I wonder if we need to look deeper at our own industry and decide what it is we are. The vast majority of arborists and CAs I run into are not arborists but rather tree removal and pruning guys. Few seem to met the old defination of an arborist as a person who cares for trees.
There are so many examples of arborists not being "caring" arborists. We have landscapers, landscape architects, engineers, environmental engineers etc. getting the ISA CA designation so they can submit tree removal and preservation reports. We have CAs who are tree removal specialists that now deem themselves tree risk assessors because they took a two day course yet do not even know what SIA and SIM are. We have CAs who use the designation for a pay raise within their organization but not for educational purposes. We have had many chapter and ISA international board members who are owners, etc. of finance companies, equipment sales etc. and have never set a hand on a tree.
I continually see ISA CAs pumping nitrogen fertilizers into the greenest of landscapes. That is the answer. Scale, fert; drought, fert; new tree, fert; decline, fert. Never is an realistic diagnosis and remediation plan concocted.
We have schools that are often taught by people with little education or instructor training but they have hands on experience and got in through a network.
I look at this and other forums, and listen to phone calls from ISA CAs, asking questions about tree care yet they have not done the simplest tests. They do not own a soil auger, a hand-lens, a pH meter or have the knowledge of how to go about gathering information.
We can all talk about trees are good but when most tree companies do not walk the talk how is it that we ever expect the industry to be looked upon at the same level as engineers, doctors, architects or any other profession.
Perhaps the answer is to seperate yourself at the individual level rather than worrying about ISA doing it for you.
