning 15:173-94.
12. Anderson, L. and T. Eaton. 1986. Liability for damage caused by hazardous trees.
Journal of Arboriculture 12:189-195.
13. Andresen, J., T. Bartlett, and L. Burban. 1993. Protect your urban forest from wind
damage: Operation Tornado ReLeaf. Arboricultural Journal 17:227-286.
14. Angwin, P. 1990. Pest conditions and potential hazard trees in Chapman
Campground, Chapman Group Camp and Elk Wallow Campground, Sopris Ranger District, White River National Forest., Forest Pest Management Biological Evaluation, Rocky Mountain Region State & Private Forestry, USDA Forest Service.
15. Anselmi, A. and G. Bragaloni. 1992. A method to identify wood decay basidiomycetes by using enzymatic comparisons. Micologia Italiana 2:15–20.
16. Antonaroli, R. 2000. Wind damage to urban trees: The case of Formigine (Modena district). Sherwood-Foreste 6:11-14.
17. Archer, R. 1987. Growth stresses and strains in trees, Springer Series in Wood Science. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
18. Archer, R. 1987. On the origin of growth stresses in trees. Wood Science and Technology 21:139-154.
19. Asner, G. and G. Goldstein. 1997. Correlating stem biomechanical properties of Hawaiian canopy tees with hurricane wind damage. Biotropica 29:145-150.
20. Attia al Hagrey, S. 2007. Geophysical imaging of root-zone, trunk, and moisture heterogeneity. Journal of Experimental Botany 58:839-854.
21. Axmon, J. 2000. On detection of decay in growing Norway spruce via natural frequencies. Lund University, Sweden.
22. Axmon, J. and M. Hansson. 1999. Nondestructive Detection of Decay in Spruces Using Acoustic Signals: Evaluation of Circumferential Modes, Signal Processing Report SPR-45. Lund Institute of Technology, Lund University, Sweden.
23. Axmon, J., M. Hansson, and L. Sornmo. 2004. Experimental study on the possibility of detecting internal decay in standing Picea abies by blind impact response analysis. Forestry 77:179-192.
24. Axmon, J., M. Hansson, and L. Sörnmo. 2005. Partial modal analysis for health assessment of living trees. Lund University, Sweden.
25. Baker, C. 1995. The development of a theoretical model for the wind throw of plants. Journal of Theoretical Biology 175:335-372.
26. Baker, C. 1997. Measurements of the natural frequencies of trees. Journal of Experimental Botany 48:1125-1132.
27. Baker, C. and H. Bell. 1992. The aerodynamics of urban trees. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 44:2655-2666.
28. Bakken, S. 1986. Tree hazard control program: guidelines and standards for the California Department of Parks and Recreation. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, CA.
29. Bakken, S. 1995. Group-tree hazard analysis. Journal of Arboriculture 21:150-150.
30. Bakshi, B. 1964. Known and potential hazards from stem diseases - heart rots.
presented at the Symposium on Internationally Dangerous Forest Diseases and Insects
31. Ball, D. 2007. The evolution of risk assessment and risk management: a background
to the development of risk philosophy. Arboricultural Journal 30:105-112.
32. Ball, D. 2007. Why risk assessment needs an underpinning philosophy.
Arboricultural Journal 30:105-112.
33. Ball, D. 2007. I'll manage risk my way. Arboricultural Journal 30:121-125.
34. Barrett, D., D. Seaby, and I. Gourly. 1987. Portable compression strength meter; a
tool for the detection and quantification of decay in trees. Arboricultural Journal
11:313-322.
35. Barry, P. et al. 1993. How to evaluate and manage storm-damaged forest areas,
Management Bulletin RS-MB 64 (USDA Forest Service.
36. Barry, K., M. Hall, and C. Mohammed. 1995. The effect of time and site on incidence
and spread of pruning-related decay in plantation-grown Eucalyptus nitens. Canadian
Journal of Forestry Research. 35:495-502.
37. Barton, I. 1995. Preliminary results form a sailing pruning trial of Cupressus species,‖
New Zealand Tree Grower 16:28-29.
38. Baum, S. and F. Schwarze. 2002. Large-leaved lime (Tilia platyphyllos) has a low
ability to compartmentalize decay fungi via reaction zone formation. New Phytologist
154:481-490.
39. Beatty, S. 1982. Biological evaluation of hazard trees and dwarf mistletoe in six
summer home areas, Payson Ranger District, Tonto National Forest, Arizona, Forest Pest Management Report USDA Forest Service Southwest Region.
40. Bell, H. et al. 1991. Tree stability in Research for practical arboriculture, ed. S. Hodge, Forestry Commission Bulletin 97.
41. Bemmann, A. and L.. Klinger. 1993. Detection of decay within living trees,‖ Holz als Roh- und Werkstoff 51 (1993): 291-293.
42. Bertram, J. 1989. Size-dependent differential scaling in branches: the mechanical design of trees revisited. Trees - Structure and Function 3:241-253.
43. Bethge, K., C. Mattheck, and E. Hunger. 1996. Equipment for detection and evaluation of incipient decay in trees. Arboricultural Journal 20:13–37.
44. Birot, Y. and C. Gollier. 2001. Risk assessment, management and sharing in forestry with special emphasis on wind storms. presented at the 14th Convocation of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS), Espoo, Finland.
45. Blackburn, P. and J. Petty. 1988. An assessment of the static and dynamic factors involved in wind throw. Forestry 61:29-43.
46. Blair, D. 1993. The Dynamics of urban tree hazard reduction. Arbor Age, June.
47. Blanchard, R. and T. Tattar. 1974. Electrical properties of wood in progressive stages
of discoloration and decay. Phytopathology 64:578-579.
48. Blanchette, R. and A. Biggs, eds. 1992. Defense mechanisms of woody plants against
fungi Springer, New York.
49. Boddy, L and A. Rayner. 1983. Origins of decay in living deciduous trees: the role of
moisture content and a re-appraisal of the expanded concept of tree decay. New
Phytologist 94:623-641.
50. Boddy, L and A. Rayner., 1984. Internal spread of fungi inoculated into attached oak
branches. New Phytologist 98:155-164.
51. Bond, J. 2006. Foundations of tree risk analysis: Use of the t/R ratio to evaluate trunk
failure potential. Arborist News 15(6):31-34.
52. Bonsen, K. 1993. Wetwood and its implications. Arboricultural Journal 17:61-67.
53. Borst, B. 1982. Trees and the law. Journal of Arboriculture 8:271-276.
54. Britton, J. 1990. Root crown examinations for disease and decay. Journal of
Arboriculture 16:V.
55. Bruchert, F and B. Gardiner. 2006. The effect of wind exposure on the tree aerial
architecture and biomechanics of Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis, Pinaceae). American
J. Botany 93:1512-1521.
56. Brudi, E. 2001. Longitudinal prestresses in Tilia cordata and Acer pseudoplatanus.
MS Thesis, University of Aberdeen.
57. Brudi, E. 2002. Trees and statics: an introduction. Arborist News 11(4):28-33.
58. Brudi, E and P. Van Wassenaer. 2002. Trees and statics: nondestructive failure
analysis. in Tree structure and mechanics conference proceedings: how trees stand up and fall down, ed. E. Smiley and K. Coder. International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign, IL.
59. Bucur, V. 2003. Nondestructive characterization and imaging of wood. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
60. Burdekin, D. 1979. Common decay fungi in broadleaved trees, Arboricultural Leaflet 5, Forestry Commission.