Not all arborists are climbers, not all climbers are arborists

[Nickrosis]

And that's ok.

I think the problem is when people think that they're something they aren't. But it's ok to be an arborist who doesn't climb. And it's ok to be a climber who isn't an arborist. If all you do is removals, it's essentially the demolition of a wooden structure, not tree care. But if you have a purpose and have reasoning for how a removal may help other plants, etc....that's being an arborist in my mind.

And non-climbing arborists aren't just people who can't climb...it includes people who aren't very good at it, aren't able to do so in a production setting, or would just rather do something else for trees. Something I was tossing over in my head today...

 

[jimmyq]

I am an arborist and I am barely learning to climb. I don't feel less or more than those I interact with because of this, I do understand that we may be different. I do what I know and I get people in to do what I am not able or capable of.

 

[TheSurgeon]

I gotta disagree with ya. I know of a couple "arborists" who have'nt got a clue about climbing and I rarely associate with them. An arborist should be a well rounded individual knowing all aspects of tree work. Why fall short in certain areas, i.e. there ARE those who remove trees and leave the stump...My .02

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Originally posted by TheSurgeon
I know of a couple "arborists" who haven't got a clue about climbing and I rarely associate with them.
Why not? They need to learn from you, and you may pick up a useful perspective from them. I'm regularly disappointed by desk arborists who advise people on tree care, uninformed by info from the field, and are dead wrong. Still, I try to communicate with them, and usually learn something from the attempt.

An arborist should be a well rounded individual knowing all aspects of tree work.

I totally agree with Surgeon here. As a diagnostician, I can learn a lot from stump grinding and log slicing, so I need to know how that work gets done.
Some turn away from climbing out of fear or poor physical conditioning.

Many climbers don't give a flip about diagnosis; maybe they're adrenalin junkies who think it ain't macho enough for them. Maybe they think their time is too valuable.
Many ground arborists have the twisted notion that a college degree puts them "above" climbing. Maybe they think THEIR time is too valuable. All are dead wrong.

"it's ok to be an arborist who doesn't climb. And it's ok to be a climber who isn't an arborist." I disagree with Nick here. Arborists who do not ever climb do not experience how trees grow. Climbers who are not arborists miss out on learning what others know about trees, and are poorer as a result.

Just one opinion.

 

[ORclimber]

Technically yes. I don't see how you can properly assess a tree without getting in it. Especially in an urban environment. Lots of stuff just can't be seen from the ground. Of course many climbers may not know what to look for. I think about how many years wasted as a production/work order climber. Lots of catch up to do.

 

[Matt Follett]

To assess the above ground portion you need to be in it... but how many climbers have run an air spade, or done a hydro evac? The tree is not just our above ground portion, and would those who specialize in the below ground portion of structural and biological assesment not be considered arborists because they rarely climb?

I think that we spend alot of our time focusing on climbing, because it's easy... and we can gain alot of respect and some basic understanding of the tree from being up there. But to say that those that do not climb don't have a good understanding of the tree is/could be very wrong.

As biomechanical research advances, we are gaining a true, imperically tested set of results, which I have to agree are far more accurate then my "gut feeling" Sure I have a sense when something is strcuturally wrong with the tree in the way it moves etc. But this is do to all the forces acting upon me, and to a great deal my present physical and emotional awareness (yeah I'm getting hoaky...) On the days when.. my mind is wandering (business, life, what I'm going to have for diner!) I know I'm not judging with the greatest acuracy...

Where am I going with this? I'm not sure...




Oh yeah, so anyway, the people who study, truely study, in a lab, in the field, what have you, can still be considered arborists, they are just research arborists... they may be a biomechanist, or a bioligist, or botanist, but they are also working in the aspect of tree health, care, what have you.

Personally I feel the great riggers of the world are still arborists, provided that they have a basic understanding of the properties of wood, it's inherent strength etc... Which I would assume they must otherwise they would fall down, or crush houses.... But there are people out there, whom I think Nick is pointing to that are here for the guts and glory, the rush of the big drop, whatever... these people may have adequate IQ's, good thought processes, but for what ever resaon, they are not concerned with the living thing they are climbing, they are there to do a job, because that is what they have been asked to do, nothing more nothing less. Maybe they are there because they thought hanging from a rope was cool, maybe because they like to dig holes inthe ground , and then somebody makes them fill the hole in with the root ball of a tree... maybe they are studying the biomechanics of trees, because they know how to place the tensiometer... Just because on that particular day they happened to be working with trees, nope in my opinion they are not an "arborist"

 

[JJackson]

I am an arborist that does not climb. I ahve more respect for one that does climb but its not part of my current job. I am hopefully going to learn to climb this spring. But to say an arborist that does not climb is not an aborist is wrong. There is many different paths to follow as an arborist. If a farmer is someone who grows crops and live stock, the what do call one that just grows crops, is he not a farmer also. I do think an arborist should have at least some basic knowledge of climbing.

 

[TheTreeSpyder]

i think you have to do a whole lot more of a different kind of 'Tree Touching' to equate following the Doc Shigo invitation to Touch Trees and not climb. Most of their uniqueness to the world is in their structure, size and weight; and how something so massive must be then supported biologically and mechanically.

But then; that would beg the question whether Doc Shigo would consider himself an arborist, or even one that doesn't climb. i imagine there are other foresters, biologists etc. that don't climb, but appreciate trees somehow at high levels of knowing. Hard for me to imagine the same fascination without scaling and rigging the giants though; or at least having it in your background; eh Nick?

 

[Guy Meilleur]

"Many ground arborists have the twisted notion that a college degree puts them "above" climbing. Maybe they think THEIR time is too valuable. All are dead wrong.

"it's ok to be an arborist who doesn't climb. And it's ok to be a climber who isn't an arborist." I disagree with Nick here. Arborists who do not ever climb do not experience how trees grow."

this is all I said; I never said non-climbers are by definition non-arborists. And I did overstate: yes there are other ways of experiencing how trees grow. My apologies to nonclimbing arborists. But getting up into them and watching and feeling them respond and grow is the most complete way.

"i think you have to do a whole lot more of a different kind of 'Tree Touching' to equate following the Doc Shigo invitation to Touch Trees and not climb" What KC said, yes.

 

[jkrueger]

I'm also looking at this from the side of, I was an intellectual, known for my breakthroughs in other fields than trees. My work lead me to trees and pruning to further study the nature of 'organic computation'. (I'm SO happy it did!)

Climbing was a very powerful self evaluating activity, a real perk for me.

The thing is that when I tell people I climb trees they think I'm some kind of 'crazy', a rough character, etc. Of course after a conversation about my interests they have a different view.

It seems that to the general population the view of tree climbers is like the view of early flyers who barn stormed. Something romantic in that and a little untrusting to the guy on the street. He wouldn't want you to take out his daughter.
(Didn't mean to single out women as climbers, only a point.)

The balance between the talents of working with tree health and the talents of climbing is probably the real issue. Each of us has to put an effort in growing that balace if we do both. And it will be different for each.

Jack

 

[ptar]

Is Shigo an arborist?
Does he climb?

 

[Treeman14]

Originally posted by ptar
Is Shigo an arborist?
Does he climb?

Yes.

No.

But he does play the clarinet quite well.

 

[Nickrosis]

The reason I brought this up was not to come to a conclusion, but to discuss something that seems to be an underlying theme in a number of other threads and off-line interactions.

Climbing is certainly a great skill to have for an arborist, but I doubt many people would agree that you have to climb one to evaluate one. Being in the canopy gives a different perspective and occassionally gives you a glimpse into something you couldn't see from the ground. Most likely, though, you can look at everything needed from the ground; the ability to see what is important is another matter.

I want more arborists to climb, and I want more climbers to be arborists - I strongly believe it will lead to a healthier industry. Guy's note about desk arborists hits even stronger. You particularly know about this when a client tells you about something a competitor prescribed, and you think "What??!!" Fertilize this tree? Are they kidding? or Remove that whole limb? What were they thinking? If some of those people would just get out and learn - be it in the tree, another hands-on experience, from a book, from another professional, whatever. Many people just take what they learned 10 years ago and continue to apply it for the rest of their lives.

And if you can't physically climb, get a ride in a bucket truck from time to time! The view of the city is great and so is the view of the tree. You do learn a lot about trees by being in them, but you also learn a lot about trees by reading words.

 

[MasterBlaster]

I bet some arborists have a fear of heights.

 

[blue]

not scared of hieght's butch.it's the ground that scare's the $hit outta me (must be the sudden stop at the end)

 

[Nickrosis]

True.

There is an intangible quality of touching trees, though. Which can be achieved from the ground, too.

 

[NeTree]

What about arborists who simply don't climb anymore?

I don't think too many here would argue about Alex Shigo's knowledge... but yet he's never mentioned climbing a tree once in his life. And at his present age/physical condition, it isn't likely to happen, either.

 

[ORclimber]

Originally posted by Nickrosis

but I doubt many people would agree that you have to climb one to evaluate one. Being in the canopy gives a different perspective and occassionally gives you a glimpse into something you couldn't see from the ground. Most likely, though, you can look at everything needed from the ground; the ability to see what is important is another matter.

Don't understand how a 100' tree can be declared evaluated from the ground. Maybe it's green and standing so pretty sure it's ok. Did some climbing for a consultants customer last year. He was on site while the work was being done checking the brush I cut. The tree had pit scale in the past and it couldn't be seen from the ground. Also ended up finding carpenter worm damage 30' up over the roof. Neither of those could have been detected from the ground. I didn't know what to look for, he doesn't climb anymore. Run into a lot of stuff that can't be seen from the ground like sunscald, cavities, conks, insects, cracked limbs, widowmakers....too many branches in the way to see from the ground.

 

[arboromega]

i think some here may be mistaking their own passion for climbing as a requirement for all...you need to place more thought into the fundamental question here and that is do you have to climb to be an arborist? and the answer is no. there are different areas of arboriculture to work and specialize in that dont even require climbing at all. arboriculture in definition is the care of trees and shrubs...i dont see why as specialist in shrubs and small trees would have to climb. im not sure why the arborist who works in the lab diagnosing plant pathogens would have to climb. what about the arborists who work on tree farms to keep stock healthy - no need to climb here.

and lets no forget our injured and retired climbers who cant climb any longer. still arborists?

 

[Nickrosis]

Oh my goodness, no one has used the word "soil" yet. How can you evaluate a tree without looking at the root system? I mean, to truly evaluate it, you need to excavate the entire root system to get a good picture of it. Right?

So, before you can say you've evaluated a tree, you should visually inspect it from the ground, climb it for other defects, do a complete root excavation, run all the numbers through complicated equations and THEN you can say the tree is OK or not.

NOT. You can evaluate a tree from the ground. The accuracy of it is limited by how much is observed, just like the roots.