Isa website so bad it’s embarrassing

[Matias]

I think that the ISA is a bit of a racket, but I also believe that some people need to be protected from themselves, and some people need to be protected from scammers and conmen. I hate the idea of telling people what they can and can't do, but there are so many assholes that will fuck things up for a lot of other people, and will do so thoughtlessly.

If you oppose the idea of the ISA, then how about the electrical code? building code? Most rules are written in blood, and lots of it, and the notion that an industry as dangerous as ours shouldn't have an organization like the ISA or TCIA is akin to my desire for there to be no government at all. It is a wonderful imaginary utopia, but as realistic as the idea of a communist democracy.

 

[Boomslang]

I think that the ISA is a bit of a racket, but I also believe that some people need to be protected from themselves, and some people need to be protected from scammers and conmen. I hate the idea of telling people what they can and can't do, but there are so many assholes that will fuck things up for a lot of other people, and will do so thoughtlessly.

If you oppose the idea of the ISA, then how about the electrical code? building code? Most rules are written in blood, and lots of it, and the notion that an industry as dangerous as ours shouldn't have an organization like the ISA or TCIA is akin to my desire for there to be no government at all. It is a wonderful imaginary utopia, but as realistic as the idea of a communist democracy.

The problem is the ISA has no teeth. It's entirely voluntary to join and participate in. There are no legal ramifications. Electricians are educated and licensed. Same with carpenters, plumbers, and most trades. If you don't have your ticket you're likely not getting a job, at least not a stable, reputable one. We need a defined apprenticeship and licensing program in our industry and that's what ISA should be pushing for, but it's usually left to the local chapters to initiate and follow through on.

I don't believe the ISA itself is useless, but the headquarters certainly seems to be. From their tax filings the only non-profit/NGO research group they seem to support is the TREE Fund, to the tune of ~$60k a year, which is a pittance when you consider the C-suite salaries amount to $1 million annually and they receive such benefits as personal maids, chefs, drivers, and fly charter and first class.

 

[Reach]

But if they don't spend the effort to protect the certs, then the certs value will fade out of existence.

Around here, I already consider the certs to be pretty well worthless. There are too many people who claim to be CAs in all of their marketing materials, who are not. In fact, one of those people is an active member on this site. It frustrates me to no end, I do not claim to be a CA, but I do tell people that I am a Professional Arborist if they ask if I am an arborist.

 

[ATH]

I don't care about the regulation stuff. Glad we are not a heavily regulated industry. Was thrilled I was able to build in an unzoned township. Glad the city I live in doesn't enforce electrical code for single family residential, etc...

I value the ISA because they help US (at least ME) become better arborists. I go to the Ohio Chapter conference every year because I learn something new.

People hire us because we base the work on our knowledge. Unfortunately, there are other tree companies other people hire because they either think they know or pretend they know what they are doing, and don't...so I get the purpose of "regulating" that. Ideally, ISA would do a better job marketing the CA brand and a better job policing misuse of that brand. If people looked for Certified Arborists because they knew that was in their best interest, that would be the ideal. I'm guessing @Reach would have no problem being a CA if there was market value to it. There is in my market...but understand every place is different. Fortunately, I don't see that false advertising around here.

 

[Reach]

I don't care about the regulation stuff. Glad we are not a heavily regulated industry. Was thrilled I was able to build in an unzoned township. Glad the city I live in doesn't enforce electrical code for single family residential, etc...

I value the ISA because they help US (at least ME) become better arborists. I go to the Ohio Chapter conference every year because I learn something new.

People hire us because we base the work on our knowledge. Unfortunately, there are other tree companies other people hire because they either think they know or pretend they know what they are doing, and don't...so I get the purpose of "regulating" that. Ideally, ISA would do a better job marketing the CA brand and a better job policing misuse of that brand. If people looked for Certified Arborists because they knew that was in their best interest, that would be the ideal. I'm guessing @Reach would have no problem being a CA if there was market value to it. There is in my market...but understand every place is different. Fortunately, I don't see that false advertising around here.

If there was value in being a CA, I certainly would be. I could probably pass the test today, or at least tomorrow after I brush up on a few terms I haven't used in a while. I haven't bothered to take the test because it's not worth the effort to keep the cert up, with it having so little value.

I know that I am more knowledgeable than most of the CAs or alleged CAs in the area, so I sell with my knowledge, not with a title because they're just isn't much worth to the title, due to the terrible dilution problem around here.

It's great that the CA is more valued in your area, I wish it were here. Sounds like you live in a great place. I live in one of the wealthiest counties in the country, but on the very edge and on a little private lane that allows the few of us here to live as if we were in an unregulated area. I like it, I'm not a big fan of regulations myself.

 

[Boomslang]

If there was value in being a CA, I certainly would be. I could probably pass the test today, or at least tomorrow after I brush up on a few terms I haven't used in a while. I haven't bothered to take the test because it's not worth the effort to keep the cert up, with it having so little value.

And I only keep up my cert because it is so low effort

I'm not sure how useful it actually is, there are a few contracts come up that require a CA, but it's a nothingburger to maintain for marketing purposes. I go to our chapter conference every year, which I would do regardless, because it's educational and an enjoyable networking experience. I compete or volunteer at TCCs because I meet great people and learn new and different techniques (plus an excuse to write off some travel). Those get me all the CEUs I need without really doing anything I wouldn't normally do. The recert fee works out to $75/year, which is nothing. I even keep my utility cert going despite not having worked in that industry for 7 years because it's cheap and has come in handy on at least two occasions I can remember where it was a requirement of the contract. I just have to be mindful of which CEUs I'm getting when I attend conferences for that one.

 

[Matias]

I hate rules regulations as much as the next guy, but you guys do understand that the rules weren't really designed with you guys in mind, right? They are written as a means of accounting for the lowest common denominators. You know... idiots.

We can't let idiots build shitty houses that may be destroyed by a big storm and become flying debris that could kill innocent people, or damage your well built home. A single 2x4 through your window during a torrential downpour could be a catastrophe, and without rules that force them to be adequately insured, you have no real recourse.

We can't let idiots wire up their own houses because they could end up starting a fire that burns most of the city to the ground.

It's soooo easy to say that you wish that those stupid rules weren't in your way when you wanna do things 'the right way', but what about when someone else's stupidity comes around to bite you?

 

[Reach]

I hate rules regulations as much as the next guy, but you guys do understand that the rules weren't really designed with you guys in mind, right? They are written as a means of accounting for the lowest common denominators. You know... idiots.

We can't let idiots build shitty houses that may be destroyed by a big storm and become flying debris that could kill innocent people, or damage your well built home. A single 2x4 through your window during a torrential downpour could be a catastrophe, and without rules that force them to be adequately insured, you have no real recourse.

We can't let idiots wire up their own houses because they could end up starting a fire that burns most of the city to the ground.

It's soooo easy to say that you wish that those stupid rules weren't in your way when you wanna do things 'the right way', but what about when someone else's stupidity comes around to bite you?

My issue isn't the rules so much as the lack of enforcement of the rules. If there is going to be a rule, it must be applied to everyone equally. A rule that only applies to those who want to keep it is completely worthless.

However, when it comes to property rights, I am of the opinion that someone should be allowed to do pretty much anything they want on their own land. If you wish to live in an HOA and abide by those rules that's fine, but if you want to live out in the country where you don't really have neighbors, you should be allowed to do so without constraint. If you decide to build a garage that falls down on your own head, it should be your own fault, and that's it. For that and many other reasons I think about moving to northern Alaska someday.

 

[Matias]

My issue isn't the rules so much as the lack of enforcement of the rules. If there is going to be a rule, it must be applied to everyone equally. A rule that only applies to those who want to keep it is completely worthless.

However, when it comes to property rights, I am of the opinion that someone should be allowed to do pretty much anything they want on their own land. If you wish to live in an HOA and abide by those rules that's fine, but if you want to live out in the country where you don't really have neighbors, you should be allowed to do so without constraint. If you decide to build a garage that falls down on your own head, it should be your own fault, and that's it. For that and many other reasons I think about moving to northern Alaska someday.

While I fundamentally agree, what are your thoughts on my example regarding wiring up your lonely cabin in the woods? What happens when some asshole cheaps out on their wire, and ends up setting their house on fire, and then the forest fire burns down your house? What about the value of that forest to the surrounding community? What about the city to the East that has to live in the smoke for weeks until the fire finally dies down? My community has faced these issues, so I am not asking hypothetically. Our shitty neighbor ended up being the power company, so luckily we were able to pursue them in court and get a lot of people paid back, but good luck getting some broke asshole with a burnt down property to give you anything.

 

[Reach]

While I fundamentally agree, what are your thoughts on my example regarding wiring up your lonely cabin in the woods? What happens when some asshole cheaps out on their wire, and ends up setting their house on fire, and then the forest fire burns down your house? What about the value of that forest to the surrounding community? What about the city to the East that has to live in the smoke for weeks until the fire finally dies down? My community has faced these issues, so I am not asking hypothetically. Our shitty neighbor ended up being the power company, so luckily we were able to pursue them in court and get a lot of people paid back, but good luck getting some broke asshole with a burnt down property to give you anything.

That is a case where things go beyond personal liberty, and affect others, therefore rules do make sense. Unfortunately it is not a simple and easy answer one way or the other.

 

[Matias]

That is a case where things go beyond personal liberty, and affect others, therefore rules do make sense. Unfortunately it is not a simple and easy answer one way or the other.

100%, but just like heavy rigging, I think it's just good prudence to err on the side of caution.

One thing I have come to appreciate about my local legislators is that they like to write in this clause at the end of each codified law that states that there is no 'duty to enforce'. In other words, if you're not an asshole, then the rules don't have to apply to you. This has so far only worked out in my favor, as I present as a cis white male of sufficient means, but I can think of a few groups of people that don't get the freedom I have experienced. It's a legitimate conundrum; always comes back to enforcement. I can't think of an instance where a large group of people were able to resolve that issue without violating people's human rights. I don't really have a good answer myself, which is a big part of why I don't see any of this 'civilization' stuff ending well for most people. I tried to stay out of it, but that turned out to be more work than participating.

 

[Mick Dempsey!]

While I fundamentally agree, what are your thoughts on my example regarding wiring up your lonely cabin in the woods? What happens when some asshole cheaps out on their wire, and ends up setting their house on fire, and then the forest fire burns down your house? What about the value of that forest to the surrounding community? What about the city to the East that has to live in the smoke for weeks until the fire finally dies down? My community has faced these issues, so I am not asking hypothetically. Our shitty neighbor ended up being the power company, so luckily we were able to pursue them in court and get a lot of people paid back, but good luck getting some broke asshole with a burnt down property to give you anything.

This is a very good point.

 

[data farm 26]

"We're living in a society!!!!"

Seriously though, I love my freedom and liberty, but we need electric codes for sure. No man is an I-sland!

ANSI and OSHA fulfill that pretty in regard to tree work well here in the states, imo. ISA and TCIA is not necessary in my little world.

 

[Matias]

"We're living in a society!!!!"

Seriously though, I love my freedom and liberty, but we need electric codes for sure. No man is an I-sland!

ANSI and OSHA fulfill that pretty in regard to tree work well here in the states, imo. ISA and TCIA is not necessary in my little world.

That's right, OSHA should be enforcing the Z; don't know how I could forget. The thing is, I think the A300 should be codified into law too. Trees are more valuable than dogs, and the law prohibits you from abusing your dog. Obviously, nobody will see what happens to your dog behind closed doors, but try beating your dog out in the front yard and see what happens. It should be similar when you abuse a tree, especially considering that is could be there for countless generations.

OSHA also is vastly understaffed, at least around here, and everyone I have ever worked for knows that and openly tells their employees not to worry about OSHA unless you are working near main roads in the one main city (Chico). If it worked like construction, we wouldn't need to rely on OSHA catching people in the act, we would have mandatory inspections by inspectors from each locality. The permit and inspection costs just get baked in to the bid, and all that extra money funds further enforcement. People do things differently when they know for sure that someone will be checking at some point to make sure everything is being done right.

I feel it bears repeating that the rules are not supposed to feel super helpful to a good operator that seeks to do the best work possible because they take pride in their work, they exist to protect the uninformed from the unscrupulous, the poor from the greedy. The rules are meant to prevent death and disaster, but also to help shape our collective future into something better. When those rules are adopted as common sense, they cease to feel like an intrusion on our freedoms.

Let me ask everyone here:
If you are a good safe operator, and you follow the pruning BMP, what would your concerns be if there was greater enforcement of existing standards?

 

[ATH]

"We're living in a society!!!!"

Seriously though, I love my freedom and liberty, but we need electric codes for sure. No man is an I-sland!

ANSI and OSHA fulfill that pretty in regard to tree work well here in the states, imo. ISA and TCIA is not necessary in my little world.

So you would be good if all tree care operations fell under OSHA's regulations for the logging standard? That is where we would be if it wasn't for TCIA and ISA right now...

 

[ATH]

That's right, OSHA should be enforcing the Z;

No, OHSA should write their own standards for tree care and enforce those. Yeah, it should probably look a look like Z133, but that's not their document.

Let me ask everyone here:
If you are a good safe operator, and you follow the pruning BMP, what would your concerns be if there was greater enforcement of existing standards?

On one hand I'd be good with that. On the other I know the reality is that those of us who are committed to doing this the right way will bear the burden of that cost and the jacks will likely keep going as usual. For example pesticide licensing: your required to have a commercial applicator's license to apply pesticides commercially. That involves a test, can tune education, a license fee, an extra insurance. I am periodically inspected to make sure all of the records are up to date. The people applying without any license don't pay extra for insurance and don't get inspected... And I've never heard of your partner of agriculture coming at any of them with a heavy hand.

 

[data farm 26]

So you would be good if all tree care operations fell under OSHA's regulations for the logging standard? That is where we would be if it wasn't for TCIA and ISA right now...

Yes. As a self-employed person with no employees at the business, OSHA has no bearing on my life.

 

[data farm 26]

No, OHSA should write their own standards for tree care and enforce those. Yeah, it should probably look a look like Z133, but that's not their document.


On one hand I'd be good with that. On the other I know the reality is that those of us who are committed to doing this the right way will bear the burden of that cost and the jacks will likely keep going as usual. For example pesticide licensing: your required to have a commercial applicator's license to apply pesticides commercially. That involves a test, can tune education, a license fee, an extra insurance. I am periodically inspected to make sure all of the records are up to date. The people applying without any license don't pay extra for insurance and don't get inspected... And I've never heard of your partner of agriculture coming at any of them with a heavy hand.

Since it has the potential to cause major harm to other entities if misapplied, I am a big fan of strict control on pesticides. I was surprised when I dabbled in it years ago, there was no regulation in reality. A lot of laws on the books but yeah, never heard of anyone getting busted! The easiest way with that would be to control supply, imo. But it seems like anyone can buy the juice and let it loose! That's not cool...

 

[ATH]

Since it has the potential to cause major harm to other entities if misapplied, I am a big fan of strict control on pesticides. I was surprised when I dabbled in it years ago, there was no regulation in reality. A lot of laws on the books but yeah, never heard of anyone getting busted! The easiest way with that would be to control supply, imo. But it seems like anyone can buy the juice and let it loose! That's not cool...

Agreed... On all points. Control needs to be in place to keep off target impacts from happening, and there is very little strong control.

I guess my point was: those who follow the rules bear the cost, while those who don't bear no cost and are not punished for it.

 

[Matias]

It seems the issue is that there aren't enough people being sufficiently affected by the 'bad actors'. If there were enough people being harmed in a way that's easy to see, there would probably be more demand for stronger enforcement.