Levi,
I agree with a lot in your post. I believe there is no shortage of bad practice in the "PHC industry." Examples I see are unlicensed contractors, uneducated applicators, and unethical practices in the field.
However, to paint all chemical IPM/PHC work with a broad brush in that manner is no different than painting all tree climbers as toppers/hackers who don't know about trees, or care about the finished product. Both outlooks are terrible for our industry, and far from the truth.
Treetopflyer,
Are you implying that it would be better to let every ash tree die to EAB rather than treat with chemicals? How about our pine forests that have been destroyed by Mountain Pine Beetle. What about Spruce Budworm? The most destructive defoliator in the west. While this takes the argument slightly away from landscape trees, it is a valid point. Some pests can not be managed without chemical control. It is a dynamic environment, it is always changing. Natural approaches don't work on every pest, and injections aren't always cost effective. The idea is to use other controls before chemicals, and approach management with the lightest footprint possible.
I would argue that retaining beautiful ornamental trees of ALL sizes from invasive species as well as massively destructive native forest pest is worth the risks in SOME chemical work. We need trees to survive in the forest, as well as in urban environments.
There is more that goes into play than, "just spraying it." There is a lot that goes into licensing, and even more that goes into chemical work done properly with the utmost regard for the trees and environment. That's the whole point in licensing pesticide applicators.
As always hacks will be hacks, but there are millions of trees saved every year by chemical work.