Originally posted by netree
Frankly, I laugh my arse off every time I get a consult on a tree that one of the MAA geniuses deems unsalvageable (and isn't), or missing an obvious case of stress from a 2-foot change in grade (must be some kind of disease).
Ya gotta
about these, cuz it does no good to
. Desk arborists from muni's and U's are granted authority despite field experience. They are paid to compete with qualified consultants. If you make your work and knowledge known to them, many will have the humility to refer you to trees they need a second opinion on.
They and utility arborists tend to run the orgs because they're the ones who are paid to take part, while those who touch trees every day can't afford to get that involved.
Most are open to input from the field, and it's our bad for not giving it. More pictures, more stories, more examples of good arboriculture needs be presented, in some form. what often feels like cliques are just groups of people who are getting along, and who welcome, and often beg, others to get involved. Do It!
What
me is the clutching of control and undeserved authority over ed programs by underqualified mental hacks. We have had some really lame research and articles put out by folks whose main motivation seems not to advance the industry, but to get tenure at a U. Qualified arbos who want to contribute have been turned away by some who see them as an obstacle to their step up the governmental hierarchy.
There are ways around these mental hacks, but timing and persistence and diplomacy are all key. It's a lot easier to sit back and criticize (like I'm doing right now!), but it's not good to abandon the industry when you can make a difference instead.
