Would certainly make it essential for every arb to aspire to the accepted
level of professional competency, caus if they didn't they wouldn't be able
to practice, Also the remaining treescape in my opinion is to valuable
resource to be generally at the mercy of Jo bloggs loppit and top it.
Furthermore I believe the tree owner would by default receive better more
objective advice from the licensed operators. It's a shame that you, all be
it jokingly think that arbs want to remove trees. But the LA TO would have a
valuable role in checking on licensed operative's relevance of work. Just
think of it days out with the licensed operatives seeing their solutions to
the tree owner's problems real or perceived, could be edifying even
stimulating!
The system as it stands, going back to the original post is certainly a long
way off the ideal where only people motivated by a desire to help people to
live with their trees and maintaining them (the trees that is) in harmony
with their environment are allowed to advise manage trees.
To be a professional operative in today's world of legislation and
accountability is no mean feat, to combine that with an objective
conservationist mentality is almost impossible, it would be greatly enhanced
by some market place recognition. The arb assoc is doing its bit with the
directories but the vast majority of tree work and advice is carried out by
peeps who aren't at all accountable and lots of valuable trees are not and
never will be protected under the current system, so put the two together
and you really do have a where have all those valuable trees gone scenario.
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/
