Certified Tree Risk Assessor

[lxt]

lxt, sorry that in your chosen market selling your chosen services they are not working out. For many others they are working well. Many client$ know the difference, and understand that science is not rationalization, and that a well-founded systematic assessment is better than a "common sense" gut call. But wahtever, if you are doing fine without them, what is there to complain about?

Its not that quality cant be sold Or that the Certs dont come in useful, I do my best to enlighten about "proper".....But Seer the bottom line is........most just want a low cost provider, I keep my Certs & prolly do as much consultation as many others cause Im in hope that one day they`ll mean something??? right now with the economy as bad as it is no one is gonna question a guy with or without Certs who pays his taxes while making a living for himself or his family...........its just not a good political move & once again it deals with money....tax base!

a well rounded systematic assessment? so let me see: the guy (kid) frsh outta college with a 2 yr forestry degree puts in a little time with...say arbormetrics, gets his CA, UA & then becomes a QTRA/TRACE (whatever their gonna call it) & now he is an authority on tree risk & hazard assessment?............Cmon, cause this is where I have a problem, Ive worked with the likes of what I just mentioned & some of these minnows cant even properly ID a tree!!!

Bottom line.............Most people I know will take common sense/gut call & be safe any day over some one selling a rationalized, scientific approach to mitigate what is clearly a "commonsense" hazard hanging over the house!!!





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

 

[treeseer]

"...most just want a low cost provider,...right now with the economy as bad as it is no one is gonna question a guy with or without Certs "

this is not the case with my clients, in the eastern usa. they do not trust tree guys in general, based on hearing highly biased condemnations of trees with easily manageable risk. And they definitely do NOT trust assessments based on a high target rating and "commonsense" approaches that ignore arboriculture. re the economy, that has been the chorus from poormouthing whiners for a long time. I hear it from some very rich people; poormouthing is best ignored imo.

"... so let me see: the guy (kid) frsh outta college with a 2 yr forestry degree puts in a little time with...say arbormetrics, gets his CA, UA & then becomes a QTRA/TRACE (whatever their gonna call it) & now he is an authority on tree risk & hazard assessment?............Cmon, cause this is where I have a problem..."

Me too, and many others. That is why the prerequisites are tougher than you describe and the test is tougher that anyone can imagine-- if they are relying on what they learned when they started out. What I want to know is, why'd they come out with these fancy colored sissy ropes? Brown manila is what I learned on, and it holds my tautline hitch just fine! Moneygrubbing gear supppliers--who do they think they are? And don't get me started on trucks--my horses work just fine, and they fertilize the trees as they work!

"Bottom line.............Most people I know will take common sense/gut call & be safe any day over some one selling a rationalized, scientific approach to mitigate what is clearly a "commonsense" hazard hanging over the house!!!"

lxt, I have no doubt that this is true. It all depends on the company you want to keep, and TRACE folks decided long ago they did not want to keep feeding on the bottom of the market, but to raise it instead. There is a growing market of clients who value knowledge and objectivity, and will pay for it. They want opinions coming from an organ somewhere higher than the gut. Actually, "gut" decisions have a long and storied history--the ancients believed that intelligence was housed somewhere between the spleen and the pancreas. Now these uppity modern scientists talk about the brain and logic--crazy! :alien2:

Re hanging, this is a hollow tree hanging over US Highway #1 on one side and City Hall on the other. The risk has been reduced to a tolerable level and the tree remains, with periodic care. But lxt and tc, if you are doing well by doing what you are doing, no worries, no dramas, it's all good! :biggrinbounce2:

View attachment 205101







LXT................[/QUOTE]

 

[Bigus Termitius]

There is a growing market of clients who value knowledge and objectivity, and will pay for it. They want opinions coming from an organ somewhere higher than the gut. Actually, "gut" decisions have a long and storied history--the ancients believed that intelligence was housed somewhere between the spleen and the pancreas. Now these uppity modern scientists talk about the brain and logic--crazy!

The ancients weren't entirely wrong; the brain gut connection is well documented...scientifically.

Just thought I'd throw that out there for trivia's sake, it's interesting.

As is the info you provide in such threads, it's what we should all be interested to consider and convey, as arborists. I guess where I'm at on it, is to be able to inform the tree owner of the options in light of current understanding and let them choose. The idea of mercenary ArborCops running around trying to dictate to private sectors especially what can go and what must stay is nothing short of tyranny, in principle. And the tyranny ignorance connection is well documented, historically. We find failure in past science a smug sport, but there is as much, if not more, failed science being touted as cutting edge on a daily basis. Wherein we often find in the long run that the old wasn't all wrong after all, and hopefully we progress from there with a new understanding and respect for balance and freedom.

If a client wants to save their tree, I'm more than happy to assist in any way I can with the latest tools and tect, but if something doesn't feel right to them, or me, to some extent, 'modern' science be damned. There are some things in the realm of feelings, gut or otherwise, that even science troubles itself to explain, as the validity of the foresight of a sixth sense seems considerably documented as well. Now I know that you'll say to error on the side of caution is still an error, or something to that effect, point taken, but the corallary of cautious error is often enough more acceptable than its contrary.

I'll profit either way, as any one of us should, whether it's nursing an old tree through its last hours, or removing and replacing it with new life to care for. My bid is to invite and employ as much science as we can. That should give us new freedoms, but we’d best be mindful to maintain the old.

Not posting directly at you, but with you, just using your segment as an advantageous point of departure to share a few thoughts on all that's been shared and squandered here.

 

[treeseer]

The ancients weren't entirely wrong; the brain gut connection is well documented...scientifically.
Just thought I'd throw that out there for trivia's sake, it's interesting.
As is the info you provide in such threads, it's what we should all be interested to consider and convey, as arborists. I guess where I'm at on it, is to be able to inform the tree owner of the options in light of current understanding and let them choose. The idea of mercenary ArborCops running around trying to dictate to private sectors especially what can go and what must stay is nothing short of tyranny, in principle. And the tyranny ignorance connection is well documented, historically. We find failure in past science a smug sport, but there is as much, if not more, failed science being touted as cutting edge on a daily basis. Wherein we often find in the long run that the old wasn't all wrong after all, and hopefully we progress from there with a new understanding and respect for balance and freedom.

If a client wants to save their tree, I'm more than happy to assist in any way I can with the latest tools and tect, but if something doesn't feel right to them, or me, to some extent, 'modern' science be damned. There are some things in the realm of feelings, gut or otherwise, that even science troubles itself to explain, as the validity of the foresight of a sixth sense seems considerably documented as well. Now I know that you'll say to error on the side of caution is still an error, or something to that effect, point taken, but the corallary of cautious error is often enough more acceptable than its contrary.

I'll profit either way, as any one of us should, whether it's nursing an old tree through its last hours, or removing and replacing it with new life to care for. My bid is to invite and employ as much science as we can. That should give us new freedoms, but we’d best be mindful to maintain the old.
Not posting directly at you, but with you, just using your segment as an advantageous point of departure to share a few thoughts on all that's been shared and squandered here.

I agree 100%. This post has been nominated as Post of the Month for October!

I'll paint that pic and propose specs tonight, thanks for asking, Del. :smile2:

 

[treeseer]

... There are some things in the realm of feelings, gut or otherwise, that even science troubles itself to explain, as the validity of the foresight of a sixth sense seems considerably documented as well. ...

Absolutely, and we should not forget all of the first five senses too. If sight and touch etc. find structural concerns in trunk or limbs, then cuts could be made at the blue marks. If structure looks and feels good, then they could be made at the green marks. All this after ascending along the yellow line via wraptor, footlock, whatever, using handsaw, and pole pruner to extend reach. If your climber can't tie into the top of that yellow line, train a new climber.
Below is using the ANSI Standards to guide the work. The first guide is the tree itself--those reiterations at the top are Natural Pruning Targets, showing where the tree wants to retrench its resources.

SAMPLE PRUNING SPECIFICATIONS

Scope: Leaning trees on hillside

Objective: Enhance structural stability and symmetry; minimize lean, decay, weak attachments, and heavy ends.

Specifications: General: All pruning shall be completed in compliance with A300 and Z133.1 Standards.
Detail: Remove all dead branches >1”.
Reduce all overextended branches back to a favorable lateral that is oriented away from the lean. Reduce rubbing or decayed or cracked or crowded branches to restore symmetry and maximize collection of sunlight.

No more than 30% (20% at the green marks) removed from each tree with 1-3” cuts.

View attachment 205145

Again, this is basic tree pruning, isn't it?

 

[jefflovstrom]

Guy, At what degree of lean is a tree a risk?
Jeff

 

[treeseer]

"It's always good to address structural concerns in the tree canopy. In this tree the main structural concern is that the whole tree leans so much that it's center of gravity is no longer over it's root plate. The root crown is so far to the left of the tree's crown that the photo doesn't even capture where the trunk meets the ground . Each time the ground is saturated with water this tree is likely leaning just a little more towards the buildings.

How likely? Pruning = less lean How saturated? Looks like rocky soil there.

"Aren't you forgetting to do a basic root crown inspection before ascending a seriously leaning tree?""

No. How "seriously"? does not look bad from here; these are oaks, not poplars!

"How about a pull test?

Sure, could be done, go ahead and get a rope up there and pull on it. does not seem warranted based on facts so far.

Or guying before ascending? Trees do sometimes fall over and this one is in the process of doing so.

note the progression of fear--"likely" to "seriously" to 'in the process of falling", all based on...what?

I remember you had a co-worker climb a tree and that tree fall over with him in it. It could happen to this one, too.

If this one has hypoxylon cakes at the base, I'd do the pull test, at least. We know nothing about the bases of these; no reason to assume the worst.

"What is being over looked here is this tree has no branches that even reach to the uphill side of the root crown."

We can't see that, and it is natural for branches to grow to the light. Should that be a death sentence?

"Also the trunk has a serious lean.

We heard you the first time. It's not looking that bad, from here.

"It is very basic pruning. Easy to do....and easy to suggest. Unfortunately it doesn't do much about the serious lean

We hard you the first two times. :msp_sneaky:

"or the fact that it has no crown growth on the up hill side of it's root crown.

It doesn't seem to need any. Too much shade over there.

The suggestion seems to be that someone that knows something about arboriculture would not suggest removing this tree. I believe suggesting that this tree be removed is sound arboriculture. Pruning this tree as you suggest is also sound arboriculture. It depends on what the client is willing to live with......risk removed......or risk reduced.

All risk is not removed. There are other trees, and meteors, and the godless Chinese communists, and salmonella. Clients decide what risk they will accept based on honest and knowledgeable prognoses based on reasonable care. Most clients would accept the risk, after all that sprawl is removed.

" I would remove it if it were growing in my yard. Young trees are already there to take it's place, work with them.

You must be young and patient, but I am neither. Waiting decades for replacements might seem to make sense, but they will also lean to the light. What then? A 30-year logging rotation? Not a sustainable business model, or a recipe for landscape contributions. Why shouldn't we be willing to work with the older trees too? Pruning is basic, if one knows how to climb. I wonder how much of this resistance is due to the climbing challenge...?
Here's another big tree leaning over a US Highway, this time in IL. The roots were lifting on this one. Head for the fallout shelters! City pruned to our specs, the tree gets periodic care, City accepts the risk. My name's on it, and i sleep just fine, thanks. Note the horrific lack of branches on the side away from the lean--OMG!! The simple truth is that trees adapt to leans, and directional pruning, over time, and get more symmetrical and more strong. It's all a matter of thigmomorphogenesis, mechanoperception, calmodulin, and other stuff that we did NOT learn when we were just starting out, and cannot learn on internet forums.

View attachment 205184View attachment 205185View attachment 205186View attachment 205187View attachment 205184View attachment 205185View attachment 205186View attachment 205187
O and swede, all trees are risks, leaning or not. Or was that a trick question? Read Tree Statics--Europeans have done calculations on 1000's of trees reduced for stability. Parts of America seem to be still in Paul Bunyan mode, but trees and time are running out.

 

[BC WetCoast]

Guy, At what degree of lean is a tree a risk?
Jeff

Depends.

If there is no target there is no risk.

Lean itself may not be an indicator of instability.

If a tree is growing on coarse textured soils and the lean was caused phototropically then it could probably grow horizontal and still be stable.

On the other hand, a tall spindly tree, with a small root system, growing on fine textured (especially saturated) soils will probalby only be able to tolerate a few degrees of lean before something may happen.

You need to be able to read the tree, the soil and the surrounding conditions.

Trees don't just tip over. There are always other factors in play. You could have rotational failures in the soil, where the entire ball of soil surrounding the root fails in shear in a rotational manner. You could have fine textured soils, which the fine roots don't hold well when saturated. Usually this happens during a storm. You could have root rot.

It's been my experience that you will have a mid stem snap failure significantly more often that you will have a toppling failure.

 

[BC WetCoast]

One of the reasons the TRACE system was developed was to make the assessment process more objective and repeatable. In other words, whoever looks at the tree will come up with the same rating for the tree. In my experience, this is generally true. Different people may look at a tree slightly different but the rating may only differ a point or two.

I know there are people who don't accept my medical analogies, so let me try different ones. In the accounting world, there is GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) which guides how accountants report the financial information of a company. Think about how chaotic (more than it already is) the stock markets would be if every company did their financial reporting in a method of their own choosing?

In the structural engineering field, there are accepted methods of calculating loads, stresses and strains on buildings/bridges etc.

In my own profession of professional forestry, there are standards for timber cruising or scaling to determine how much wood is standing (or goes across the scale).

So there are standards in every professional walk of life. That is why there is ISO (International Standards Organization), ANSI, Underwriters Labs, Canadian Standards Assoc etc etc. Arboriculture is moving toward a more hierarchical structure, where the people who do the assessments and prescriptions don't necessarily do the work. You don't see the engineers building a bridge and you don't see the ironworkers doing the designing.

Maybe in your neck of the woods the market doesn't care about certifications and only worries about price. So yes, certifications will have little value to you. For us, those issues tend to be ethnically based rather than economically.

There is a major muni street tree contract around here requires anyone using a saw must be a CA. This muni requires tree cutting permits for private trees and they strongly point you in the direction of those companies that they feel meet their standards (and there are several).

Another place I see the same movement of change is in the field of worker safety. Most of our industrial clients have professional safety consultants (who charge out way more than we do) and we are required to be safety certified (usually by taking a course and test) before we can work on these properties. This is way past having a first aid kit and the occaisional safety meeting.

To sum up my diatribe, arboriculture is becoming more professional, which comes with a level of responsibility and accountability. Those who don't want to accept the responsibility or accountability can do the work under the direction of those who do.

 

[treeseer]

"Sure it's natural for branches to grow towards the light but where is the shade on the uphill side? I don't see it. Looks more like a leaning tree with just a touch of phototropism."

Phototropism causes lean; not sure how those 2 factors can be separated, or why, unless the implications of "lean" are exaggerated. A trained eye can tell whether and how much the lean has changed, and a trained mind can monitor that change if any and prescribe potential treatments. As BC notes, trees can be horizontal and reasonably stable, depending on soil, exposure, species (oak!), condition etc.

"....that tree is a piece of cake climb, if it doesn't fall over!

True, and saying 'it's in the process of falling over" with no evidence hypes the fear for both climber and client.

"Removing trees that have little to offer the landscape,"

Maybe you are blind to this value, but the owners were not. Read the OP; they agonized over this loss of asset.

"pose a risk to the property

All trees pose a risk--rationality, please. It's the RESIDUAL risk after pruning that the assessor communicates to the client, if they are able to think in 'tree time" and predict the tree's response over time--the release of growth further down correcting the lean, for starters. Residual risk after guying would be really low.

"and already have the next generation of trees growing beneath them is not being in the 'Paul Bunyan' mode that you are suggesting. It's good solid arboriculture.

If the client is totally freaked about the lean and can't live with it no matter that the assessor fully described the reduction pruning option and the guying option--simple matter to install, cheap over time--then yes. If the assessor was also freaked about the lean and could not describe residual risk after treatments, then no. This is why BC noted that the industry is moving toward assessment as an independent service--biz owners doing evaluations in the course of doing estimates are naturally and inevitably biased toward profit. That's where trust becomes an issue.

"Time may be running out but contrary to your belief, time is not running out for trees. I think you are wrong in your assertion that only large trees add value to a landscape."

Never said that, but who would argue that large trees add more? View attachment 205226

"Decisions about what is proper tree care should be independent of the consideration of an arborist future income."

Yes--and their present income too. :msp_wink:

" You've mentioned it often enough now that it is starting to sound more like 'milking the client'.

Pushing the removal option doesn't milk the clients--it BLEEDS them! More money up front, PLUS the loss of the asset HAS to be part of any honest calculation. compare those costs to pruning every 3-5 years and growing the asset. Yes you can call it "milking" the client, or more accurately milking the tree; an apt phrase, very different from bleeding them. like a cow being milked, the source of the income--the tree-- is maintained for the continuing benefit to the client, the community, and the business. Where is the downside to retain the trees? It makes economic AND ecological sense imo--there's rationality in that equation.

In contrast, the removal option posted here is based on "likely--serious--serious--serious--in the process" assessments that are based not on the factors that BC describes but on pictures, and what seems like anxiety and fear, a fire-and-brimstone kind of religious approach. Note that BC has an opposite background--forestry vs. horticulture, and is on the opposite corner of the continent, yet is describing the same systematic process working for all concerned. That tends to indicate some validity to the TRACE approach. Let's let the client decide, after getting a qualified and objective view of the options.

The TRACE course teaches that. It's been offered at least twice in easy driving range of the OP.
Maybe next time?

 

[lxt]

One of the reasons the TRACE system was developed was to make the assessment process more objective and repeatable. In other words, whoever looks at the tree will come up with the same rating for the tree. In my experience, this is generally true. Different people may look at a tree slightly different but the rating may only differ a point or two.

I know there are people who don't accept my medical analogies, so let me try different ones. In the accounting world, there is GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) which guides how accountants report the financial information of a company. Think about how chaotic (more than it already is) the stock markets would be if every company did their financial reporting in a method of their own choosing?

In the structural engineering field, there are accepted methods of calculating loads, stresses and strains on buildings/bridges etc.

In my own profession of professional forestry, there are standards for timber cruising or scaling to determine how much wood is standing (or goes across the scale).

So there are standards in every professional walk of life. That is why there is ISO (International Standards Organization), ANSI, Underwriters Labs, Canadian Standards Assoc etc etc. Arboriculture is moving toward a more hierarchical structure, where the people who do the assessments and prescriptions don't necessarily do the work. You don't see the engineers building a bridge and you don't see the ironworkers doing the designing.

Maybe in your neck of the woods the market doesn't care about certifications and only worries about price. So yes, certifications will have little value to you. For us, those issues tend to be ethnically based rather than economically.

There is a major muni street tree contract around here requires anyone using a saw must be a CA. This muni requires tree cutting permits for private trees and they strongly point you in the direction of those companies that they feel meet their standards (and there are several).

Another place I see the same movement of change is in the field of worker safety. Most of our industrial clients have professional safety consultants (who charge out way more than we do) and we are required to be safety certified (usually by taking a course and test) before we can work on these properties. This is way past having a first aid kit and the occaisional safety meeting.

To sum up my diatribe, arboriculture is becoming more professional, which comes with a level of responsibility and accountability. Those who don't want to accept the responsibility or accountability can do the work under the direction of those who do.

The TRACE system...........is & should be part of the CA/BMCA certification, but expand upon it if this area is in need of such! My complaint about Certs comes from the fact that in a free market any business is allowed to engage in a trade they wish as long as they meet all the criteria set forth by the state in which the Biz is located!

SOoooo where I am coming from is, if these Certs are "the standard" & will become a requirement..........then lets have the state incorporate them into a mandated license, provide testing, charge a fee & bam............case closed!! Not that I agree with what I just suggested, but.........for an entity (ISA/TCIA) to create Certs on top of Certs is crazy....revisiting the medical analogies & hell lets throw in other fields...........electricians, plumbers, pilots, etc.. they get their license & continue by followup education...their fields dont continually create "NEW" certs or licenses, yes things change...but those changes are put in the new codes, medical journals, licensing requirement changes, etc... do you see the difference here.........add on to what we already have making that credential even more sought after & respected!

As far as assessing a tree..........I am willing to bet that most on here could assess the tree properly, mabe using different techniques, but the conclusion would be very similar............if you think you can standardize tree risks.....look at the housing inspector market & the attempts at trying to do such there.........! (this is prolly the best analogy)

Funny even the field gurus: Alberts, Pokorny & Johnson state all defective trees cannot be detected, corrected or eliminated!! the goal is to find 80% or more of the defective trees with each inspection.........& we havent even scratched the surface of that goal.

Im not against Certs, But with some of the people I know with them Im not entirely for em either!! Ill hold on to mine & hope for betterment............however, we cannot cross the line into a "save em all" attitude either, Seer has demnostrated just this with his replies in regards to the trees shown...........there are times when to prevent an enevitable hazard trees & other structures must be removed...........funny how the abandoned house will get condemed but may be structurally sound.....why? cause the hazards & risks outweigh the safety that is needed/required






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

 

[treeseer]

" we cannot cross the line into a "save em all" attitude either, Seer has demnostrated just this with his replies in regards to the trees shown.."

Let's dispel that exaggerated line of BS. Here's a pic of a tree that needed to come down asap, and i told them so, even without a climbing inspection. this was one of two out of 28 that i condemned outright. Others will get advanced assessments, and removal may be strongly indicated as a reasonable option for some of the others. It all depends on owner goals, and objectives, and the assignment.

lxt, what organ is used to determine that a "save em all" attitude is demnostrated in regards to pruning the trees shown? Pancreas, spleen, or colon? What method is it based on, the one you learned in 1972? :eek2: I agree with a lot of your potential future concerns about excessive governmental intrusion in the industry, but this thread shows that we are light-years away from that.

 

[lxt]

" we cannot cross the line into a "save em all" attitude either, Seer has demnostrated just this with his replies in regards to the trees shown.."

Let's dispel that exaggerated line of BS. Here's a pic of a tree that needed to come down asap, and i told them so, even without a climbing inspection. this was one of two out of 28 that i condemned outright. Others will get advanced assessments, and removal may be strongly indicated as a reasonable option for some of the others. It all depends on owner goals, and objectives, and the assignment.

lxt, what organ is used to determine that a "save em all" attitude is demnostrated in regards to pruning the trees shown? Pancreas, spleen, or colon? What method is it based on, the one you learned in 1972? :eek2: I agree with a lot of your potential future concerns about excessive governmental intrusion in the industry, but this thread shows that we are light-years away from that.

Apparently the same organ you use to determine a standard of pruning for trees on a hillside............The BS is flowing more from your standpoint than mine............I present real topics & what is going on in our industry........apparently some are caught in giving Assessments & NOW....Advanced Assessments!! is there really an advanced assessement.....I guess that`ll cost a little more?? Thats a slippery slope right there...........now apparently we have assessments & advanced assessments, good luck explaining that as why a tree failed, well your honor I just did a regular assessment, sure I saw the large dead limb over granmas room but that was for the advanced portion of which I was not hired to do....


I am not advocating removal of trees for profit sake or for the sake of just doing it, But when I hear about/see tree(s) that have been assessed & hazards mitigated all the while other portions of structural compromise are left for the sake of adhering to the standard...........well NOW whats that all about? I post quoted literature from the industries leaders & you reply with the above!

excessive Govt intrusion..........? I think that happens when the trade/field becomes so overpopulated with fly by nighters & snakeoilsalesman that action is called for to regulate it! what I dont get is you keep ending posts with "this is basic stuff" but yet try to validate a cert with high tech verbality, it makes no sense! in the end it is common sense!!!

I think a certified tree care inspector would be a better Cert, then these individuals can go out before/after a tree contractor does the job & make sure the work was done to standard & if not? fine them a percentage for each violation, make this mandatory just like a building code inspector & then we might have something.......at least it would regulate the industry & make it more professional! drumming up certs is just confusing the public.....who most dont even know what a CA is.





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

 

[BC WetCoast]

The TRACE system...........is & should be part of the CA/BMCA certification, but expand upon it if this area is in need of such! My complaint about Certs comes from the fact that in a free market any business is allowed to engage in a trade they wish as long as they meet all the criteria set forth by the state in which the Biz is located!

SOoooo where I am coming from is, if these Certs are "the standard" & will become a requirement..........then lets have the state incorporate them into a mandated license, provide testing, charge a fee & bam............case closed!! Not that I agree with what I just suggested, but.........for an entity (ISA/TCIA) to create Certs on top of Certs is crazy....revisiting the medical analogies & hell lets throw in other fields...........electricians, plumbers, pilots, etc.. they get their license & continue by followup education...their fields dont continually create "NEW" certs or licenses, yes things change...but those changes are put in the new codes, medical journals, licensing requirement changes, etc... do you see the difference here.........add on to what we already have making that credential even more sought after & respected!

As far as assessing a tree..........I am willing to bet that most on here could assess the tree properly, mabe using different techniques, but the conclusion would be very similar............if you think you can standardize tree risks.....look at the housing inspector market & the attempts at trying to do such there.........! (this is prolly the best analogy)

Funny even the field gurus: Alberts, Pokorny & Johnson state all defective trees cannot be detected, corrected or eliminated!! the goal is to find 80% or more of the defective trees with each inspection.........& we havent even scratched the surface of that goal.

Im not against Certs, But with some of the people I know with them Im not entirely for em either!! Ill hold on to mine & hope for betterment............however, we cannot cross the line into a "save em all" attitude either, Seer has demnostrated just this with his replies in regards to the trees shown...........there are times when to prevent an enevitable hazard trees & other structures must be removed...........funny how the abandoned house will get condemed but may be structurally sound.....why? cause the hazards & risks outweigh the safety that is needed/required






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

I think what you are seeing is an evolutionary process with regards to certs. I suspect, but can't say for sure, that the people who originally conceived the ISA (and its ancestor organizations) couldn't get government support for the concept. Further, trying to get 50 states to agree on a common standard would be as rewarding as pushing a piece of string uphill.

For the most part, we have to remember that assessors are not decision makers. They provide the decision support and alternatives and it should be the goal of assessors to provide that support in as an objective (without bias) manner as possible.

When I'm talking to a customer, I'll explain why I think a tree should be removed or why it should stay and the indicators I use to determine whether a tree is hazardous or not.

I will recommend removals of trees that could be retained for a few years, but usually they are pioneer species (alder, poplar etc) nearing the end of their lifespan that provide little amenity to the property. In that situation, I'll argue that it is better to remove this tree now and replant a more suitable tree than to delay the inevitable. And I have done the opposite, that is delayed the inevitable because the tree provides amenity to the property. I think you have to analyze all the factors and present them in a logical manner to the decision maker (property owner). This is different from the "Yep, that trees got quite the lean - dangerous - got to take her out" (as you snap your suspenders).

 

[lxt]

Yeah, but wont the certified "tree assessor" come off looking stupid when he has went through a "logical", "scientific" approach to determine a tree should be removed...............all the while the guy snappin his suspenders had already said that & it didnt cost a dime......!




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

 

[jefflovstrom]

You make a lot of good point's, LXT, . At the same time, it seem's you are fighting the inevitable. Me, I gave in to it. It is different for me because the company pay's for it. My CTSP cost the company but I did not pay anything. Not even for the Hotels and study material. I got my cert's because of the owner's support. But I see what you are saying,
Jeff

 

[lxt]

Thanks Jeff, what you just mention is a point in & of itself, if the company will pay/reimburse you then it becomes a "grab" all you can type of thing, but if you are a small tree care company obtaining all this will be a chore!

I just think that we have two organizations competing within a trade for market/certification dominance & this is why sooner or later the Govt or states will step in.......I know TCIA thinks keeping track of injuries & fatalities is a good thing...But when I receive an issue saying they cant fit all the accidents in there...then it tells me this industry has a problem somewhere

we have more deaths in this industry or related to it than, police & firefighters.......who regulates those industries? all these Certs are just putting us under a microscope for regulation beyond TCIA & ISA, to have a safety man on site is a very good thing....but to create a certification for a person who is basically following osha rules & having input on stricter company policy is a little over the top! I had to have an employee handbook with a written safety policy & receive Mandatory State audits......if my safety program doesnt muster the audit I get fined......! I have no CTSP Cert............its just following the rules of the state, if I want stricter rules & policy I incorporate them in the handbook!

Now as far as the other Certs, It is disheartening when I see/know of colleagues letting Certs go cause of "over" certification, feeling as though what they worked hard for is now to common & must be improved with additional Certs, when is enough.. enough? I think the intent is good but over done to a point of being somewhat ridiculous! keep the CA & BMCA & put within these certs the additional ones.....thats it! TCIA can keep the accredited gig & CTSP & thats it! anything beyond is for the money!

Education is good & most continue on with it if their serious.....but, does a guy who has been climbing & running an aerial lift for 18yrs really need a cert saying he is a climber specialist? aerial lift specialist?...............wouldnt LCTT or a CA be enough?

I dont know where its gonna go or end for that matter....But I know one thing, some bureaucrat will catch wind of these money making certs...............view the fatalities & injuries then we will see a state license "for safety sake" & all those certs will be nothing more than viewed as a guideline for licensing.............I think Mass. already does this if not mistaken? & their state Cert is hard to obtain.......






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

 

[Corymbia]

Sad to say I have to agree to some extent at least. However, most arborists do not use much common sense in assessing risk; rather, they are driven by fear and therefore take an overly conservative view. This often results in unnecessary tree work being performed at a cost to the tree owner.

Selling rationalized scientific approach is fairly straight forward. NASA can tell us the probability of getting hit by space junk is 1 in 3,320 and do nothing, so when the risk from most tree is far less than that the question is why do anything unless the risk of harm is significant.

As for the "hazard hanging over the house", doesn't every tree part overhanging the roof pose some sort of hazard? I am not sure of the US figures but in Australia the likelihood of being killed by a tree falling on a house is about 1 in 200,000,000 or about 180 times less likely than dying falling from a bed (2004 figures).

The one concern that I have with many risk assessment programs is that they are mostly defect identification programs and have little to do with providing any real determination of the level and range of the risk. Risk assessment is therefore in many cases a misnomer.

 

[jefflovstrom]

Sad to say I have to agree to some extent at least. However, most arborists do not use much common sense in assessing risk; rather, they are driven by fear and therefore take an overly conservative view. This often results in unnecessary tree work being performed at a cost to the tree owner.[/QUOTE]

You sure did not use Any common sense with that broad based comment.
Jeff

 

[treeseer]

...The one concern that I have with many risk assessment programs is that they are mostly defect identification programs and have little to do with providing any real determination of the level and range of the risk. Risk assessment is therefore in many cases a misnomer.

True; it is really "defect" assessment, a witch hunt for weak spots, real or imagined.

Good observations on the state of assessment today; same in oz, California, or eastern USA. The upcoming BMP will have language about tree strength and adaptive growth; hard won, and essential to consider if competence and objectivity are claimed.

Trees stand up before they fall down. We need to see the strengths as well as the weaknesses, and also how they can be improved. Remember--every tree we see has stood up to everything thrown its way up til now.