Pam - I agree with you to a degree, as the best horticulturists I know are
landscapers. However, to become an LA one has to undergo a rigorous training
that virtually assures they know a little about a lot of stuff, and lot
about some stuff. I agree that in general these folks are horticulturally,
botanically, and ecologically challenged -but they have had the benefit of
some training in soils, plant science, plant ID, IPM, etc.

However, to be a landscaper (in most places and at most times) one has to
have a pick up truck, a shovel, a mower, and some gumption - formal training
of any sort be damned. No flames here please - I have billed myself as a
landscaper for a portion of my career.

I know there are tons of exceptions, but after nearly 20 years at this these
are my opinions today.
--
Mike LaMana, MS
Heartwood Consulting Services, LLC
Toms River, NJ
www.HeartwoodConsulting.net



"Pam - gardengal" wrote in message
news:eZHuc.21319$pt3.5865@attbi_s03...

"Mike LaMana" fake@MikeatHeartwoodConsultingdotnet wrote in message
...

IMO most landscapers have no idea about how to plant a tree, how to
water,
what species behave in what way, etc. Landscape Architects are slightly
better, but are not around enough to make a real difference on most
projects.

Why would you think Landscape Architects better able to assess needs of
plants installed in the landscape than those who work with them every day?
IME, LA's (in general - no flames, please) have remarkably little
horticultural knowledge, as plant husbandry or even basic ID is lacking
from
most LA curriculums. Nor are they very hands-on in the field. Of course
there are both skilled and non-skilled landscapers, but as a professional
in
horticulture myself, if I were drawing up sides, I'd go with a working
landscaper everytime before I'd ask an LA any question about plant care or
culture. Spatial analysis or layout and basic design, yes, but plant
selection or care - never.

pam - gardengal