Good Things about the Arboricultural Association

[Meep]

Lets not be all doom and gloom about our Industry and the Arboricultural Association.

 

What are the benefits / good points of being a Member of the AA and/or AAAC

[Mac McLennan]

I'm not doom and gloom about the industry or the AA. Yes things are quiet at the minute, but you just need to deal with it.

 

I would think that most councils and highways agencies have heard of the AA as a recognised body, therefore if you are a member it may help you secure work/contracts.

 

I find that other commercial people don't care if you are a member of a recognised body.

 

In 'MY' experience people are more interested in the bottom line than your qualifications these days.

[Meep]

You would be surprised on how many private customers come through the AA Web Site.

[arb culture]

I like your thinking meep.

 

I'm a professional member of the AA and I like the newsletter and the arb journal.

 

I also like the way that the AA are always so helpful when I ring them with questions.

 

I like the way the AA tries to speak out for arboriculture when it comes to new legislation such as changes to HSE and planning law.

 

I like the letters after my name, especially the way that many people think that M.Arbor.A stands for some sort of masters qualification, or even chartered status.

 

I would also like to be able to say they promote good tree care through encouraging good arboricultural practice. But unfortunately the AARC and the AAAC schemes prevent them being able to do so. The AA only promote those people who are AARC or AAAC rather than helping the general public understand the myriad of other schemes/qualifications in existance, eg ISO, ISA, ICF, Trustmark, NPTC, RFS, Tech Cert, LANTRA etc. If the AA were able to be unbiased about it they could make a huge impact in helping to sort out the mess of qualifications and accreditation. Unfortunately they can only promote their own (money making) scheme. This is where the conflict of interest comes in to play.

 

Oops, sorry, I was trying to be positive.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

If okay I'll adopt something of a watching brief on this one, as I am with Andy Collins 'POLL' posting on the general forum.

 

If you want me to answer something specific that you've raised perhaps enter 'Teccie?' at the bottom of your post...d'ya think?

 

However I'm gonna respond to 'arb culture' as I'm a bit lost with his(?) posting.

 

Thanks all..

Paul

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

I like your thinking meep.

 

I'm a professional member of the AA and I like the newsletter and the arb journal.

 

I also like the way that the AA are always so helpful when I ring them with questions.

 

I like the way the AA tries to speak out for arboriculture when it comes to new legislation such as changes to HSE and planning law.

 

I like the letters after my name, especially the way that many people think that M.Arbor.A stands for some sort of masters qualification, or even chartered status.

 

I would also like to be able to say they promote good tree care through encouraging good arboricultural practice. But unfortunately the AARC and the AAAC schemes prevent them being able to do so. The AA only promote those people who are AARC or AAAC rather than helping the general public understand the myriad of other schemes/qualifications in existance, eg ISO, ISA, ICF, Trustmark, NPTC, RFS, Tech Cert, LANTRA etc. If the AA were able to be unbiased about it they could make a huge impact in helping to sort out the mess of qualifications and accreditation. Unfortunately they can only promote their own (money making) scheme. This is where the conflict of interest comes in to play.

 

Oops, sorry, I was trying to be positive.

 

 

Hi 'Arb Culture',

 

Thanks for your post and I'm glad you 'like' some of what we do for you as a member. However, sorry, but I'm a bit lost with your last para.

 

REALLY SORRY to disect your post, and maybe I haven't done so in the best way, but I want to try to understand so I can provide a better reply:

 

"I would also like to be able to say they promote good tree care through encouraging good arboricultural practice. But unfortunately the AARC and the AAAC schemes prevent them being able to do so."

= are you saying these schemes prevent/inhibit us from engaging with others in the industry thereby restricting the encouragement of good arb practice from all?

 

"The AA only promote those people who are AARC or AAAC rather than helping the general public understand the myriad of other schemes/qualifications in existance, eg ISO, ISA, ICF, Trustmark, NPTC, RFS, Tech Cert, LANTRA etc."

= how would this help the point above about promoting good tree care or is it highlighting a separate issue about the AA better informing clients about the various 'awards' etc. that are available and what fits where? (If so the 'Choose Your Arborist' leaflet seeks to do this to some extent.)

 

"If the AA were able to be unbiased about it they could make a huge impact in helping to sort out the mess of qualifications and accreditation. Unfortunately they can only promote their own (money making) scheme. This is where the conflict of interest comes in to play."

= I guess the first part of this relates to the point above. I f however we could help to sort out the 'mess' as you refer to it this would be for the benefit of all, not just ACs & RCs, would it not?

The scheme itself seeks to promote 'good tree care' and I'm sure any contractor having previously gone through the system will confirm this. Sorry. maybe the lightbulb's just switched on, are you meaning we should promote all contractors undertaknig good tree care and not just ACs & RCs? If so how do we know if they don't present themselves for audit/assessment?

 

I'm now thying to third and fourth guess, never mind second, so I'll await your response...thanks!

 

Paul

 

PS You refer to the scheme as 'money making' and, if I may, I'd just like to reiterate that whilst I acknowledge it costs a lot of money for contractors to go through the assessment process, I reckon, on average as assessors costs (expenses) to the AA vary dependent upon location and timing etc., the 'surplus' generated is less than £25 per assessment. We are not looking to 'make money' at all BUT have to cover costs and generate a surplus to survive.

[arb culture]

Paul, I may have made some wrong assumptions about the AA; I'll think on it and get back to you when I've got a bit more time.

 

For now though,

 

"maybe the lightbulb's just switched on, are you meaning we should promote all contractors undertaknig good tree care and not just ACs & RCs? If so how do we know if they don't present themselves for audit/assessment?"

 

really sums up what I'm trying to say, and also highlights the inherent difficulty of achieving it.

 

By the way, well done for coming on here, you are doing an excellent job answering everyone's questions. None of my comments are in any way intended to criticise you or your work.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Paul, I may have made some wrong assumptions about the AA; I'll think on it and get back to you when I've got a bit more time.

 

For now though,

 

"maybe the lightbulb's just switched on, are you meaning we should promote all contractors undertaknig good tree care and not just ACs & RCs? If so how do we know if they don't present themselves for audit/assessment?"

 

really sums up what I'm trying to say, and also highlights the inherent difficulty of achieving it.

 

By the way, well done for coming on here, you are doing an excellent job answering everyone's questions. None of my comments are in any way intended to criticise you or your work.

 

Cheers 'arb culture', glad we are proving to be of at least some help by posting here...NOT before time tho eh?! ("better late than nevaaa"???...hope so!)

 

I'm more than happy to receive any and all (constructive) criticism that allows the AA to learn and move forward, AND to better represent the industry....this is my/our only motivation!

 

The issue of improving accessibility to 'approval' status, for those who see benefits in so doing, is under serious consideration at the moment and, along with the feedback received from the recent consultation exercise we undertook, I'm very positive and optimistic a way forward will be achieved (THANKS to yours, and your colleagues here on the forum, valuable feedback so far!)

 

All the best and I look forward to your further 'postback' when you get a mo.

Paul

[Meep]

I like your thinking meep.

 

I'm a professional member of the AA and I like the newsletter and the arb journal.

 

I also like the way that the AA are always so helpful when I ring them with questions.

 

I like the way the AA tries to speak out for arboriculture when it comes to new legislation such as changes to HSE and planning law.

 

I like the letters after my name, especially the way that many people think that M.Arbor.A stands for some sort of masters qualification, or even chartered status.

 

I would also like to be able to say they promote good tree care through encouraging good arboricultural practice. But unfortunately the AARC and the AAAC schemes prevent them being able to do so. The AA only promote those people who are AARC or AAAC rather than helping the general public understand the myriad of other schemes/qualifications in existance, eg ISO, ISA, ICF, Trustmark, NPTC, RFS, Tech Cert, LANTRA etc. If the AA were able to be unbiased about it they could make a huge impact in helping to sort out the mess of qualifications and accreditation. Unfortunately they can only promote their own (money making) scheme. This is where the conflict of interest comes in to play.

 

Oops, sorry, I was trying to be positive.

 

Almost there

[Meep]

Any more Good Things ???