Becoming and Arborist

[ropensaddle]

I do not need ISA anything to know about safety, its mostly there in the work laws we have. I can't stand the thought of giving them my money. You will be the same man after the test Rope, you will just have C.A. after your name. But, you are a real treeman, which is more than I can say for many of those ISA culls.

You are absolutely right on you not needing it for safety.
Canopy and proper training has supplied you with that.
I would talk with the management where you work to
see if they have a eap that may pay for your fees
and literature! The idea being learning the rest of the
industry to prepare for stronger career opportunities
in your future. Think of it as becoming part of and
learning more about the trees you are in everyday,
and to learn how to give back to your passion of
treework! Or end up like I did put in 100% most of
your adult live, to get screwed over by the nephew
of the manager being handed his title at his retirement
party! I respect the work you do and don't want to
separate you from being all you can be with learning
all you can and having clearance: ca utility specialist
bs in forestry masters in horticulture by your name
you will have more opportunity I promise!

 

[Mitchell]

Bcma

"I don't think it is asking a lot; climbing trees without stressful time constraints or removal demands is not a hard thing to do with all the MA devices/systems out there.

I agree, and say this to other consultants and nonclimbing arborists all the time. Some do climb. Some don't--their loss, but it does not make them less than us Lords of the Saddle.

We're hearing narrow biases on what defines the ideal "arborist" or "tree man", from ornamental specialists to utility specialists to removal specialists. Is there a point in saying one is truer? It's not us and them. It's all US.

Vaden and treeseer from your posts I know you two have forgotten more then I know about trees. In the mean time I keep reading and listening.

The ideal arborist would have to climb. As you know on the west coast of NA the stands [whats left anyways!] are comprised of massive tall trees having their own ecology in the canopy. The only way to interact with them is to get up there.

Keeping with an aviation analogy, when one says pilot or aeronautical engineer, it implies certain skill sets.

The point I am driving at is I think we need to redifine what an arborist is. Any one who works with low lying vegetation and trees is a horticulturist. Why not just call them that. This is not to take anything away from anybody; just clarification. Perhaps the ISA should be the ISHA [International society of horticulturists and arborists].

 

[clearance]

Thanks Rope, I appreciate your concern. It kind of funny, or sad, that an ISA utility specialist would have more say and get more respect.

1) I worked over 1200 hours around power (like really worked, up beside the three phase, all that), went to school for six weeks over two years, and then wrote a few tests. Now I have to do a test on the computer every two years. Thats to become and stay a certified utility arborist, an actual trade.

2) ISA utility specialist-has to have been around utilty treework for a bit (whatever that entails...). And then writes a multiple question test that he has to get 75% on.

Think I could do #2? Just joking now.

 

[ropensaddle]

Thanks Rope, I appreciate your concern. It kind of funny, or sad, that an ISA utility specialist would have more say and get more respect.

1) I worked over 1200 hours around power (like really worked, up beside the three phase, all that), went to school for six weeks over two years, and then wrote a few tests. Now I have to do a test on the computer every two years. Thats to become and stay a certified utility arborist, an actual trade.

2) ISA utility specialist-has to have been around utilty treework for a bit (whatever that entails...). And then writes a multiple question test that he has to get 75% on.

Think I could do #2? Just joking now.

Clearance; I feel you could do anything you set your mind to doing!
The way I understand the test is: you must first study and pass
certified arborist in twelve domains before testing to get utility specialist.
Anyway; if I was you I would check to see if your company has employee
assistance and if they do get all you can behind your name it only
hurts to not try!

 

[M.D. Vaden]

Vaden and treeseer from your posts I know you two have forgotten more then I know about trees. In the mean time I keep reading and listening.

The ideal arborist would have to climb. As you know on the west coast of NA the stands [whats left anyways!] are comprised of massive tall trees having their own ecology in the canopy. The only way to interact with them is to get up there.

I try to look at statements from both sides, and apply the ideas to as many situations as possible, to see if any ideas hold-up, poop-out, or could be thought of differently.

One thing that came to mind, was an earlier reply that in essence said that the authority or the expert is going to be the one in the tree. It wasn't till today that I remembered that I have not seen a CA climber arborist OWNER climb each tree done by one of their employed arborists to determine the competence of the work.In other words, it's available to see and know a heck of a lot from the ground.

Then the "need to climb" for the skyscrapers of tree work came in consideration too. I was trying to think of comparisons that were useful, without twisting matters. What I've seen for a couple of days, is some climbers promoting that you have to virtually do and know all that can be done with trees, to the greatest limits, to really be an arborist.

Then I recalled firefighting. To apply the same logic - or mislogic as I say - a firefighter of an urban residential area, would not really be a firefighter unless they had done virtually everything involved with firefighting. They would need to be trained and have experience for warehouses, real skyscrapers, and for forest fires. Since forest fire fighting frequently involves flying very large aircraft, and releasing water and fire retardant, that also would have to be done by ANY firefighter, for them to REALLY be a firefighter. And that would include getting the pilot license. Such reasoning also mandates that each firefighter would need to continuously do every size and type of firefighting, and keep and use any and all equipment.

Most firefighters get a lot of training, but it's certain that there are specialties and specialized equipment from department to department.

Soon we see that it's just some arborists that try and manipulate ideas and reasoning that way. Physicians don't.

Can you imagine a family physiciaan only being a real physician if he did everything and had all the equipment used in the medical field. He'd have to be fully trained in brain surgery, heart surgery, dentistry, etc.. Because that's exactly what it would take to apply the logic that climbers are trying to use, about defining an arborist.

So no - nobody has to climb to be an arborist. Likewise, a climber does not have to use an orchard ladder or hand pruners to be an arborist.

All they have to do, is be trained in proper tree care, be experienced, and work safely and competently with whatever size and scope of work they decide to undertake.

That's called common sense and flexibility. And that common sense is what a lot of the real-world is using.

Can you imagine a kitchen remodeling specialty contractor or a single level home builder not being a REAL contractor because they don't build high rises. Can you imagine the laughing to scorn that would be aimed at a high-rise builder who tried to make people think that a typical home builder was not a contractor? Or that a kitchen remodeler was not a contractor.

The situation would be both embarrassing and confusing.

That leads me to wonder what kind of ego or fear, leads people to miss the common sense logic that society can effectively succeed when people specialize and work within the limits of their knowledge and equipment.

Basically, I've never heard this kind of "have to do it all to be one" reasoning from any profession except some climbers.

Remember, arboriculture IS horticulture. In addition, what an arborist IS has been defined by what "arboriculture" is. When tree workers really get honest about all this, what needs to be defined is tree professional's reasoning, not what an "arborist" is.

Your posted mentioned the "ideal arborist" - it ain't a climber.

If a climber wants to retire from climbing and provide consulting and estimating, if they give it 100% in that niche, they are the ideal arborist. If another arborist decides to switch to starting a company like Big Trees Today in Oregon, and specialize in tree planting and large tree transplanting, if they give it 100% they are the ideal arborist. If another arborist decides to specialize in diagnosis, pesticide control and organic tree care, if they give it 100%, they are the ideal arborist. And if a climber decides to specialize in climbing giving it 100% in that niche, they are the ideal arborist.

Please leave yourself open to reconsidering that "perfect" does not equal "everything".

The firefighting example earlier, or contractors or phycians, were written to show just how big of a burden some climbers want to place on the arboriculture trade. They want to impose their will on the tree trade, to remove flexibility, and hand-cuff many arborists to the notion of MUST DO ALL to be considered a REAL aborist. It's sort of an imperial mindset, since it places an impossible burden on THE WHOLE.

 

[clearance]

That leads me to wonder what kind of ego or fear, leads people to miss the common sense logic that society can effectively succeed when people specialize and work within the limits of their knowledge and equipment.

Basically, I've never heard this kind of "have to do it all to be one" reasoning from any profession except some climbers.

The problem is, as I have said many times in this thread, is when people work (supervise) outside thier limits of knowledge.

They do not have to climb (do it all) to ask people what to do, but they should leave the "how" alone, because they don't have the knowledge. Think about it.

 

[Mitchell]

No offence ment

I try to look at statements from both sides, and apply the ideas to as many situations as possible, to see if any ideas hold-up, poop-out, or could be thought of differently.

One thing that came to mind, was an earlier reply that in essence said that the authority or the expert is going to be the one in the tree. It wasn't till today that I remembered that I have not seen a CA climber arborist OWNER climb each tree done by one of their employed arborists to determine the competence of the work.In other words, it's available to see and know a heck of a lot from the ground.

Then the "need to climb" for the skyscrapers of tree work came in consideration too. I was trying to think of comparisons that were useful, without twisting matters. What I've seen for a couple of days, is some climbers promoting that you have to virtually do and know all that can be done with trees, to the greatest limits, to really be an arborist.

Then I recalled firefighting. To apply the same logic - or mislogic as I say - a firefighter of an urban residential area, would not really be a firefighter unless they had done virtually everything involved with firefighting. They would need to be trained and have experience for warehouses, real skyscrapers, and for forest fires. Since forest fire fighting frequently involves flying very large aircraft, and releasing water and fire retardant, that also would have to be done by ANY firefighter, for them to REALLY be a firefighter.

Soon we see that it's just some arborists that try and manipulate ideas and reasoning that way. Physicians don't.

Can you imagine a family physiciaan only being a real physician if he did everything and had all the equipment used in the medical field. He's have to be fully trained in brain surgery, heart surgery, dentistry, etc.. Because that's exactly what it would take to apply the logic that climbers are trying to use, about defining an arborist.

So no - nobody has to climb to be an arborist. Likewise, a climber does not have to use an orchard ladder or hand pruners to be an arborist.

All they have to do, is be trained in proper tree care, be experienced, and work safely and competently with whatever size and scope of work they decide to undertake.

That's called common sense and flexibility. And that common sense is what a lot of the real-world is using.

Can you imagine a kitchen remodeling specialty contractor or a single level home builder not being a REAL contractor because they don't build high rises. Can you imagine the laughing to scorn that would be aimed at a high-rise builder who tried to make people think that a typical home builder was not a contractor? Or that a kitchen remodeler was not a contractor.

The situation would be both embarrassing and confusing.

That leads me to wonder what kind of ego or fear, leads people to miss the common sense logic that society can effectively succeed when people specialize and work within the limits of their knowledge and equipment.

Basically, I've never heard this kind of "have to do it all to be one" reasoning from any profession except some climbers.

Not trying to argue semantics. I would just prefer the trade/profession of "arborist" to be be a climbing one. That way when some one opens the phone book etc they know what an arborist can do. You don't need to call an arborsit to get help with your trees, plants or low lying vegetation whatever the problem. You do need a climbing arborist [or tree guy] to get help when disorders/ defects are present in the upper canopy. That's an inescapable fact that I would prefer implicitly understood and recognized.

Sure ego plays some role, but I think that is OK, I want someone to appreciate who is on the other end of the line when they call.

For me, it is not at all about who is "better." Right now the truth is the general public would better understand who they are hiring if I said I was a tree topper. I want a title other then "tree topper" that people understand.

On a side note as I happen to have background in wildland and structural fire; every firefighter is expected to be able to respond to whatever fire may bring. Air tanker guys do not think of themselves as fire fighters, rather pilots that happen to work fires.

 

[M.D. Vaden]

The problem is, as I have said many times in this thread, is when people work (supervise) outside thier limits of knowledge.

They do not have to climb (do it all) to ask people what to do, but they should leave the "how" alone, because they don't have the knowledge. Think about it.

Most of that makes sense, the not working outside their limits.

As for the "how", let's say there is a broken limb 40 feet in the air. There can be several ways to get it down. Lower it with a rope, "bomb it down", support and move with a crane, or dissect in small pieces.

The most critical aspect is that the limb needs to be pruned-off and the cut done properly. That part might be good to consider "THE CORE" of arboriculture and being an arborist.

I was checking out some established definitions of arborist again just to see what several sources list...

ar·bori·cul·ture (är′bə rə kul′c̸hər, är bôr′əkulc̸hər)

noun

the scientific cultivation of trees and shrubs

The cultivation of trees and shrubs, chiefly for timber or for ornamental purposes.

Origin: L. Arbor tree + cultura. See Culture.

Source: Websters Dictionary

Arboriculture is the selection, planting, care, and removal of individual trees, shrubs, vines, and other perennial woody plants and the study of how they grow and respond to cultural practices and the environment.

The purpose is generally to manage trees, usually in a garden or urban setting, for plant health and longevity, pest and pathogen resistance, risk management and ornamental or aesthetic reasons. In this, it needs to be distinguished from forestry, which is the commercial production and use of timber and other forest products from plantations and forests. Arboriculture can be considered to have a similar relationship to forestry as gardening has to agriculture.

Some definitions of the term arboriculture extend it only to the care of trees.

Following is from ISA's site, and it has a very important word in it that sums up the matter "INDIVIDUAL TREES" and the safety and equipped aspects. That's why an arborist is an arborist no matter what size they specialize in. Large trees are INDIVIDUAL TREES and one person can do that safely and properly. Small trees are also INDIVIDUAL TREES and those need to be done safely and properly.

That's where some climber's thinking deviated from this logical approach. Some climbers have substituted LARGE trees in their reasoning to replace INDIVIDUAL trees.

Why Hire an Arborist

An arborist is a specialist in the care of individual trees. Arborists are knowledgeable about the needs of trees and are trained and equipped to provide proper care. Hiring an arborist is a decision that should not be taken lightly. Proper tree care is an investment that can lead to substantial returns. Well-cared-for trees are attractive and can add considerable value to your property. Poorly maintained trees can be a significant liability. Pruning or removing trees, especially large trees, can be dangerous work. Tree work should be done only by those trained and equipped to work safely in trees.

 

[M.D. Vaden]

Not trying to argue semantics. I would just prefer the trade/profession of "arborist" to be be a climbing one. That way when some one opens the phone book etc they know what an arborist can do. You don't need to call an arborsit to get help with your trees, plants or low lying vegetation whatever the problem.

Yes, now you are stating what I wrote about some climbers preferring to impose theire "will" as in what they prefer.

It's not what culture and profession prefers.

When people open a phone book to Physicians, they don't want ONE heading.

That's why Physician lists add sub-headings and descriptions to their ads.

In landscaping, landscapers may only want to do irrigation, so there is a heading for that. If not, they have the right to pay for a DESCRIPTION.

As we can see from how professionals in advertising have accomodated this, and other professions effectively specialize, there is no problem. Except to those who "want" to see it one way.

I don't know anybody who goes to the phone book to get a definition.

Also, we now see CLIMBING Certified Arborists who are also license landscape contractors. And they deserve the FREEDOM to add into their arborist / tree service advertsing that they offer those addtional services.

You seem to have a very narrow idea of what an arborist company should be advertising for. And that's not my opinion. You basically said it yourself.

And a lot top level professionals are not going to allow that kind of thinking to constrain their ability to communicate. That's why I was using the vocabulary in earlier posts about "handcuffing" or "freedom" etc.. - however I phrased it, but that's the essence.

 

[clearance]

M.D. stop the semantics, word games. "Most" of my last small post makes sense? What part doesn't? As for the "how", know what, I'll remove it how I want, 'cause I can.
How about this, there is a broken but still attached limb hanging 1' above a 25kv three phase, and it has to be climbed, there is no access for a bucket truck?

 

[M.D. Vaden]

M.D. stop the semantics, word games. "Most" of my last small post makes sense? What part doesn't? As for the "how", know what, I'll remove it how I want, 'cause I can.
How about this, there is a broken but still attached limb hanging 1' above a 25kv three phase, and it has to be climbed, there is no access for a bucket truck?

Is there?

No problem, get an arborist trained to handle that niche.

As to "arboriculture knowledge and ability" a bunch of arborists of all kinds can recognize the need for it to be done safely.

Get the right specialist and the right number of them, to work on that INDIVIDUAL tree (refer to last post about "individual trees").

As far as semantics, there's no way to get around that in a title, because nothing is more semantical than a title.

If getting to the root of what words and titles should mean starts to irritate people, it may be because their ideas are being dismantled into component parts to see those in pieces and as an entire concept.

I just did the same thing with Feng Shui the other day for my site. I dismantled one aspect of Feng Shui where is says not to use dried flowers because they are dead. Then I continued to supply that many dried flowers have seeds which contain life and that the dried flowers are designed to contain and disperse that life. Now that won't change Feng Shui, but it will help to understand whether Feng Shui is going out of bounds with it's statements. The Feng Shui approach virtually contradicts its own promotion of harmony. If something should not be used because its dead, then remove all the wood furniture, floors and picture frames from the home, because its a dead part of a what was a living tree. The Feng Shui folks just like to pick and choose, but don't adhere to a principle that even means what they say.

 

[Mitchell]

no war drums here

Yes, now you are stating what I wrote about some climbers preferring to impose theire "will" as in what they prefer.

It's not what culture and profession prefers.

When people open a phone book to Physicians, they don't want ONE heading.

That's why Physician lists add sub-headings and descriptions to their ads.

In landscaping, landscapers may only want to do irrigation, so there is a heading for that. If not, they have the right to pay for a DESCRIPTION.

As we can see from how professionals in advertising have accomodated this, and other professions effectively specialize, there is no problem. Except to those who "want" to see it one way.

I don't know anybody who goes to the phone book to get a definition.

Also, we now see CLIMING Certified Arborists who are also license landscape contractors. And they deserve the FREEDOM to add into their arborist / tree service advertsing that they offer those addtional services.

You seem to have a very narrow idea of what an arborist company should be advertising for. And that's not my opinion. You basically said it yourself.

And a lot top level professionals are not going to allow that kind of thinking to constrain their ability to communicate. That's why I was using the vocabulary in earlier posts about "handcuffing" or "freedom" etc.. - however I phrased it, but that's the essence.

I'm not martyring myself over this issue by any means Vaden. I think we could be saying, judging by your analogies, the same thing. I propose that some one hiring an arborist, like visiting a Physicians, can have certain expectations all under one heading.

I have no problems agreeing to disagree. Not for second do I propose to limit any one from what they can offer business wise or want to pursue for personnel growth. I do not advocate a club of secret hand shakes.

I would not expect every one who gets into a tree to "let loose the dogs of war." Rather, just that they can use many of the widely available systems for ascending if required. Not they have to, just that they could. It is not asking for much; it is a very simple operation to ascend most trees with a bit of gear and training. Besides, it is fun as hell to boot.

 

[M.D. Vaden]

I'm not martyring myself over this issue by any means Vaden. I think we could be saying, judging by your analogies, the same thing. I propose that some one hiring an arborist, like visiting a Physicians, can have certain expectations all under one heading.

I have no problems agreeing to disagree. Not for second do I propose to limit any one from what they can offer business wise or want to pursue for personnel growth. I do not advocate a club of secret hand shakes.

I would not expect every one who gets into a tree to "let loose the dogs of war." Rather, just that they can use many of the widely available systems for ascending if required. Not they have to, just that they could. It is not asking for much; it is a very simple operation to ascend most trees with a bit of gear and training. Besides, it is fun as hell to boot.

Actually, I always thought it was odd, that "arborist" was not a heading in the Yellow Pages. I think it may be now in a few places, and maybe showing up on the online version of Yellow Pages.

I'm not sure what the fix would be. "Tree Services" seems insufficient, unless it has a sub-heading of Certified Arborists, etc..

If Certified Arborist is in another part of the book, it's going to work out real bad for them because of what people look under.

COLOR SYMBOLS would be grand. There could be a few symbols in a legend near the heading, like a color tree symbol for tree care, and a color symbol for landscaping.

Then arborists could choose to pay a few extra bucks to have the symbols added in their ads if they offer several services.

Symbol for trees.
Symbol for spraying
Symbol for planting or landscaping
Symbol for consulting or planning.

Then people could visually scan for the symbol they need - a lot easier than reading the text.

About the ascending thing...

Yeah, that would be too much for me. Why? Because I enjoy hiking in the redwoods for fun, and standing in the small trees for trimming. Like that flowering cherry tree I posted a few pages back. So the point being, I don't work on huge trees, and I don't want the gear. So why should I buy gear I don't want? I hire climbing Certified Arborists and they have the gear. You tell me what is wrong with hiring totally capable people who have the gear - what's wrong with that?

And at least one would be glad to let me use his gear. But I don't ask, because I don't feel the urge. Personally, when an arborist comes to help, I much prefer to toss on my PPE and handle the ropes. May sound strange to some, but I enjoy the rope part.

That's because one of us, or both, has other workers hucking the limbs, so switching to "groundie" for me is near recreational.

 

[treesandsurf]

I've heard rumors that the ISA is currently in the process of developing an online version of the Certified Arborist exam. Also heard it will be more expensive...

jp

 

[M.D. Vaden]

I've heard rumors that the ISA is currently in the process of developing an online version of the Certified Arborist exam. Also heard it will be more expensive...

jp

Treesandsurf....

Drops in like a bolt of lightening from another web haven for tree care !!

Didn't notice your handle here before, but I may have been more into text than into user names and avatars.

Hey, I'd like to see how they do that securely.

I was on Oregon's landscape board for two terms, and it gaurds its test like Fort Knox.

They don't do it online, but do offer to send it to the Oregon Dept. of Motor Vehicles office for a $5 or $10 proctor fee. It's still on paper, but people don't have to drive to Salem.

But at the Dept. of Motor Vehicles office, there is a state employee monitoring the test room, and it can be kept clean of notes and most cheating.

An online test - say if I could tap into it right now from here - would enable me to read from my book, look up tree photos on my second computer or browser to answer ID, or even worse, have another arborist next to me to help with the questions.

If a test can't be proctored with overseers, it may well be a disaster. Probably why the Landscape Architects have a secure test too.

 

[clearance]

Treesandsurf....

Drops in like a bolt of lightening from another web haven for tree care !!

Didn't notice your handle here before, but I may have been more into text than into user names and avatars.

Hey, I'd like to see how they do that securely.

I was on Oregon's landscape board for two terms, and it gaurds its test like Fort Knox.

They don't do it online, but do offer to send it to the Oregon Dept. of Motor Vehicles office for a $5 or $10 proctor fee. It's still on paper, but people don't have to drive to Salem.

But at the Dept. of Motor Vehicles office, there is a state employee monitoring the test room, and it can be kept clean of notes and most cheating.

An online test - say if I could tap into it right now from here - would enable me to read from my book, look up tree photos on my second computer or browser to answer ID, or even worse, have another arborist next to me to help with the questions.

If a test can't be proctored with overseers, it may well be a disaster. Probably why the Landscape Architects have a secure test too.

I will not speak to the Oregon Landscape test, sounds like you guys run a tight ship and insist on high standards. We have beefed here M.D., but you do nice work, and are the man for nice gardens and estates.

As far as the ISA test online, based on some of the ISA people I have had the misfortune to deal with, I think that the ISA has nothing to worry about, if people cheat and get in, who will be able to tell the difference? Jeez, maybe some real treeguys could get in, I mean we are just dummies that run saws, after all, thats why we need the ISA guys to supervise us, we'd be lost without them.

 

[Mitchell]

climbing

About the ascending thing...

Yeah, that would be too much for me. Why? Because I enjoy hiking in the redwoods for fun, and standing in the small trees for trimming. Like that flowering cherry tree I posted a few pages back. So the point being, I don't work on huge trees, and I don't want the gear. So why should I buy gear I don't want? I hire climbing Certified Arborists and they have the gear. You tell me what is wrong with hiring totally capable people who have the gear - what's wrong with that?

Have you tried it climbing much Vaden. Baring serious vertigo, anyone that enjoys hiking the redwoods wood love to hike in them. Like I said, it is not hard, and the gear is relatively cheap. Hiring out the climbing job just make sense if you don't have the time or same skill set to complete the job. No one is getting rich from climbing after all.
I would just rather have the title of arborist signify you could/have climbed a regular run of the mill tree when needed. It is just one part of tree care but in my mind it is integral.
Cheers

 

[M.D. Vaden]

Have you tried it climbing much Vaden. Baring serious vertigo, anyone that enjoys hiking the redwoods wood love to hike in them.

Yes.

What got to me, was that I never got to feeling comfortable about my equipment. Always had this nagging nervousness. My climber friend wouldn't joke with me about it, but he did say that you have to trust your equipment.

Now it's got to be my feeling about equipment. Because oddly enough, I trust a tree.

If there is a Douglas fir growing in a field that's branched low, and branched thick, I have no problem recreation climbing to 100'. I despise being on extension ladders, even against a house. Yet I find trees much more stable, and when limbs go up like ladder work, I feel like a solid tree with solid wood is better than a ladder.

But I can't explain why, but I haven't accepted to trust the gear, even though it's trustworthy.

Also, I've annihilated my back. I'm nimble on my feet due to soccer days in my 20s, and still virtually hop and skip my way down a hiking trail. I can practically run the obstacle course across barnacled rocks at the ocean's edge. But when I have to bend and squeeze through spots, I'm rediculously inflexible. Add that to a heavy frame, and climbing would not be very recreational to me.

I mean, I almost have to lean to one side somedays to get my sock on, because I have to one hand it - frequently can't bend forward to pull a sock on.

Amazingly, I can still handsaw almost non-stop with a Silky or ARS, but every couple of months, there are a few days I have to use my right hand to lift my left hand onto the steering wheel.

Literally.

And the odd part is, with the aches and pains, I can still work like the Dikkens. It's just that I have to watch how I move - everything is deliberate movement.

I moved to southern Oregon hoping to quit, because of aches and pains. But what happened by doing sales - and I had no way to know - was the "not working" for a living hurt 3 times worse than working for a living. So in less than 6 weeks, I went back into business one more time and decided I could handle the pain if I pace myself. In fact, I don't think I'll want to or need to retire.

But now we have to get the "H" back up near Portland to where my niche can flourish rather than idle.

It's a bit of a pain, because I'd never have moved had I known, but I've never gone more than 2 weeks without work working since I was 19 years old, around 1979 or so. Just no way to have known what would develop.

 

[Mitchell]

arborist in my book

Yes.

What got to me, was that I never got to feeling comfortable about my equipment. Always had this nagging nervousness. My climber friend wouldn't joke with me about it, but he did say that you have to trust your equipment.

Now it's got to be my feeling about equipment. Because oddly enough, I trust a tree.

If there is a Douglas fir growing in a field that's branched low, and branched thick, I have no problem recreation climbing to 100'. I despise being on extension ladders, even against a house. Yet I find trees much more stable, and when limbs go up like ladder work, I feel like a solid tree with solid wood is better than a ladder.

But I can't explain why, but I haven't accepted to trust the gear, even though it's trustworthy.

Also, I've annihilated my back. I'm nimble on my feet due to soccer and virtually hop and skip my way down a hiking trail. But when I have to bend and squeeze through spots, I'm rediculously inflexible. Add that to a heavy frame, and climbing would not be very recreational to me.

If you have done it and could do it then that qualifies in my book, thats all i'm asking. Some folks are suited to the removals some are not. If you had to you are capable of getting up and having a looksee.

You do learn to trust your gear; it takes time. You just have to experience the feeling of a side loaded biner slipping into its long axis a few times. Myself, I keep a recording running in my head that basically repeats "if my gear breaks or the tree fails I'm dead so why stress about it." No sane person is ever completely comfortable up high, that's normal. It is also normal for folks to feel more at ease with foliage around them then with out.

I hate ladders. In my other life as a professional fire fighter we use up to 45 foot ground ladders. They are massively strong [and heavy] but I have never trusted them like I trust a tree.

 

[M.D. Vaden]

If you have done it and could do it then that qualifies in my book, thats all i'm asking. Some folks are suited to the removals some are not. If you had to you are capable of getting up and having a looksee.

You do learn to trust your gear; it takes time. You just have to experience the feeling of a side loaded biner slipping into its long axis a few times. Myself, I keep a recording running in my head that basically repeats "if my gear breaks or the tree fails I'm dead so why stress about it." No sane person is ever completely comfortable up high, that's normal. It is also normal for folks to feel more at ease with foliage around them then with out.

For me, it's been long enough, that I'd need to practically start from scratch.

Once we get to Portland area again and get the cash flow moving better, I may buy some climbing gear, but not for doing contracting of trees.

I know an arborist up there who can work with me.

It may be a work-out, but I would find it amusing at least. Recreational? Maybe once I'm up in the canopy.

See, I've tossed around the idea about replacing my 385 XP that I sold a few years ago with the same, or up to a 3120 XP "just because" - I can find a use, even if it's helping the other aborist buck-up something.

But considering how little it would be used, that $1100 could provide a decent investment in gear. I could also loan it to my better known arborist friends too - the few I trust.

So sure, I'm game for reaching the big canopy again.