American Society of Consulting Arborist

[Blinky]

Babberney,

You're right. I do know college education from the inside... sort of, and it's no party. On the partying and puking bit and I stand well corrected.

Whether one can afford it though has much more to do with a person's social position rather than the cost of tuition. I think you'll agree there are lots of reasons why a person qualified for college would be unable to attend or at least finish. Yes, even a destitute individual can get the money for tuition but the sacrifices they and their family have to make are far beyond those of people who are destined for college from birth.
Lumping it and serving fries is a box people are forced into, not one they choose willingly.

Admissions standards at this point make things much worse because every college in the US is competing to have the most illustrious student body. I was married to a UNC professor for 13 years and selection criteria for students was the business of splitting hairs to choose 90% of the class and then picking 10% to fulfill diversity requirements... and they worked around that whenever possible.

I don't deny the value of college or any other education... I'm for it. I'll take all I can get. I used to make lots of money but being an irresponsible, dis-organized, and gullible type, I blew most of it... but before I did, I put away more than enough for both my kids to go to school. If that money keeps growing they'll be able to go for advance degrees if they want.

Without academic education arboriculture wouldn't be what it is now... or what it will become. But the same goes for experiential education. You can't be a whole arborist without studying... and in my opinion, you can't be a whole arborist without climbing, digging and touching a lot of trees.

What I rail against is the meaningless requirement 'a college degree' one sees so often in the list of qualifications for jobs and certs. It's like they just toss it in there to thin out the field. Perhaps that's a great way to get a consistent set of candidates... but it fails utterly at attracting the diverse and uniquely creative minds of self educated people.

Treesandsurf: If ASCA accepts CEUs in lieu of a degree then you are right... but what about someone who's worked in a field for dozens of years, been to workshops and classes but never bothered to record CEUs. Verifiable years of experience should also be allowed to satisfy the degree requirement... at least to sit for a certification exam.

I apologize for this rant... I think formal education is highly valuable. Most of my friends have advanced educations, many are in academia... I like being with educated people. I'm not such a person though, and I know I can keep up with every one of them.

 

[treesandsurf]

[ QUOTE ]




Without academic education arboriculture wouldn't be what it is now... or what it will become. But the same goes for experiential education. You can't be a whole arborist without studying... and in my opinion, you can't be a whole arborist without climbing, digging and touching a lot of trees.



[/ QUOTE ]


Well put.

This has turned into an interesting thread. My question about ASCA has less to do with the college degree requirement and more to do with the fact that it is a program designed for people that want to consult on arboriculture issues, but may have little to no experience actually 'working with trees.'

This is a pretty gray area as many people might not have the physical ability to do tree work (climbing, ground work etc...) but still would like to work as an arborist. However, is it possible to be a well rounded arborist without having done tree work? I'm not sure. I've heard ASCA critized because it espouses to be 'the' organization with the most qualified members yet many of their members may have no experience actually working with trees. This may or may not be the case, again I don't know enough about it to make a judgement, but I can understand the arguement.


jp

 

[Nathan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, they just think they were busy asking if people would like fries with that.

Like it or lump it, a degree proves that you are trainable and can stick with something for 4+ years. Even drink beer and stick with something.

You don't need a degree to be a success, but it does help get your foot in the door.

As far as making one more valuable, that proof is in the pudding when you look at starting salaries.

ever seen the starting salary of a drama major? I bet it ain't much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, you have no idea.

At 24 I was the sole engineer at UNR-Rohn in charge of developing a new design for remote communication site equipment shelters. You know all those prefab composite buildings you see out on tower sites all over North America? There's dozens in every city... I was the original designer.

Before I produced that design with the help of a single draftsman and a contract testing agency the buildings were mostly 2x4s and plywood covered with chopped fiberglass, they burned easily, leaked and rotted, caved in when ice fell on them and wouldn't even stop a .22LR. I've never served a fry in my life except to my kids and my former wife, a professor at UNC. My last real job was on Senior Staff for a global non-profit NGO.

Your talking a myth propagated by people who want exclusive control over their little fiefdoms and are dead scared of people who grew up outside the shelter of college.

Learning is NOT the exclusive domain of ivory tower types, anyone can do it. Doing nothing but absorbing and regurgitating information for four years does very little to prove that one can UNDERSTAND something or do anything useful. Information is NOT understanding.

The college advantage is real... my kid's education is already paid for... but it's a false pretext in terms of qualifying a person for a job.

I'm not knocking education, I think it's a good idea... wish I could've afforded it. It is NOT the only, or even best way for a person to learn and understand something useful... nor is it the only proof that someone can stick with something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, that sure is wordy. It is a lot easier if you can sum it up with a degree and a few accomplishments.

Like I said, uni isn't the only way - it may not make you a success, but it sure can't hurt.

 

[mrtree]

treesandsurf,

I can assure you ASCA is worthwhile if you wish to work as a consultant. The webboard alone is very beneficial.

As for education vs. hands on experience, both are good but not manditory. We are (generally) an unliscensed profession so the dedicated individual can start as a groundie and work and educate themselves to the top. I do not see how you "must" climb and chop trees to understand their biology, structure etc. Most tree companies are removal and pruning experts but never look below ground, thus I would say they are missing half the tree world and maybe cannot call themselves arborists.

As for anybody who thinks that ASCA RCAs spent their college years drinking, puking and studying drama I would be very interested to hear who the consutants are. This is a red herring and I would bet is comletely untrue. Most individuals at the ASCA level are highly competent individuals, well educated, curious, and thoughful individuals.

Don't let the outdated, narrow-minded, idea that you must climb trees to be an arborist dissuade you. If you have the longterm interest than you can do it.

 

[Colin]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't let the outdated, narrow-minded, idea that you must climb trees to be an arborist dissuade you.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's probably true, but it seems kinda odd. I guess that why I call myself a tree climber.

 

[mrtree]

MB I think there is a distinction but if I express it people go crazy. Arboriculture by definition is about the care and cultivation of woody plants. Thus I see no need to climb, it might help broaden your knowledge but is not necessary. Think of Alex Shigo; tree climber?, arborist?

 

[guymayor]

"Arboriculture by definition is about the care and cultivation of woody plants."

Not exactly, it is the "practice and study of the care of trees...", according to the Glossary of Arbo Terms. So those who practice AND study tree care are more complete arborists than those who just study it, eh?

As for Alex, his dissecting and lab work was practice of the highest order. Climbing is just one means of practicing tree care.

[ QUOTE ]
My question about ASCA has less to do with the college degree requirement and more to do with the fact that it is a program designed for people that want to consult on arboriculture issues, but may have little to no experience actually 'working with trees.'

I've heard ASCA critized because it espouses to be 'the' organization with the most qualified members yet many of their members may have no experience actually working with trees.

[/ QUOTE ]Last year in the asca newsletter the prez announced an effort to double their membership by recruiting recent college grads. He got comments that this effort was going at it from the wrong angle, ignoring the numbers of seasoned arborists who were ready to consult.

Now we have the ads saying it's the org that some are "proudest to belong to". It wasn't for me, nor was the webboard all that useful, but everyone's needs are different. jp, asca might work for you someday, or not. keep an open mind, and keep your hands on trees. A well-read hands-on consultant is better qualified than a book-only consultant, every time.

 

[TrEECoWboY]

Dr. Klaus Matthek:
Background-Phd. Nuclear Theoretical Physics. Decided he enjoyed studying trees more than nukes, and now studies, lectures, writes, and consults on tree mechanics. He is a full time professor at an institute of higher learning in Germany, which concentrates on tree mechanics.

Yes, there is a cross-over from the general disciplines learned in formal scientific training. He is a perfect example.

So, I would have to say tapping recent college grads for membership may be a viable option. I don't see anybody lining up to become a CA however.

The passion has to be there. Period.

I had my first landscaping job on Michigan State Universities Grounds Department. I worked 20 hrs a week there before morning classes. Drove mowers during my freshman year of school. Later, I pruned trees in the UNCC botanical gardens as a private contractor after classes while working on a biology degree. Climbing is what paid my way through part of my education.

At the same time, climbing and tree work itself is an excellent education. Its not formal, but its real. That's why I got into it to begin with.

 

[TC]

[ QUOTE ]
Dr. Klaus Matthek:


[/ QUOTE ]

Claus Mattheck spent 2 years in prison in the former East Germany.

His Stupsi and Pauli books are great for experts and beginners.

The Body Language of Trees is very difficult to understand. For me anyway.

 

[Treespotter]

[ QUOTE ]
The Body Language of Trees is very difficult to understand. For me anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Watch what you are saying Grover... Telling thins like that could easily get you behind

'bars'

for two years as well.

Love the mans boots.

 

[TC]

[ QUOTE ]

Love the mans boots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nevermind his boots Treespotter have you seen his awesome Hair-do ?

Claus Mattheck is one cool dude.

 

[Nathan]

That hair-do is business in the front and party in the rear

 

[easyphloem]

I saw Claus Mattheck in Yipsilanti, Michigan back in 2000 or 2001.


I still remember his presentation. He is wordy at times, and it took me forever to realize that he was saying "growth striations" (referring to bark), I thought he was saying "gross relations", and in the context he was using it in, it threw me for a loop.


I definitely dig his style, and anyone who can pull off that fashion statement (it's debatable if he actually does pull it off), is OK in my book!


Great speaker, and very interesting man. Even better to have a pint with and talk about tree failure.



SZ

 

[Blinky]

So, are people like Shigo and Mattheck arborists, arboriculturists, biologists or something else?

The reason I ask is, you have for instance, plant biologists, horticulturists, and gardeners.

I figure I'm the tree equivalent of a gardener... that is, an arborist. I do the dirty work... and love it. I have to know some basics and some specifics of tree biology to do my job well but I'm no biologist.

As for the guys who are more purely consultants... might they be better regarded to as arboriculturists... for lack of a better term. Without considering those who cross disciplines, the consulting guys would have a larger body of biological knowledge and less get dirty, climbing/digging experience.

I'm not putting one above another, just trying to draw a distinction between the hands-on types and the knowledge types.

When I think arborist, I think of somebody in a tree with a saw... it's vocation based on craft. It's hard for me to picture an arborist that doesn't climb... or at least hasn't climbed.

I know my concept is flawed, that's why I ask.

 

[Nathan]

[ QUOTE ]

When I think arborist, I think of somebody in a tree with a saw... it's vocation based on craft. It's hard for me to picture an arborist that doesn't climb... or at least hasn't climbed.



[/ QUOTE ]

I too think of an arborist as someone who climbs and works with trees. Yet to be a certified arborist, you don't have to demonstrate climbing skills.

 

[Cyrus1254]

Nathan I am a certified arborist but have never climbed a tree in my professional days. Plant Heath Care is where my background is in and that is what I am really good in and do sell all kinds of tree care. I work for a company that stresses plant health care and that is were I succeed and as someone said a long time ago and I cant remember who said it but you learn something new everyday and try to absorb that thought as well.

 

[guymayor]

[ QUOTE ]
just trying to draw a distinction between the hands-on types and the knowledge types.

[/ QUOTE ]that is a false dichotomy. I'm half handson and half researching and writing reports etc; where ya gonna put me?

[ QUOTE ]

When I think arborist, I think of somebody in a tree with a saw... it's vocation based on craft. It's hard for me to picture an arborist that doesn't climb... or at least hasn't climbed.

I know my concept is flawed, that's why I ask.

[/ QUOTE ] And the answer is, an arborist is "a professional who possesses the technical competence gained through experience and related training to provide for or supervise the mgt. of trees..."

Where's that Glossary I gave you, under the donut bag?

So that covers climbers and phc guys and researchers--"provide for" is intentionally broad. MB provides for the management of trees when he cuts them down or reduces them, so he can call himself an arborist if he wants to..or a tree climber or a Zen saw man.. If anyone proposes a change for the next edition let me know and I'll pass it on.

 

[Blinky]

[ QUOTE ]
that is a false dichotomy. I'm half handson and half researching and writing reports etc; where ya gonna put me?

The reason you're confused is you didn't READ!
[ QUOTE ]
Without considering those who cross disciplines...

[/ QUOTE ]
...






[ QUOTE ]

And the answer is, an arborist is "a professional who possesses the technical competence gained through experience and related training to provide for or supervise the mgt. of trees..."

Where's that Glossary I gave you, under the donut bag?

[/ QUOTE ]


That's funny... the donut bag thing... actually it's under all my GEAR catalogs.


What's wrong with trying to draw further distinction? Not for a glossary but simply for discussion. Clearly a PHC expert who doesn't climb is in a different discipline than a guy who prunes big trees. The body of knowledge differs, in degree at least; the physical and equipment requirements are different... how is a customer without a bag of donuts, I mean, umm glossary, gonna know who does what?

If we were to attempt to inform/educate our customers wouldn't using the term so broadly be confusing? What about IPM guys, are they arborists? That's rhetorical, the only ones I know of are CAs.

OK, so maybe the better analogy is that 'Arborist' is like 'Doctor' and then you divy that up by specialization. Come to think of it, that makes sense. But it would be interesting to survey lay people on what they think an arborist does.

 

[mrtree]

I think the problem with the term arborist is that we (tree service people as a whole) have tried to change the definition from a person who cares for and studies trees to anybody who happens to have a chainsaw and cuts urban trees for a living.

A while back I asked if we as arborist had lost our way, referring to the fact with the advent of big saws, trucks and chippers we are moving towards removals and pruning and leaving the knowledge and caring of trees behind. As I remember there was little response to the thread.

I think part of the problem with the industry is that (particularly in rural areas)people are basically exposed to people cutting trees and little tree care. If you cut trees fine, but don't call yourself an arborist (as Master Blaster has pointed out).

Trees and surf if you want to be a top notch arborist seriously think about ASCA

 

[treesandsurf]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the problem with the term arborist is that we (tree service people as a whole) have tried to change the definition from a person who cares for and studies trees to anybody who happens to have a chainsaw and cuts urban trees for a living.



[/ QUOTE ]

The word arborist is used pretty broadly. You can call the neighborhood hack who flush cuts and paints wounds an arborist, but there is a difference between him and a pro. I guess being a 'certified' arborist helps to clarify there a bit, but even that is tricky. Maybe that's where ASCA comes in as well, as any certification or degree is simply a way to show on paper that you are qualified to be the expert in that subject.

ButI guess it opens pandora's box as far as terminology and trying to define a person who works with trees, but I'm all for anything that elevates the profession and clarifies the difference between someone who has experience, professionalism and education (within or outside of a formal instution) as opposed to your classic (very common it seems, especially in more rural areas) chainsaw and pickup truck guy who does tree work simply as a way to make money. And again, maybe that's a bit arrogant on my part?

Oh and Guy, did you say you are half handsome? (or was that half hands on?

)





jp