[ QUOTE ]
12) I'm trying to make some sense out of program that is totally optional but is often made mandatory by certain city officals. Many city's have incorporated the requirement to be certified hoping it will curb the ruination to their trees.
I understand. This is the only tool at their disposal at this time to separate professionals from the hackers. We need standards and better yet…REGULATORY LAWS to remove the illegitimate tree care provider from the market place. This might not be popular, but until we regulate tree care we will always have the “ball and chain” of the pickup truck and chain saw guy around our necks!
[/ QUOTE ]
BCMA, Thanks for taking the time to rewrite your post. It is so tempting to lash out with anger. Taking the time to state your views is of much greater benefit.
I quoted these two paragraphs from Sohner and you because this is one of the primary end goals of certification, preventing bad tree work. I don't see regulatory laws as being successful. You don't have to look very far in our industry to see that some of the areas with the heaviest regulations, Europe for instance, are still plaqued with horrendous hack jobs.
I personally think that we need to set our sights on a longer road which involves educating of a younger generation in the science of arboriculture. From a very early age kids are taught the basics to get them through life. Trees are part of our life also.
If people can recognise that topping trees is unnecessary and in fact unhealthful for the tree, they would no longer ask for it to be done. I do not believe we will ever be able to stop the husbands, sons, brothers and friends from helping out or doing side jobs to make ends meet, nor should we try. We are trying to encourage quality work. Many of us have gotten our start with a pickup truck and a couple of saws.
So in my opinion we don't need more regulation, we need more education.
Dave
