Not all arborists are climbers, not all climbers are arborists

[a_lopa]

thats the whole problem with the industry the climbing arborist rarely get managment positions beacause there required in the field,

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Aussie's right, transitioning from climber to mgt is not easy and straddling the 2 roles is even harder. Omega, I didn't hear anyone say that all arborists have to be climbers; my point is that there are things to learn from trees that one can only learn from getting into them--literally. Good points from jack and OR on that.

 

[Nickrosis]

True. But the same points could be made for understanding the soil. I guess it's the audience here, but you do have to take in "all" factors if you claim to be doing so.

I think an evaluation from the ground is sufficient in 99% of the cases.

 

[a_lopa]

OMO im not trying to upset or be a smart a,but i personally have no time for arborists that cant do the work,if you cant do it how can you advise my reasoning comes from seeing, hearing to many arbs talk the talk (some way to much)then not backing it up.IMO there should be a clear distinction between consulting,and climbing arborist.the consultant is worth less than a climbing arb.one guy that works for me had to teach the first intake of arbs down under how to do big t/ds,while im at it why learn all the latin/botanical names when you can carry a reference book no need to know every tree cause you never will.

 

[Nickrosis]

And you are entitled to your opinion. A clear distinction between climbing and consulting is fine if such a distinction exists for two individuals being compared. But Guy and I both climb and consult (Guy climbs more than I do, certainly). I would consider Guy to be one of those hybrids of both.

There are plenty of people who are one or the other. But I don't believe you can begin to lay value judgements based on whether someone climbs or not. Because even if they climb, I know you'll say they don't climb well enough or fast enough!

Just some pipe-smoking material. No harsh feelings.

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Originally posted by Nickrosis
I think an evaluation from the ground is sufficient in 99% of the cases.

Nick I hear what you're saying but I think it's more like 93%.

Your point about soil and roots is the key one; many maladies start there but too few people will look to that area soon enough when evaluating condition. (Is that sort of work "beneath" them? ) An arborist who understands roots is often more tuned in to the tree than one who only looks at aboveground parts.

High Brid

 

[TheTreeSpyder]

Originally posted by Nickrosis
Oh my goodness, no one has used the word "soil" yet.

Well, i was thinking it (as one of the scientists etc. that could be non-climbing arborists) does that count?

As i grow in more understanding, a lot goes back to the soil. In an open field, 1000' apart the air and light inputs would be the same, but the whole soil input would have many differances.

In the hurricanes, we had whole tree failures from rotted roots of buried tree crowns (smallest amount); and included bark sections, but mostly simple shallow rooting from over watered grass (even if just in low area without sprinkler) in Miss Jeannie's wake. De-Naturaization in construction crushing soil fairly rampant, and not helping much either.

Am trying to put together some "Mulch, not Mow" 'campaign' stuff fer site etc. Took photo advantage of many tree failures in various battlefields of broken wooden giants!

 

[a_lopa]

i wasnt pointing the finger at you guys at all,i think you know that.ive just had some bad experiences with some "consultants"give me a climbing arb anyday,sort of getting off topic but i do my analysis on "crowding trees" on owners age,my reason being why remove a 80 yr olds tree when a lite prune will see his days out with the tree,in a crowding situation.i think guy/nick will know what im saying