Chaplain242
Branched out member
Came across this in the news this morning:
oilcity.news
The consulted arborists and tree company’s advised for regulation of treework within the City’s zone of authority, being licenced contractors, high/higher threshold of insurance, and fines for anyone not licenced carrying out Treeworks etc...
It doesn’t take much effort to read about crews of undocumented workers, or small contractors that don’t have insurance, or don’t carry out regulated treework (paper trail everything, full ppe, licenced, etc competing against companies that tick all the boxes and the angst caused (there are threads in this and other sites of just this issue)
All companies that invest in a business want a return, and being able to corner a market and exclude competition by use of local government restrictions to help them do that is an option that will likely reap some benefits.
Question is having these type of governmental regulation and controls in the interest of Arboriculture practice as a whole?
By this question I am referring to community engagement and education as a method, vs implementing a governmental control over the practice of arboriculture (knowing from experience that government regulatory controls can initiate a host of other unexpected implications from those imposed controls.
A case example is losing licenced arbs from a company’s payroll for whatever reason and then having to shut down operations until licences arbs can be recruited etc...
Question being are these calls for regulation (by local licenced/insured operators) a good call? A good call long term?
After man dies from felling of a tree, Casper looking at tree and shrub rules
CASPER, Wyo. — After a man died in Casper as the result of an individual not certified as an arborist cutting trees in his yard, the Casper City Council
The consulted arborists and tree company’s advised for regulation of treework within the City’s zone of authority, being licenced contractors, high/higher threshold of insurance, and fines for anyone not licenced carrying out Treeworks etc...
It doesn’t take much effort to read about crews of undocumented workers, or small contractors that don’t have insurance, or don’t carry out regulated treework (paper trail everything, full ppe, licenced, etc competing against companies that tick all the boxes and the angst caused (there are threads in this and other sites of just this issue)
All companies that invest in a business want a return, and being able to corner a market and exclude competition by use of local government restrictions to help them do that is an option that will likely reap some benefits.
Question is having these type of governmental regulation and controls in the interest of Arboriculture practice as a whole?
By this question I am referring to community engagement and education as a method, vs implementing a governmental control over the practice of arboriculture (knowing from experience that government regulatory controls can initiate a host of other unexpected implications from those imposed controls.
A case example is losing licenced arbs from a company’s payroll for whatever reason and then having to shut down operations until licences arbs can be recruited etc...
Question being are these calls for regulation (by local licenced/insured operators) a good call? A good call long term?











