RCA vs. Consulting Arborist vs Certified Arborist

[Menchhofer]

I have been reading from several different posts regarding the amazing difference between a quote from a consulting arborist vs. a quote from a CA. On several occassions it is stated the opinion of the CA vs the consulting arborist is in the client's best interest. Anthracnose is anthracnose, dieback is dieback, DED is DED, and so on.

True, the consulting arborist is on more of learning curve than the CA, but that does not always correlate into the best/fairest estimate. The statements made in these posts suggest CA's cannot be trusted.

Not all CA's estimate tree problems/diagnosis with their minds on their pocketbook. I certainly do not. Honesty is still the best policy. What I tell individuals regarding their trees has NOTHING to do with expected work unless they ask for my opinion as to what can be done. Of course now pruning is a different story.

I understand what you guys are saying, and I can see your point but there is this other side. Or am I getting excited over nothing?

 

[treeman82]

Brian, did you ever wind up hearing anything about Gump? I know he posted a couple months ago on his birthday.

 

[ORclimber]

Obviously not all certified arborists have the same knowledge base or ethics. Would imagine there is a discrepancy in the ranks of consulting arborists as well.

My understanding of consulting arborists is that they don't actually bid any work but are paid for consulting only, so they don't have a conflict of interest with the prescriptions given to the client.

I have had the pleasure of working on some projects with a consulting arborist this summer. It has been a real eye opener. the information comes in waves, I usually retain a cupfull.

 

[ORclimber]

Originally posted by TreeCo
In many ways the consulting arborist are competing for the same dollars as the certified arborist.



Yes, if the dollars come out of the customers limited tree budget and they can't afford to have the work done after paying the consultant.

Consulting arborists fill a niche. I don't feel a threat. The few that I know have decades of experience, charge high $, but don't bill a lot of hours. They take on jobs I'm not qualified for, or wouldn't want. I don't want to spend my time writing detailed reports in CYA, testifying in court, doing tree inventories, or watching a backhoe dig around tree roots on a construction site.

I'll stick to being a certified arborist and doing hands on tree care. I can give my professional opinion to my customers, but if they want something in writing that I'm not comfortable with, or they want to sue their neighbor over a tree.... I'll recommend a consulting arborist.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

A consulting electrition is called an electrical engineer. The trades man cannot figure the problem they call the guy with the masters degree.

If it is just anthracnose, or birch borer, then a CA is all that is needed.

If it is a tree preservation program on a construction sight, or the client wants a risk assesment of a tree with a defect, then the consultant is the better choice.

I've worked with too many good tree people who have did a little more then need be, because they needed the work. Seen guys who will always try to talk the homeowner into removal....

The RCA is a very hard bar to pass, compared to CA (not compared to RN or ABA) they have to write reports and have then reviewed, among other things.

Like "Arborist" any one can call themselves "consulting arborist" but RCA # 1234 is a trademark of ASCA.

 

[Guy Meilleur]

ASCA Consulting Arborists are bound by their code of ethics to have no commercial interest in jobs they consult on. When one has few good CA's in their area to refer work to, after the report is written he can literally change hats and bid the work, always providing numbers of 3 CA's who can also do the rcommended work.

I consult for insurance companies a lot, and then wind up doing the tree work for the homeowner. ASCA at one point made a big deal about separating consultants from contractors, but the lines of separation to me are vague and arbitrary. Every consultant, after all, has a contract with their client.

When I became a CA, I stopped doing free estimates unless the job was very convenient or fun. I don't take new customers now unless they agree to a (paid) annual inspection. IMO every CA with a good local rep and references should STOP giving away their time, and sell consultations by the minute until the client's consultation needs are met. Then change hats (I go from blue to brown), and bid the work if you want to.

The toughest part about the transition is just breaking the bad habit of giving away your work. Refer the best competitors; Bartlett, TCOT etc., because A. You know they are qualified, and B. they are also the highest-priced. When I become an RCA (any day now, after 11 yrs. of procrastinating) I won't stop pruning, etc., but I will boost my consulting rate 25%. It is tough work.

If a tree owner has x dollars to spend, the first and best purchase is objective information. Few free estimates will give them that.

 

[Ax-man]

Intially I didn't thindk there was much difference between RCAs, Consulting Arborists verses Certified Arborist. After attending some seminars and being on the net for a while, my opinion has definately changed.

The guys that consult definately have more knowledge and experience than the commercial hands on Certified Arborist doing tree work day to day.

RCAs and Consulting Arborists are sticking their necks out more on the chopping block so to speak than the average Certified Arborist. The stakes are higher in the game they play, so are the risks of report writing and opion giving on trees. Based on this merit alone, a fee for consulting from a RCA should be higher than one charged by a regular Certified Arborist.

I can definately see myself as a consulting arborist in the final chapter of my arbor career, but I also know now that with my present education I'll have go back to school and get more credentials. Having hands on experience is ok, but it just isn't enough to do serious consulting work.

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Originally posted by Ax-man
I'll have go back to school and get more credentials. Having hands on experience is ok, but it just isn't enough to do serious consulting work.

True, but keeping one's hands on trees makes one a better consultant than one whose hands stay in books.
Prepare for your "final chapter" now by documenting every bit of cont. ed. you can. University courses get you 15 each generally, but any workshop/learning experience you get ok'd by ISA will likely transfer to ASCA. Speaking to local groups, planting a tree at a school, writing an article for a newsletter, it all adds up.

And when you need 400-odd ceu's, you want to keep your :Eye: out for opportunities...

 

[Dan F]

Menchofer-
I see where you are coming from, but let me point out the obvious from my point of view that others here aren't aware of.

If you are worried about competition from the consulting arborists, I don't think you need to be! The last I knew, and I doubt it has changed much, is that Indiana only had two consulting arborists. The one closest to you (Jud Scott) probably has more work than he can ever get done. The other one is in Fort Wayne (Jeff Ling) and I imagine it would take a VERY large job for him to even consider coming this way.

BTW, are you going to any of the fall IAA workshops?


Dan

 

[Menchhofer]

Dan,

I do not worry in reference to the competition. My main concern was the manner in which the the comparisons were written....CA's vs RCA

I am not sure if I (or we) will be at the IAA seminars yet. Time is always a factor.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

I'm one of the people who recomend RCA most often. My reasoning is that they are more likely to render an opinion that is in the owners best interest then a tree company out of the phone book. Because of the nature of the requirments, many companies manitain ISA cert just for the advertising benefit.

ASCA is better able to vet their members then ISA.