[VoodooChile]

Agla, your link is reassuring...rshipul, your experience in Ct. is not.

The ASLA link and agla above both make the valid point that when public safety is at risk, a licensed professional with specific and proven technical experience should oversee the design. Hard to argue with that.

On the other hand, setting an arbitrary budget number like $50,000 to determine who gets to design a residential landscape completely skirts the real issue, who is qualified to design the landscape?

I've never designed or installed a 50K project, but I maintain a few that cost more than 50 large and were designed and had the installation supervised by LAs. Based on how these designs have held up and matured in the real world, there is no guarantee that a LA would perform any better than a committed but non-degreed garden designer at planning and supervising the installation of functional, beautiful plantings that will succeed and mature well.

Maybe with a LA degree, the probability that the plantings will succeed goes up, but it surely isn't a guarantee. In fact, in one specific instance the mono-cropped plantings and disregard for exposure, deer browse, and presence of Black Walnuts, indicated a lack of conscientiousness, imagination and plant sense that made me wonder, does LA training sometimes get in the way of sound design, at least from the perspective of what plant will work best?

Not to put words in your mouth, but agla I think you intimate the same point when you write:

I grew up in a landscaping family and did mot get my LA degree until I was 35 and got licensed at 38, so I my heart and sole is with the young guys/gals that want to find their niche in the green industry. Exclusion makes sense when it comes to health and safety, but not when it is to create monopolies. I had the opportunity to put a wheel barrow in the back of a rust bucket pickup and did so. I made a lot of nice gardens and made a lot of people happy as I experimented and learned what could not be learned in a book (or from the web).

Anyway, again, I'm not disrespecting the LA degree...I've got a few degrees myself, and recognize what a tremendous amount of work and accomplishment it is to earn a LA degree.

Oh well, Friday night, time to go eat some fish, drink some beer, and forget about this!

[agla]

No one has said anything in this thread that I do not 100% agree with. Price of a landscape job should not determine who is qualified to design it. Consumers should be able to determine who they feel is qualified to design their landscapes at least to the point where issues that are already regulated come into play (Civil Engineering, Building Code, Wetlands, ...).

If and when a state determines that an LA can perform some of these, they have to have the education, experience, and examination results to support the areas of practice that they will be allowed. Most states use the same exam system which is pretty tough.

I don't like the idea of over regulating to protect the consumer from his own ignorance. I don't think there should be licensing for landscape designers. I think this industry is such a broad one that covers the most simple yard tasks to very complicated engineering and construction. You simply can not come up with a reasonable cut off point where it can be determined that someone has a minimal level of competency. Does it end at knowing how much rebar needs to be in a 4" patio slab, or how to properly operate a leaf rake? Do you know what I mean? Sure you can determine what someone needs to know to perform a certain task in the industry, but you can never determine or define which of those skill sets is needed just to be in the industry.

The bottom line is that we in the industry all need to work close to our abilities and not get way over our heads. I say close to our abilities because it is important to expand our horizons and gain in our experiences rather than only doing what we have already done. The consumer has a responsibility to himself to hire people that have a track record or can otherwise demonstrate their competence. The government has a responsibility to protect the public health and safety (at least to a point) and to stay out of the way and let the free market happen. The industry is also smart in having professional associations with codes of conduct and certification programs for those that want to participate and for those consumers that want help in trying to determine who might be right for their job.

It is up to us to determine how we make a living and how best to be able to be competent and viable. We can have that old pickup and wheel barrow that I started with and be happy and provide services people need and want. We can go to school if we want. We can get certifications if we want. we can work for ourselves or others. The beauty of the industry is that there are so many ways to be part of it and still make it. We can make it only because for each of these is a consumer that wants what each of us does - no more and no less.

I hate the thought of a 95 year old lady not being able to pay the off duty firefighter $10 to knock down her lawn and having to pay a licenced landscape contractor $45 instead. As long as he wants to do it for $10 and the old lady is not expecting a horticultural genius to pimp her place out. I also think that the horticultural genius ought to be able to find work where he is needed and be well compensated for it. If he can't it is only because the market does not value his skills. It has nothing to do with firefighters working part time (sorry, Ken, my brother who hates moonlighting firemen).

I feel like I, as a Landscape Architect, can compete with landscape designers that did not follow the same path as I did (with or without my stamp). I also feel that many of them can compete with me no matter how they learned their craft. Sometimes I fit one consumers needs better and other times they do. I don't need or want a law that forces someone to hire me because no one else is allowed.

At the same time, why should I have to be forced by law to hire a Civil Engineer to draw contour lines and calculate drainage if I am adequately educated, experienced, and tested? That is what the practice law acts that I read are looking to do.

Make sure to read any of these acts and not rely on rumors and misinterpretations. I sure would not like the one that rshipul described. I hope that was not what was being proposed, but I also hope that it was not misinformation that was spread around either. The only state I know that has something similar to that is Oregon and it is nothing to do with the LA licensing, but separate licenses for contractors and designers. Oregon is either a state full of do good bureaucrats or they have a population of pitiful people that need to be protected from themselves to the point of rediculous (no, they are not allowed to pump their own gas!).

Long live the free market.

[r schipul]

I kept the legislation I mentioned above around for years so I would have a copy in case it ever came up again. After holding onto it for 6-8 years, I decided to get rid of it. You never know when you might need it again. I never should have joined GTX. At the time, it was a big deal with both the CT Nursery and Landscape Association(CNLA) and APLD both following it and the APLD asking their member's to speak against it. This got me thinking about another similar thing going on right now. For the last year the CT Arborists and the CNLA have been battling it out in Hartford because the CT Arborists have been trying to pass legislation which would make it illegal for anyone other than a licensed arborist to care for a tree taller than 15'. Not just trimming but any type of care whether it can be done from the ground or not including fertilizing and Plant Health Care. As you could imagine the CNLA is pissed. Their biggest beefs are: 1. It's membership regularly is planting trees larger than 15' and giving warranties on those plants but would not be able to maintain those plants without calling in a certified arborist. 2. They believe there membership is fully capable of providing care to trees as long as they have the 'Turf and Ornamentals' applicators license and not spraying more than 15'. There are many more reason's for concern but those are the two biggest. I'll keep you posted.

[Stonehenge]

Originally posted by r schipul
I never should have joined GTX.

LOL!

[r schipul]

For not being a techno and not have any teenage kids around to ask, what is LOL? I see it all over GTX. The only thing that pops to mind is "lots of love". Anyone care to explain? Should I be nervous?

[Stonehenge]

Laugh Out Loud or Laughing Out Loud. Maybe I should put a primer together - would probably help.

[VoodooChile]

CMIIW, IMHO "LOL" =/= LMAOROTF, TTBOMK.

[r schipul]

What the HECK!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I haven't seen anything like that since R2D2 spoke to Chubacka in Star Wars!

[VoodooChile]

Oh, that's just a quick way of typing...

Correct me if I'm wrong, in my humble opinion "laughing out loud" isn't the same as laughing my arse off rolling on the floor, to the best of my knowledge.

...saves time when sending e-mails.

[mdvaden]

I wonder if this is similar to our Oregon landscape contractor thing.

Landscapers can be certified or registered through several colleges or associations.

But only the state of Oregon licenses and only the state can enforce licensing. The license with the state is identified only by the 4 digit business license - like mine is LCB 7114.

We will probably pick up arborists next spring - moving them from the construction board to the landscape board.

I am a Cerified Arborist and when I advertise that title the ISA requires me to put my ISA number with the title. But...the state won't recognize the ISA number. When the arborists come under the landscape board, only my LCB 7114 license will matter for licensing and enforcement. It will cover both my landscape and pruning practices.

I'm on the state license board so I get a bit of exposure to some of these issues. Thank goodness I've only got until next October. 2 three year terms is a long road to travel with this stuff.

Here's somthiing to brighten up your day if it posts. An Oregon sunrise from last month.

[VoodooChile]

M.D.Vaden,
Was that picture touched up in any way, or taken with a filter? It's amazing, either way...

[agla]

I wanted to bump this up to see what became of this issue in Wisconsin.

Any changes?

[LandArts]

I once had a rep from the ASLA call to threaten me because I was listed in the YP under "landscape designers". Claimed the title act prevented me from advertising as a designer. The ASLA in my state (NC) has pushed for a practice act, and not the reasonable one agla is in favor of. I've had LAs that don't know my work or anything about me claim I couldn't possibly be competent to do plant design. Screw the whole bunch of them-join the APLD if you haven't already.

[TrickyDick]

I don't know why I'm surprised at this but it seems that little Rhode Island is once again ahead of the national curve in doing something stupid (and in my opinion thoroughly corrupt). We DO have a practice law which restricts anyone who is not a state certified LA from performing ANY design tasks other than basic planting design. That means all site work, hardscape, etc., pretty much if you will move any soil at all other than from a planting hole, must legally be performed by an LA. It may be somewhat reassuring for those of you in states where these laws are being considered that it is generally ignored. I know many people who have worked for many years as landscape designers and most of them are not LA's. It can however make the idea of taking on larger design projects intimidating because of the possibility of being targeted. I know of people being threatened but I don't know anyone who has actually had a real problem come of it.

I think it is perfectly valid to require an LA to design elements where there are serious structural or drainage issues to consider, not because a contractor or designer might not be competent to do it, but because the risks are so high that the client needs to be protected against the person that says they know what they're doing but turns out not to. Laws like ours though are just stupid. Like Stonehenge said homeowners should not be forced to choose between paying through the nose (though I don't think $1000 for a design is a lot) for a professional whose real expertise is in areas of landscape design that they don't need and doing the work themselves.

I was in a winter class last year with someone from New Hampshire who said they were pushing such a law there. I'm curious if anyone knows what became of that.

[agla]

I read the Rhode Island Practice Act. It purposely leaves holes in it that you can drive a landscape truck through.

"Landscape architecture does not mean nor extend to the preparation of decorative planting plans. Decorative planting plans means and refers to planning and designing intended exclusively for the decoration of residential structures or settings which contain no greater than two dwelling units as defined and which involves the use and arrangement of trees, shrubs, plants, ground cover, and/or flowers for aesthetic and decorative purposes only, but specifically does not include the following:
plans or designs which create the layout of grading, vehicular paving, drainage, stormwater management, irrigation, erosion control, retaining walls, decks, gazebos, pools, or any similar structures; and/or plans or designs intended or used at any time or in any manner for or in furtherance of the purpose of obtaining federal, state, or local building,construction, or related permits or like authorizations; and/or plans or designs relating to federal, state, or local public works or public projects, or otherwise relating to property which is not privately owned."

Then comes ...
"Exempt persons:
· Employees of the United States doing work in Rhode Island for the United States government.
· State, city, town, or regional planners.
· Private consultants engaging in the practice of professional planning.
· Employees of public agencies.
· Landscape gardeners, or nursery workers in the performance of their business or profession as distinct from the profession of landscape architecture.

Clearly a "landscape gardener" (sorry, it is their term) has the need to perfrom hardscape design to a certain point. That point is a little vague in this summary, but I think that most of us would agree that there comes a point where more technical training is in the public interest before a person should attempt certain structures, grading, and drainage because it is a safety or health hazard if done incorrectly. These places are not typically in the average back yard. There are formulas and calculations that can be done when properly trained that have a place over qualitative assessment of risk done by someone who "thinks" it will work because he did similar things that did not fail. That person will go on pushing the limit until something does fail. Waiting for a disaster is what they are trying to avoid.

I don't think the law is aimed at stopping any landscaper from designing and building a normal walkway, a small retaining wall, or grading a residence for proper drainage.

I do think it will stop you from regrading a six acre site and popping in a few drainage structures where you think they might be needed, or designing a 600' impervious driveway or a series of 4' retaining walls above a playground. These are things that are done by engineers in most states and should not be done by self taught landscapers or underqualified LA's.

If the standards are set high for the LAs, then the only people who lose are the engineers and architects who had a monopoly before.

I would not like this law if it did not exempt contractors from designing simple hardscapes. You can not really tell by this summary how far they apply the "landscape gardener" exemption. The story is more in the enforcement, I would think.