"Billy Rose" wrote in message
...
In article giKvi.3371$r14.2381@trndny06, "Joe" wrote:

John, have you or have not taken COLLEGE LEVEL COURSES on biology, trees?
Any college level courses in natural resource departments?
Joe, competency is where you find it.

Maybe for common laborers- but nowadays, most jobs require advanced
education.



Certainly, the more immersed one
is in one's field of study, the more secure the client will feel but
just having the paper is no guarantee. Biology is, of course, the study
of life (bio - ology). John hasn't tried to conceal his back ground, it
is clearly displayed. He never claimed to be a research scientist.


A biologists is someone with at least a master's degree in biology- so he
shouldn't be claiming he's a tree biologist- at best, he may be a
semi-competent arborist- someone qualified to trim and cut trees, plant
trees, fertilize trees, etc. He ain't no biologist.



Would
you consider Luther Burbank a biologist? Jules Janick, Ph.D., Professor
of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Purdue University, writing
in the World Book Encyclopedia, 2004 edition, says: "(Luther) Burbank
cannot be considered a scientist in the academic sense." Would you deny
that he is a biologist?

There are "Certified Arborists" but John makes no claim to that either.
A cursory check on "Arborists" seems to imply that they are what they
do. It may be that some people have unmet expectations as to what
constitutes an arborist. I would presume that if an arborist didn't have
good word of mouth references, that they wouldn't last too long.

In some states like Mass. you can't go around claiming you're an arborist if
you're not licensed.

Joe