Our industry

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Is this where I tie myself in knots trying to draw lines in the continuum of arb?

 

The thread wasn't intended to debate the relationship between the practical and theorectical roles. Nor the moral serendipity of the working man.

 

The point was to discuss how the theoretical industry is viewed by other professionals. The planner, the ecologist, the architect.

 

I don't think we need to examine individual job titles.

 

There is an expression that springs to mind

 

"thats all well and good in theory, but what about the actual practicality?"

 

I would LIKE to consider myself a professional, i would like to think there is more to me than just practicality, i am trying to become as much a theorist as an actual realist, i would also like to think the two are compatible, but the industry seems not to.

[Amelanchier]

I've given serious thought to deleting all the derails in this thread just as an experiment to see whats left. I reckon I could get it down to 5 pages.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

I've given serious thought to deleting all the derails in this thread just as an experiment to see whats left. I reckon I could get it down to 5 pages.

 

LMAO!

 

I missed the NOT part in the quote!

 

sorry tony I realy did try to get back on the topic!

 

How do other profesionals view you lot? mmmm, well isnt the ICF the only chartered category in "tree industry":001_huh:

[Rupe]

I've given serious thought to deleting all the derails in this thread just as an experiment to see whats left. I reckon I could get it down to 5 pages.

 

What's a derail?

[High Scale]

Somebody's tired.

[Andy Collins]

....was to examine the context of Arboriculturalists (rather than Arborists)

Now is it Arboriculturalist..... or Arboriculturist? I recall having a lengthy discussion over this title a while back. Apologies for the slight derail.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

LOL, Im listening Tony, start over!

[arb culture]

Is this where I tie myself in knots trying to draw lines in the continuum of arb?

 

The thread wasn't intended to debate the relationship between the practical and theorectical roles. Nor the moral serendipity of the working man.

 

The point was to discuss how the theoretical industry is viewed by other professionals. The planner, the ecologist, the architect.

 

I don't think we need to examine individual job titles.

 

I think other professionals recognise that the arb sector is so fragmented that it is almost impossible to view it as a whole.

 

Instead, individual arbs are recognised for what they are. Some are tree huggers who think every tree is sacred, some seem to be happy to fell everything, some are trying to form a balanced educated opinion, some are extremely well qualified and experienced - and some are not, some are highly client focussed - and some are not.

 

The various qualifications and accreditions are way too complex for most non arbs, and are often ignored unless there happens to be one which they recognise.

 

This applies to TOs, Consultants, and Tree Surgeons alike (please feel free to replace any job title with one which causes you the least offence).

 

Formal and widely recognised quals such as BSc, and MSc help, as does the new Chartered Arboriculturist status.

 

But there has never been a voice which properly represents our sector, and while this continues we will not be recognised in the same way as other professions such as forestry, ecology, planners etc.

[Bundle 2]

I think other professionals recognise that the arb sector is so fragmented that it is almost impossible to view it as a whole.

 

Instead, individual arbs are recognised for what they are. Some are tree huggers who think every tree is sacred, some seem to be happy to fell everything, some are trying to form a balanced educated opinion, some are extremely well qualified and experienced - and some are not, some are highly client focussed - and some are not.

 

The various qualifications and accreditions are way too complex for most non arbs, and are often ignored unless there happens to be one which they recognise.

 

This applies to TOs, Consultants, and Tree Surgeons alike (please feel free to replace any job title with one which causes you the least offence).

 

Formal and widely recognised quals such as BSc, and MSc help, as does the new Chartered Arboriculturist status.

 

But there has never been a voice which properly represents our sector, and while this continues we will not be recognised in the same way as other professions such as forestry, ecology, planners etc.

 

So this is what you meant when you said "less differences between than within" ? Cos to be honest, I may be having ( another) blond moment but I really made no sense of the comment phrased as it was....

That there seems to be across the wider spectrum of "its all trees" you are saying the various disciplines appear to overlap. That in this way it is less separated than individual arbs for the reasons you state above. I think I am in agreement with you post above.

[arb culture]

So this is what you meant when you said "less differences between than within" ? Cos to be honest, I may be having ( another) blond moment but I really made no sense of the comment phrased as it was....

 

I thought I might need to clarify that one. What I mean is this:

 

To say someone works in forestry tells us very little about what they do. They might be; a qualified teacher taking school groups around the forest, a land agent making money out of buying and selling parcels of forest land, a GIS expert working on mapping the forest resource, a wildife expert working on a particluar species in a particular location, a psychologist integrating mental health or prisoner rehabilitation into our national forest management policy... the list is very very long and very very diverse.

 

Likewise, to say someone works in arboriculture tells us little. Are they; a planning specialist, a works manager, utilities worker, arboretum manager, researcher, subsidence specialist, expert witness, equipment supplier, teacher?

 

I suspect that (in general) a forest works supervisor and an arb works supervisor would have a lot more in common than either of them would with an arb officer working for an LPA. Hence the bigger difference within both arb and forestry than between them.

 

However, there are some important differences between arb and forestry - qualifications, accreditions and representation being some.

 

The important thing though is that as long as we are a divided and subdivided sector without a representative voice we will continue to be viewed as less professional than other sectors.