Posted by Mike Brunk on March 4, 2008, 8:38 am, in reply to "Illinois Tree Licensing Act Discussion"
72.135.217.208
I am surprised at the negative response to this bill. For a profession to be considered important enough for a state license law it has to be considered an advanced professional that requires skilled people. This consideration by the state is rare! Many professions would give their eye and first born for such a law, just ask any Landscape Architect. I see this as a great opportunity especially if we can get our two cents added to the law. If passed it is likely the law wont be perfect but it will be easier to change an existing law than to create new law, so its a foot in the door. I think the Tree Expert Licensing Act is good. But I would like to see some tweaking
1) Tree Expert title is dated and the public has been educated to look for certified arborist titles. I would argue we change Tree Expert to Certified Arborist, especially considering the law deals with urban trees. Foresters and traditional timber management are exempt and tree and limb felling as in traditional forestry is not a safe practice in urban situations. Also the law is for "shade and ornamental" trees and certified arborist diagnoses is better focused on public safety than a foresters timber management expertise. I also believe that college accreditation should be limited to "Urban Forestry" schools for these same reasons.
2)Why exempt governmental agencies, especially municipalities where people live and work under trees. Cities have the highest target zones for tree catastrophes and should therefore be considered a necessary component of this law. Dido for public utilities. I see so much over pruning which promotes the tree to flush aggressive growth towards power lines. Following good arboricultural practices reduces the reactionary growth, and therefore can reduce utility hazards. Utility pruning is some of the most dangerous tree work in the state, which I also believe to be a valid reason to include them in this binding law.
3)Change six month grace period to 24-36 months.
4)Licensing Board should include an IAA rep considering IAA is an ISA chapter and they are the certifying agency 5)Tree Board is to have two commercial arborists one of which has to be a pathologist and one a entomologist. I suggest we separate these and have two commercial arborists on the board as well as one pathologist and one entomologist. I think it important to have commercial experience on the board for purposes of hearings on license suspensions.
6)Maybe IAA should consider a lawyer who is versed in writing legislation and get him together with a legislative committee to see this legislation through the process. We utilized such a lawyer in our utility legislation a number of years ago.
Lets not let policing limit us from taking advantage of a rare opportunity. The knowledgeable public many times report non complying professionals to the appropriate state dept. Also those that are licensed are watchful and help regulate those that break the practice laws. I for one think the law is very good for our profession and that it would be a plus even with limited policing.
Mike Brunk
Urbana City Arborist
706 S. Glover Ave.
Urbana, IL 61802
217-384-2393
mjbrunk@city.urbana.il.us
| 125 |
