Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 32(6): November 2006 273 4. How many of these UnLTEs have Maryland Depart- ment of Assessments and Taxation (SDAT) Business Entity Registrations (BERs) and, if so, what type? 5. What response, if any, was received related to the no- tification mailed to these UnLTEs? 6. What is the spatial distribution of these UnLTEs? This particular subset was differentiated from the rest of the group for the following reasons: 1. MD DNR had complete contact information for all other records in the listing of over 1,400 UnLTEs be- cause they possessed some other state-issued license, registration, or credential that required provision of full contact information; and 2. Because false advertising or soliciting an unlicensed tree expert business without a license is a criminal of- fense, this subset contained a listing of highly probable knowing or unknowing violators on the effective date of the change in law. METHODS We searched online directories of Verizon and AT&T tele- phone listings for tree services and related businesses by us- ing the business type query. The following business cate- gories were searched: arborists, ornamental tree and shrub service, tree consultants, tree services commercial and indus- trial, tree and shrub spraying, tree and stump removal ser- vices, and tree trimming services. Results were transposed into an Excel spreadsheet with one worksheet per business category. All entries were appended to a master worksheet and sorted alphabetically by company name. Redundancies were eliminated. Spreadsheet fields were added to denote: tree expert licens- ing status; whether the company had ever been the subject of a tree expert complaint; whether the company in question had an SDAT BER, and if so, the BER name; the BER status; the SDAT account number; the description of the business ac- cording to the BER filing; company contact information; the date notification of the law change was mailed to the particular company; and what the response was, if any, to the mailing. Information on licensing status and complaint status was obtained from MD DNR databases. BER information was obtained from the SDAT Web site. Information from the ZIP code field of the contact infor- mation from the spreadsheet was tallied and associated with a zip code GIS shapefile in ArcView. The data were classi- fied by natural breaks in the data into three categories. The results were projected spatially in a GIS map. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION After eliminating redundant entries found in multiple busi- ness category listings, the total number of entries was reduced from over 1,000 to 226. A comparison of the TE license status of the 226 companies advertising tree services in the online directories of Verizon and AT&T telephone listings is found in Table 1. LTEs are required to file contact and insurance information annually to renew the license and are required by regulation to “ . . . within a reasonable time, inform the Department of Natural Resources Forest Service in writing of a change in address, telephone number, or employment” (State of Mary- land 2002). Lack of complete contact information can result in the following negative impacts for TEs, clients of TE ser- vices, and regulators: 1. Limitation of customer communication in the event of a complaint; 2. Reduction of the TE’s ability to be found by a prospec- tive customer; and, 3. Limitation of a regulator’s ability to advise of regula- tory changes that may affect the TE. However, many of the UnLTEs identified had incomplete contact information (Table 2) despite our consultation with multiple sources (online phone listings, SDAT BER, MD DNR complaint database) to obtain it. We found no, or in- complete, contact information for 42 (26.5%) UnLTEs. Ac- cording to the MD DNR, unlicensed tree experts “ . . . will often give a cell phone number and no other means of con- tact, thereby making it difficult to find them should a problem arise” (Maryland Department of Natural Resources 2005). Two recipients responded in writing to assert that the pro- visions of House Bill 168 were not applicable to them. One Table 2. Availability of various types of contact information for unlicensed tree experts (UnLTEs) advertising online. Availability of contact info for UnLTEs Provided city, state, and ZIP code Provided street address Provided a web site address Provided an e-mail address Returned by US postal service as undeliverable No. of UnLTEs 152 95 48 32 31 Insufficient information for mailing 11 Percentage of UnLTEs 96.20 60.13 30.38 20.25 19.62 6.96 ©2006 International Society of Arboriculture Table 1. Comparison of LTEs and UnLTEs advertising online. Tree expert (TE) type Licensed (LTE) Unlicensed (UnLTE) Total No. of TEs 68 158 226 Percentage of TEs 30.09 69.91
November 2006
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Ai generated response may be inaccurate.
Search Text Block
Page #page_num
#doc_title
Hi $receivername|$receiveremail,
$sendername|$senderemail wrote these comments for you:
$message
$sendername|$senderemail would like for you to view the following digital edition.
Please click on the page below to be directed to the digital edition:
$thumbnail$pagenum
$link$pagenum
Your form submission was a success.
Downloading PDF
Generating your PDF, please wait...
This process might take longer please wait
