What is an arborist?

I think Arborist IS the specific term.

Tree worker doesn't cover it because the body of knowledge required isn't very broad. You can pass the CTW exam and know nothing about tree care or plant biology. The pilot analogy holds. Pilots know navigation but on heavies there is a dedicated navigator who needs to know only air navigation. The pilot has the broad base of knowledge and the practical skills. That's why navigators don't have the same title as pilots.


That's the thing, that's why 'Arborist' goes with climbing and digging along with the necessary knowledge to care for trees. It's the only title that covers the gamut of what we do. It pisses me off that people who've never gone into a canopy can be BCMAs. You can pass the CA exam without EVER even touching a tree... sorry but that's crap.

Traditionally arborists are the people who can climb trees, do surgery, evaluate health and risk and plant the right tree in the right place. Now, ANYBODY involved with trees wants that title. The ISA figured out a way to sell it to'em by copyrighting the term. In my opinion that doesn't make anybody an arborist.

An arborist combines a wide set of practical skills with a fairly wide base of knowledge involving physics, plant biology, mechanics, etc. No other job requires it and no other title covers it.
When other more general disciplines like urban foresters want to be called arborists it waters down what is a very specialized vocation. It's a way of life and deserves a special place.

If you want a concise definition it should be more specific than general. We could always say that anybody who knows something technical about trees is an arborist but that serves no purpose. So where do you draw the line?

I think climbing is where you draw the line. It's distinct, generally accepted by the public and marries the physical component with the intellectual one. No other title does that. If you don't climb but DO care for trees then we're kindred in spirit... but you can't have my job title, it's the only one I have and I'm very attached to it.

Hell never mind, do whatever, I'm gonna change mine to Arbolista anyway... sounds better.
 
[ QUOTE ]


An "arborist" is a very general term. Many people, when they see my patch say "Ok, you're an arborist...I have a question for you."



[/ QUOTE ]

Its very specific.

Its not a policeman, lawn care specialist, doctor, rocket scientist or mayor.

An arborist is more or less a specialist or one who is trained for tree care, and provides tree care. Pruning, consulting, nutrition, irritation, planning and possibly planting.

Very specific term when we look at what its not.

To nail every aspect would take a chapter that most people would never want to read in a FAQ page.
 
At this point the OP's eyes have glazed over and he is oh-so-sorry he asked the question. But it does reinforce the problems he is having coming up with a concise definition.

And Blinky, I'm am very sorry it bugs the crap out of you that I have a BCMA. Evidently you don't? That is your choice. I have worked hard in this field for a great many years. I worked hard to achieve the knowledge to pass the exam.

But gaining a certification is not what this thread was about. It was simply trying to come up with a definition of arborist for a website, presumably to inform potential clients as to what they could/should expect.

Sylvia
 
Sylvia, by no means did I intend to knock BCMAs, CAs or other certifications except in the fact that the CA certification has very little to do with climbing and to me, climbing is central to the definition of arborist. Certifications? I'm for'em, just haven't needed one so far.
But for the sake of full disclosure I'm not certified in any way with respect to trees... mental health is another matter. I was trained for the most part though, by an equally unstable BCMA who frequents this forum.

If you've stayed on the ground your whole career you have more in common with a landscaper or a horticulturist than an arborist, that's all I'm saying. Trees grow above the ground as much as they do in the ground and to see the whole picture, you have to climb... and dig.

It's a dirty, difficult, dangerous job that requires above average intelligence just to keep from getting hurt, never mind the actual tree care knowledge part. To call an arborist a climber or treeworker doesn't come close to what the occupation entails, but it does very definitely include climbing and tree work. Say you're an arborist and people will expect you to know how to fall and remove trees as much identifying them, diagnosing them or planting them.

Damn, now MY eyes are glazed over. Sometimes I just don't know when to quit.
 
I absolutely defy the average landscaper or horticulturalist to be able to walk into my job without further training since the vast majority of landscapers we come in contact with haven't a clue what are the best cultural practices for trees. A significant part of my job is answering specific questions from homeowners about the health, care and maintenance of their trees.

Your quote: "If you've stayed on the ground your whole career you have more in common with a landscaper or a horticulturist than an arborist, that's all I'm saying."

So I can't call myself an arborist, I wouldn't presume to call myself a landscaper because to me, that is implying I install turf as well as plants (although I can design a landscape), and I wouldn't call myself a horticulturist because my knowledge of herbaceous perennials is less than would be expected.

So now after 25 years in the field, dragging brush, assisting in rigging operations, operating a chainsaw, chipper, stump grinder, planting trees, removing trees, pruning trees I am, according to you, without a title SIMPLY because I don't "climb".

Sylvia
 
I know people who call themselves "arborists" who don't climb and have NEVER climbed or dig. I know people who call themselves "arborists" who could care less about trees and only care about getting paid for a really lousy job done. They discredit those who give a hoot.
 
Sylvia, please don't take this so personally, I'm not aiming at you. I didn't say you were a landscaper or a horticulturist... I'm saying you have more in common with them. Perhaps I was wrong about that... I certainly wasn't trying to offend you. You obviously know your stuff, better than me no doubt. I'm not saying you don't have a title... but you don't call yourself a pilot do you? I'm saying you need another title... a really good one.

Next week I'm going to ask 10 people what they think an arborist does. I'll wager 7 or 8 of them will include climbing or going into the canopy with a bucket. As long as I can remember, an arborist was a guy working up high in trees. We didn't call'em treeworkers or climbers, we called them arborists. Now people who don't work up high in trees want to hijack that title and for what little it's worth, I intend to stand in the way.

I'm on a tree board with two guys who have forestry degrees, one manages city trees the other is a liaison for a utility. Both have passed the CA exam but neither uses the title arborist. We prune and plant trees together but they look to me, the only arborist on the tree board, when the question is about something at height.

How do you evaluate co dominant unions at height? Lightning strikes? Repair storm damage? Do you stand on the ground with a laser and send a witless climber up to cut where you say? ...or do you send an arborist who already knows how to do those things?

Arborist is the title for people who climb as as well as care for trees on the ground. It's just as wrong for people who don't climb to want that title as it is for me to want the title of biologist or rigger. I do those things but they do not define what I do... only the title of arborist does that. In other words, I'm not looking for a title, I'm defending the one I have from being watered down by everybody that happens to have something to do with trees. There are LOTS of other titles plus you can just make up new ones. Why bastardize someone else's?

In the end, you call yourself what you want to. But if we're looking for a definition of a vocational title then we need clear boundaries to delineate scope. Climbing is an excellent, generally accepted, clear boundary.

I apologize if what I think offends you. I'm not anyone special, it's just my one opinion, I've been through this argument a few time before. I think I have a good one because the minute you remove climbing from the definition it gets murky and confusing... there are no other good place to draw a line.
 
[ QUOTE ]
We didn't call'em treeworkers or climbers, we called them arborists. Now people who don't work up high in trees want to hijack that title and for what little it's worth, I intend to stand in the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

A truth for you, but not for me. You haven't been in the business long enough.

When I first started working, we were indeed called tree workers and climbers. People would be confused and then say, "Oh, so you're a logger".

The word "arborist" was coined specifically to differentiate us and our activities from loggers in the eyes of the public. I had no troubles being called a tree climber; I have no troubles being called an arborist. Words, and the meanings of words, change with time and their usage, like everything else. What the word arborist was originally intended to convey has morphed into a much broader meaning in the eyes of the public.

When you do your test and ask people "what is an arborist", also ask them what question they have of an arborist? I am willing to be they are not going to ask you what knots you use with your climbing techniques. They will ask you a question about their trees. The number one perception and the most important in the public's mind today is that an arborist understands trees and their needs.

Dave
 
Blinky, I'm sure glad you aren't trying to offend me. I would really hate to hear it if you were.

I have no words to compete with bigotry or narrow-minded viewpoints.

Sylvia
 
Suit yourself Sylvia. I don't really have much of a reputation as a bigot or for being narrow minded though. Nor am I trying to compete. I'm simply defending something that to me, is worth defending. I have no prejudice against anybody in the green industry, like I said, I feel we're kindred. I think we all deserve more respect than we're afforded.

But since mutual respect is apparently out the window now... we do have a job title for people who do brush dragging, chainsawing and stump grinding... we call them ground workers. Something tells me that won't suit you any more than tree worker suits me though.

[ QUOTE ]
When you do your test and ask people "what is an arborist", also ask them what question they have of an arborist? I am willing to be they are not going to ask you what knots you use with your climbing techniques. They will ask you a question about their trees. The number one perception and the most important in the public's mind today is that an arborist understands trees and their needs.

Dave


[/ QUOTE ]
Excellent point and I believe you're right that they will ask questions about trees rather than climbing. That's why I say 'Arborist' is the only term that actually covers it. They will think, "this person know about my trees and can do pretty much anything that needs to be done with them". They won't be thinking, "well they can do anything as long as it's not up high in the tree".

Just so it's not lost in the argument... I have great respect for people who love and care for trees but don't climb. I gravitate toward them. More often than not they know a lot of stuff I wish I knew. Frequently I find myself wishing I had the opinion of a BCMA on specific tree problems. I have no interest in taking anything away from such a person.

What I don't want though, is to have such a person leave me in lalaland without a suitable professional title when I want to see this profession grow intelligently and ever more professional. Why does it have to be 'arborist' for everybody? Does it just sound good or what? Why not a more apt title that doesn't cloud the meaning?

If we want the public to know more about arboriculture, we should be making things more clear rather than muddying the water by including everybody that happens to want the title. Arborists have a base of knowledge and skills that could be roughly described as a mile wide and a foot deep. We have to cover LOTS of bases because the dirty dangerous part alone requires absolute focus yet we still have to understand the basics of several 'ologies' do be proficient at tree care. We do the WHOLE tree, not just breast height and below.

Problem with that is, just the going up and working part is a discipline unto itself. It's not for everybody, few people will take on the whole gamut and the ones that do deserve a definitive professional title... just like people in other equally demanding disciplines.

I don't see any arborists trying to call themselves biologists or horticulturists even though many of us wish we were both. Why can't we have our own title without having to include people who only do the ground part of the job? What's with the obsession of academic types for taking practical titles to beef up their CVs? Not that I think that's Sylvia, I don't... but it happens all the time. Is it not enough that we risk serious injury or even life for less than mediocre pay (relatively)? Do we have to give up our dignity too?

If you've never climbed, if you've never just stood on a branch and soaked up the life and beauty of the high canopy, you aren't an arborist. You may be something else, something wonderful... but you aren't an arborist. That's my belief.
 
Blinky,

Your passion on this subject is really quite motivating. You press your point most avidly, and without rancor or bigotry. I too wish that "Arborist" was title reserved for climbers.

What muddies that for me is that there are climbers who are nothing even close to being arborists, just idiots with spurs and a chainsaw. They are up in the canopy, enjoying space I would prefer belong to me, brutalizing trees I wish I could care for.

That THOSE individuals could call themselves Arborists distresses me more than, say, a wheelchair bound quadruple amputee who has found such joy with trees that they have applied themselves to gain sufficient knowledge to earn a certificate.

I am torn on the subject, I wear my "Climber Specialist" badge with greater pride than my "CA". I feel acomplishment at having both designations, I would venture that earning the certification youself would be something which would bring you some satisfaction.

I do thank you Blinky for your reasoned view, but I think the boat may have already left the dock. Sad, in a way.

Northwind
 
Northwind, you too make a compelling point. I guess I think the title 'Tree Worker' is the one that suits the guys with spurs and chainsaws but none of the 'ologies' knowledge. And I would just as soon they didn't hack on the trees around here either.
I don't think you have to ALWAYS climb to be an arborist, but you have to have done a LOT of it seen firsthand just how variable the canopies of a single species can be. You have to have walked on enough branches to know which species is brittle, which is flexible, which ones easily give up their dead wood and which will hang until the saw comes out.
It's about being intimately familiar with trees and you can't do that if you stay on the ground all the time.

And I agree, the boat has already left the dock. The academics will have their title come hell or high water because they know how to organize and control stuff like that. We will of course, continue to be the 'tree worker' bees for their superior intellect.



Shigo was a microbiologist by profession, he was an expert on decay. But clearly he was so much more than that to trees and tree people. I don't know that he ever claimed to be an arborist.
 
"bigot - One obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own...belief or opinion."

You want to go with the analogy of a pilot. Ok, let's use that. One would have to assume in this scenario that the tree would represent the plane and the pilot flies the plane. Ok, got that.

Now who takes care of the plane? Yeah, not the pilot. But professionals within the aeronautical field, whether they be A&P or whatever, what separates them from the pilot? Knowledge.

You came over from rock climbing, right? So climbing a tree probably came naturally to you. When you were first up a tree being instructed, would you have called yourself an arborist at that point? Of course not. What makes an arborist? Knowledge.

A qualified arborist can direct a non-arborist climber and achieve a very professional result that will meet or exceed industry standards.

When you try to define a word you have to isolate what is the defining component. In this case it is knowledge.

You valiantly try to defend a word "arborist" claiming that using it in a grander context will muddy the waters. You will lose your title.

When you go to see a doctor does it confuse you to have to cite which type of doctor you are going to see? They have doctorates for everything. I don't necessarily agree with this, but it is certainly not confusing nor does it lack professionalism.

With all my years of experience I actually have trouble calling myself an arborist. Being a member of TCIA, I noted they had a qualification for Tree Climber Specialist. I thought to myself "cool", I'm going to get that patch. I did. It defines me very well.

Bottom line is that the public has been told when you need tree work done properly seek out the services of a qualified arborist. They are told to do so for the knowledge that a qualified arborist possesses.

Dave
 
[ QUOTE ]
When you try to define a word you have to isolate what is the defining component. In this case it is knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

My contention is that knowledge is NOT the only defining component and in fact, it is the marrying of knowledge and practical application of that knowledge that makes one an arborist vs. something else.

If it were just knowledge, horticulturist would do nicely as it covers everything one does in terms of tree care from the ground. It's a great title, why not Horticulturist - Tree Care Specialist? Knowledge is key, risking injury is not and going places most people refuse to go even without a chainsaw is not.

That's the difference, to me anyway, Arborist is the one title that covers a person who is both knowledgeable AND does the dirty, difficult, dangerous part. It's the only one. That's why I think someone who doesn't bring those two together is not an arborist.

I don't even understand why people who've never climbed want the title to begin with. And I'm well aware that my title is now watered down and confusing... that won't stop me from contending for it though... like I said before, I just don't know when to quit.
 
Ps. I guess according to your definition, I'm a bigot. My understanding of the word has more of a prejudice flavor to it. I am, in this instance "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own...belief or opinion". But not always.
 
[ QUOTE ]


Was Alex Shigo an arborist?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a pretty good question. Whether or not he thought of himself as an arborist, Shigo, and others like him, could easily put "Arborist" on their business card if they desired to.

And there should be no question that they were arborists, based on their understanding and knowledge of trees.
 
Now I don't know what to call myself. As a rural _______ I have to wear many hats. I climb, run a bucket, PHC, risk assessment......Crane removals.

I believe it is going to take MORE than some "For Profit" organization to define what an Arborist is. At the moment it isn't a trade or even seen as a real profession. More than a few rag-tag set of rules and regulations are going to be required. The other professions have Local, national and international standards.

From now on I will go with "Local tree guy"! Thanks for clearin' up the confusion!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom