arb culture

Not all of us get our hands dirty. That's the point I was making earlier. To say someone is an arb tells us very little about what they do. Tree officer, consultant, surveyor, expert witness, works manager, office manager, admin assistant - all people who generally don't get their hands dirty but who still work in arb.

Unfortunately not. Do you?

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.

What a brilliant bit of English - loving it. You should get grumpy drunk more often, raising the linguistic bar of the forum whilst you're at it.

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.

I agree. As someone with quals and experience in forestry, arboriculture and urban forestry, I see considerably less difference between the disciplines than within them. To most of my clients I am simply the 'tree man' - and I'm quite happy with that. Continued division and subdivision only harms our industry/sector/discipline (choose whichever offends you least) by weakening our collective voice.

What do you mean by homegrown:confused1:

Sorry about going off topic a bit Tony, but is there any agreed definition of arboriculturalist, arboriculturist, arborist etc?

Maybe you can do both! Having phase 1 and arb survey skills is worth a lot of money to the right people. Remind me, when's your foray, and are there any spaces left?

Absolutely agree with you. Trouble is though that arbs keep fighting among themselves rather than pulling along together. I sometimes wonder what the layman thinks when you get two or three qualified arbs all looking at the same tree and all coming to very different conclusions.

I had to do one for a tree survey. It basically said that I was going to wander around looking at trees and if I hurt myself(in the process of walking around looking at trees) so badly that I couldn't drive home I'd call an ambulance. I still can't work out a sensible reason why someone wanted me to write that down. Somebody once joked that we will have to risk assess the process of writing a risk assessment. Unfortunately it's not a joke, it is already happening - especially with tree surveys.

Back in the real world, I quote according to what is required, if a client wants excessive paperwork they can pay for it -I don't mind.

I dread to think what HSE nonsense is needed to make a cup of tea these days: Risk assessment, Electrical equipment safety cert, Food handling cert, Appropriate fire safety documents, first aid kit, first aider, appropriate ppe, adequate insurance... As making a cup of tea is statisticaly more dangerous than the risk of being killed by a falling tree, perhaps we should undertake a quantified risk asessment for making a cup of tea whilst we are at it?

Let us know how it goes.

I'm all in favour of LPAs creating their own SPGs, but they really do need to make sure they do it democratically. To try and hold a document up as an SPG when it is nothing of the sort is not good.

Ah, I think I've understood it now. Inclusional arboriculture is a religion, and the bits you don't understand you simply make up to satisfy some spiritual desire. This theory/belief is aided and supported by lots of rhetoric and a liberal sprinkling of pseudoscience. Because it's a religion rather than a scientific theory, I'll not dispute it, because that's not polite.

I found this on Selby website the other day... http://www.selby.gov.uk/upload/Protecting_Trees_Yorkshire_100622.pdf It's not adopted by the council using any democratic procedure, but they still insist on trying to use it as some kind of planning document. I get really annoyed at this sort of thing. Once again some arb (or group of arbs) somewhere has cobbled together something based on their own subjective opinion claiming it's based on 'evidence' and 'research', and that it is the opinion of a particular group - when really a small number of indiviuals (or even just one person acting on their own) have just made something up off the top of their head without consultation. Our industry is never going to get out of 'the dark ages' if this kind thing is allowed to carry on. Sorry, rant over for now.

Hello all, I've got a tree officer problem at the moment. I don't think this guy has ever spent time on the tools and he can't seem to understand how good a tree can look next to a building if it is pruned properly. Have any of you got nice pictures of trees close to buildings. Ones that you've pruned would be really good. Thank you!

I've just read the whole document. To be honest I wish I hadn't bothered, I've got far better papers waiting to be read. There is absolutely nothing - not one thing - in the whole doument which is not better explained by existing evolutionary theories. I personally think people should make the effort to make sure they understand evolutionary theory before trying replace it with something else.

Just got my latest copy of the arb journal. There's a couple of good articles by Marcus in there along with an interesting one on QTRA target assessment and one by Mark Johnson on TTII. Anyone else got theirs yet? Any thoughts?

It's not a book, and neither is it only fungus relating to trees, but this site is superb! Rogers Mushrooms | Mushroom Pictures & Mushroom Reference

I went completely OTT. I wrote down everything I could think of, no matter how insignificant. I didn't think the assessment was very realistic, but you've got to do what they want to get the ticket. So, do what they tell you - start at the top and work down (or vice versa) and pick up on every single anomoly or defect. Then pretend money is no object to the theoretical client and also that every tree is sacred, and you should do okay.

Really interesting, and very definitely worthy of a first - well done! Just out of curiosity, what management would you now suggest for an early stage infection of syringae on a horse chestnut in a public and well used space?

Tony, I know what you mean, but Tommer says he has done years of studying theology. I'd be really interested in hearing his sources on where christianity comes from. Hopefully this can be done in a tactfull and sensitive way. I personally don't want to debate the existence of god one way or another on here, but I'm always on the lookout for new and interesting reading material.