What is an "Arborist" anyways?

'Arbor' is the Latin word for 'Tree', so to clarify things a little - an Arborist is really just a Treeist...if that helps.

But seriously, are you wondering what the term arborist literally means or what the title itself indicates, or are you just messing around?
 
oh, I see.

My guess is that he, being with the Forest Service, considers himself in a separate field as he deals with forests and not individual specimens. But I can tell you this...he knows more about trees than just about anyone.

"Arborists generally focus on the health and safety of individual plants and trees, rather than managing forests(the domains of Forestry and Silviculture) or harvesting wood. An arborist's scope of work is therefore distinct from that of either a forester or a logger, though the professions share much in common." - Wikipedia
 
When I was deep into breeding reptiles there was a debate. Many called themselves Herpetologists, and others called themselves herpticulturists. The distinction was defined by actively studying and doing research with reptiles, vs breeding, general husbandry, and keeping them in a controlled environment. I feel that this same argument could be applied to arboriculturist vs arborists, but I feel that it is really just splitting hairs.
 
Ha, ha, I didn't mean to be confusing on that other thread about being an arborist. I think of an arborist as a member of that paying profession that cares for trees. Maybe that fits me too! Thanks John_KAYS for your support. Not relevant to anything at all, perhaps, but Alex Shigo never called himself an arborist or arboriculturist. When I met him, his business cards for the Forest Service said "Chief Mycologist". Most of his research peers during his FS career considered him a forest pathologist.

I shouldn't get hung up on labels. I might be just a tad defensive in that I've been told that arboriculture is just a sideline for me because I don't actually prune/fertilize/climb/ etc., or make a monthly payroll for those that do. I've been told that I don't understand what it takes to support oneself doing those things. That all could well be true. I'm certainly not "certified". And my job evaluations are based on publications, primarily in research journals and (very) secondarily on trade or practitioner publications like TCI, Arborist News, Consulting Arborist, etc.

I probably shouldn't be defensive that way. I've also said publicly that I'm not a real dendrochronologist even though I've been on the executive board of the Tree Ring Society, (the primary research society for dendrochronology) for more than a few years. My dendrochemistry work has been featured by the American Chemical Society, but I don't have the nerve to call myself a "chemist". So this is a character defect of mine, to shove off criticism in advance. I should stop doing that. I'll try to do better.

In my internal fantasy world I probably call myself a "Tree Biologist". That has applications for arboriculture, pathologist, forestry, dendrochonology, etc. My official government title is "plant physiologist". Most of my fellow researchers consider me a forest pathologist or mycologist.
 
KTSmith said:
I'm certainly not "certified".
Click to expand...

Yeah Kevin is not certified so he doesn't have the credentials and knowledge that any certified arborist has...he must be a step down from a certified arborist...
NO WAIT!
  • University of Georgia, Department of Plant Pathology, Ph.D. Plant Pathology and Mycology, 1982
  • University of New Hampshire, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, M.S. Botany and Plant Pathology, 1979
  • Connecticut College, Department of Botany, B.A. Botany, 1976
Okay he's just not 'ISA' certified cause those credentials look pretty impressive to me.
 
An arborist is simply a person that makes a living working with residential trees. It was originally intended as a job title that would separate us from loggers.

Kevin, in my opinion it would be a great disservice to call yourself merely an arborist. You are so much more.
 
I always figured that an arborist is an expert in the care and management of single, or small groups of trees, as opposed to a forester, who takes more of a 10,000 foot altitude overview, managing and overseeing significantly larger groups of trees. We're all fortunate that there are so very many different job niches for people who love working with trees.
 
I think as Kevin proves, being an "Arborist" does not make you the foremost authority on trees. I do think it is worthwhile to make the distinctions, and I think the generally accepted definition of the word "Arborist" would likely include a provision about doing the work of caring for trees. I think that many of the greatest contributors to Arboriculture have not been "Arborists". A Tree Biologist or Plant Physiologist will almost always have a trove of tree knowledge that dwarfs an Arborist's. It's like the difference between an Electrician and an Electrical Engineer. No one would consider Electrical Engineer the lesser of the two titles.
 
cerviarborist said:
I always figured that an arborist is an expert in the care and management of single, or small groups of trees...
Click to expand...
Exactly, which is why the focus on killing trees as our primary job makes me wish there was a different term for that specialty.

O and an experienced arborist will almost always have a trove of practical tree knowledge that can inform a A Tree Biologist or Plant Physiologist, no matter how many capital letters you use. Lots to learn between the specialties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom