Thread: (rotten, infested) MDF?

This is some kind of wood composite siding, about 5/8" or 3/4" thick except where it has gotten wet and rotten and infested with what I'm guessing are carpenter ants. There it's flaky, made in pressed layers like. Seems not dense enough for hardboard, but like it's something akin to that, so I thought it might be MDF.

Similar Threads:

• Rotten Egg/Sulphur Smell From 1 Year Old WH Tank
• Reason for rotten roof decking??
• Rotten Foundations Cause Building Collapse in Shanghai
• Rotten egg hot water.
• Who's to blame for a rotten house? - The Olympian

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

This is some kind of wood composite siding, about 5/8" or 3/4" thick except where it has gotten wet and rotten and infested with what I'm guessing are carpenter ants. There it's flaky, made in pressed layers like. Seems not dense enough for hardboard, but like it's something akin to that, so I thought it might be MDF.

There are many kinds of composite wood siding
Don't worry so much about the names

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

This is some kind of wood composite siding, about 5/8" or 3/4" thick except where it has gotten wet and rotten and infested with what I'm guessing are carpenter ants. There it's flaky, made in pressed layers like. Seems not dense enough for hardboard, but like it's something akin to that, so I thought it might be MDF.

.
No Infestation , ( Moisture Water De-laminated )

Installation Problem ( no gap at the Bottom. ) Water Wicks up causing deterioration and Rot.

Most Likely Composite Siding Identification by Siding Solutions, Inc.
.

Yes infestation. I could see the tunnels. Couldn't get a good photo though. Here's a pic of a sill above the same area. Something else going on besides just wicking. I can't figure out how it would affect this area, but there's a downspout that's clearly a problem on the same corner, up a level.

Doesn't seem dense enough for hardboard. I don't know, no big deal, was just curious.

Sure looks like Carpenter Ant damage, they love damp wood. They likely have another nest somewhere close, like an old rotting stump.

Another insect to be looking for with that type of rot is moisture ants. Small, light brown almost translucent. They nest in wet wood.

After googling moisture ants, it seems like they're especially problematic in the Pacific NW (gee, I wonder why!). Haven't heard of them around here, but that doesn't mean much. At any rate, I think the tunnels are more carpenter ant size...and they're definitely a problem here. Icky, hate 'em. Had to pull a shed down and rebuild because of the buggers.

Originally Posted by Billy Stephens

.
.
No Infestation , ( Moisture Water De-laminated )
.

.

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

.
Yes infestation.
.
I could see the tunnels. .

.
Unless you're Licensed Pest Control ( it's water, moisture,degradation Rot ! )
.

Oh, please, Billy, trust me on this. I know carpenter ants tunnels with all too much familiarity. This has or had some kind of infestation very like that. You can see the frass. One doesn't have to be licensed to spot damage that's this obvious.

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

.
One doesn't have to be licensed to spot damage that's this obvious.

.
You do in my State.
* The State and them Pest Folks get irate.
.

One doesn't have to be licensed to spot damage that's this obvious.

.

You do in my State.

.
Actually, you can "spot it" all you want to.... you just can't report it.

Originally Posted by Dom D'Agostino

.
.
"spot it"

.
.
.....
.

Kristi,

To demonstrate a point; I don't have to be a mechanic to tell ya you have flat tire.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Kristi,

To demonstrate a point; I don't have to be a mechanic to tell ya you have flat tire.

.
Ya do if you put it in writing as in a Subpoena duces tecum.
.

Where can I find these rules you keep promoting that are in place for MN?

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

.
]Where can I find these rules you keep promoting that are in place for MN?

.
This Pesticide Applicator Licensing would be a Good Place to start.

Might follow that with some Case Law. ( but I'm not an Attorney.)
.

I checked through those sites, but didn't see any regulation prohibiting 'anyone' from giving an opinion on wood rot compounded by carpenter ant activity, let alone Kristi in her role, or even a home inspector who would be remiss not to report that which is suspected, and as with Kristi's picture.

Does your state prohibit you from passing comment on insect activity as a home inspector?

Thanks,

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Does your state prohibit you from passing comment on insect activity as a home inspector?

Thanks,

.
That's What I've been saying.
* nothing gets past you Raymond my man.
.

Thank you for the enlightenment.

Now could you provide your state regulation wherein it states only a licensed extrminator is permitted to give opinion?

Thanks, just curious as to how the regulation is worded in TN.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Thank you for the enlightenment.

Now could you provide your state regulation wherein it states only a licensed extrminator is permitted to give opinion?

Thanks, just curious as to how the regulation is worded in TN.

.
Raymond ,

I have full faith and confidence you can obtain any reference material you may need.

I can take as many pictures of a properties condition and answer any questions or concerns just not as I wish I could sometime such as POS, RLH, NOYL.

Good Day,

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Now could you provide your state regulation wherein it states only a licensed extrminator is permitted to give opinion?

In Florida, one must be licensed to practice pest control, and, as Billy was saying, one needs to be have a pest control license to identify those different types of little buggers - to with:
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

That is the Florida statute for Pest Control, and the definition of Pest Control is: (bold and underlining are mine)
- 482.021 Definitions.—For the purposes of this chapter, and unless otherwise required by the context, the term:
- - (22) “Pest control” includes:
- - - (a) The use of any method or device or the application of any substance to prevent, destroy, repel, mitigate, curb, control, or eradicate any pest in, on, or under a structure, lawn, or ornamental;
- - - (b) The identification of or inspection for infestations or infections in, on, or under a structure, lawn, or ornamental;
- - - (c) The use of any pesticide, economic poison, or mechanical device for preventing, controlling, eradicating, identifying, inspecting for, mitigating, diminishing, or curtailing insects, vermin, rodents, pest birds, bats, or other pests in, on, or under a structure, lawn, or ornamental;
- - - (d) All phases of fumigation, including:
- - - - 1. The treatment of products by vault fumigation; and
- - - - 2. The fumigation of boxcars, trucks, ships, airplanes, docks, warehouses, and common carriers; and
- - - (e) The advertisement of, the solicitation of, or the acceptance of remuneration for any work described in this subsection, but does not include the solicitation of a bid from a licensee to be incorporated in an overall bid by an unlicensed primary contractor to supply services to another.

License required:
- 482.071 Licenses.—
- - (1) The department may issue licenses to qualified businesses to engage in the business of pest control in this state. It is unlawful for any person to operate a pest control business that is not licensed by the department.
- - (2)(a) Before entering business or upon transfer of business ownership, and also annually thereafter, on or before an anniversary date set by the department for each licensed business location, each person, partnership, firm, corporation, or other business entity engaged in pest control must apply to the department for a license, or a renewal thereof, for each of its business locations. Applications must be made on forms prescribed and furnished by the department.
- - yada, yada, yada
- - (5) A license under this section is a prerequisite for the issuance of a local occupational license to engage in pest control, as provided in s. 205.1967.

Yeppers, you cannot get an occupational license for pest control without the state license already in your hand.

And if you think the above does not apply to you (not 'you' as in the singular, but as in the plural 'anyone'), then there is this:
- 482.165 Unlicensed practice of pest control; cease and desist order; injunction; civil suit and penalty.—
- - (1) It is unlawful for a person, partnership, firm, corporation, or other business entity not licensed by the department to practice pest control.

No go back and refresh your mind as to what "pest control" is.

"The identification of"

And I just covered the high points of it.

Thanks, for the info, I figured someone who is knowledgable such as yourself could support your position, and would be willing to share.

Even more so that you implied indirectly that Kristi was out of her league with her opinion in MN.

Sorry didn't mean to rile you.


Thanks anyway.

"And if you think the above does not apply to you (not 'you' as in the singular, but as in the plural 'anyone'), "


Thats why a lot of smart folks just say "Ya'll".

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Even more so that you implied indirectly that Kristi was out of her league with her opinion in MN.

.
Not out her league at all just have to use caution to word, say, or not comment on some things that are observed .
.
.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Even more so that you implied indirectly that Kristi was out of her league with her opinion in MN.

As Billy said, no one was saying "that Kristi was out of her league", only that in some states, many states?, one is *not allowed* to identify termites as termites (or other covered pests) unless that person is licensed to do so.

In Florida, the home inspector can state the 'damage was observed' or that the wood is 'rotted' (but not 'decayed'), but the home inspector is not allowed (unless licensed as a pest control operator or has an WDO ID card through a pest control operator) to "identify" termites, old house borers, cubicle rot, or other such "identifications" of WDO ('wood destroying organisms', versus just 'wood destroying insects').

Billy was simply cautioning Kristi on "identifying" without a license in case her state has similar licensing requirements.

I had my CPCO license for a number of years, but as I worked toward high end houses and mostly new construction, I found that, in the last year before I retired, for example, I issued 3-5 WDO reports. That for a cost of about $1,500 per year to maintain my license, which includes the required insurance. I did not renew my license in 2006 as I no longer had any need for it, and, in Florida, pest control is not a license you are allowed to take inactive - you either renew or let it go. Once you let it go for more than one year, you have to take all the tests all over again (within the first year you can just renew late with a penalty), so I do not see myself as being a pest control operator at any time in the future.

But I'm not a business entity. Nor am I in FL or TN.

I didn't even definitively identify anything. I said there were insects making tunnels, and they look very similar to those created by carpenter ants. In an online forum. So sue me. Or arrest me. Call 911, tell them to send out the Bug Squad.

I don't even care about the insects, I wanna know what the siding is.

Jerry

Though this may seem semantics but there is also a 1st Amendment issue at stake. The difference being is in specifically identifying the pest - which would require appropriate licensing pursuant to Florida an other State's law and having an opinion as to what the pest is. One could certainly say, "...in my opinion, based on previous exposure and experience, the observed damage/degradation is similar to that which is typically caused by..." without making any assertion about the specific make and model to the pest. There is absolutely nothing in law which prohibits anyone from having an opinion. Don't ya just love the Constitution!

The statement could also be suppported by saying, "...Furthermore, I observed active (inactive - live/dead) pests/insects which were similar to those seen on previous occasions and other circumstances, and identified to me as being...(the pest du jour). However, the reporter must be able to prove their expertise and experience, if challenged. It's all in the wording as to how the observations are reported as to whether the opiner falls afoul of licensing law and whether they are acting as a Pest Control operative at the time.

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

But I'm not a business entity. Nor am I in FL or TN.

First, did you miss this part: "for each licensed business location, each person, partnership, firm, corporation, or other business entity"?

We know you are not in FL or TN, which is why Billy said "You do in my State." after you said "One doesn't have to be licensed"

Raymond asked "Does your state prohibit you from passing comment on insect activity as a home inspector?", I provided documentation that, at least in Florida, the answer is yes.

The siding looks like hardboard siding - but I think what was said already too.

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

Oh, please, Billy, trust me on this. I know carpenter ants tunnels with all too much familiarity. This has or had some kind of infestation very like that. You can see the frass. One doesn't have to be licensed to spot damage that's this obvious.

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

But I'm not a business entity. Nor am I in FL or TN.

I didn't even definitively identify anything. I said there were insects making tunnels, and they look very similar to those created by carpenter ants. In an online forum. So sue me. Or arrest me. Call 911, tell them to send out the Bug Squad.

I don't even care about the insects, I wanna know what the siding is.

.
Drat ! It's that dang ole Quote Feature.
* the folks that make their living from Pest Control do Care a Great deal.
** some of them care enough to file complaints.
.

Originally Posted by Ian Page

Jerry

Though this may seem semantics but there is also a 1st Amendment issue at stake. The difference being is in specifically identifying the pest - which would require appropriate licensing pursuant to Florida an other State's law and having an opinion as to what the pest is. One could certainly say, "...in my opinion, based on previous exposure and experience, the observed damage/degradation is similar to that which is typically caused by..." without making any assertion about the specific make and model to the pest. There is absolutely nothing in law which prohibits anyone from having an opinion. Don't ya just love the Constitution!

That assertation is not covered by the First Amendments - the First Amendments grants free speech, but that is also covered by patent/copyright laws and other laws, such as ... if you want to say that was caused by termites in Florida, then you ARE REQUIRED to be either a licensed pest control operator or have a WDO ID card.

Test it, some have, and they have been fined for unlicensed pest control activities - be my guest go ahead if you want to.

If I lived in Florida...I probably would. The issue you seem to be missing, or avoiding is within your own quote of the Florida statute.

482.165 (1) " It is unlawful for any person, partneship, corporation etc. to Practice Pest Control..."

Now look at the definition of 'Pest Control', which identifies what actual activities are covered. It says nothing about anyone having an opinion but does address 'identification'. Having an opinion of something does not make that opinion a specific identiffication. Furthermore, the regulation refers to a person, entity etc. performing activities as if in the actual business of Pest control and certainly could, in no way include a lay person having an opinion. Reading the Statute literally, the way you seem to, would include and prevent a homeowner looking a pile of frasse, observing bore holes in the vicinity and going to HD for a can of termicide.

All State's laws are full of language which is voilative of Constitutionally protected issues and usually remain as written until challlenged. Free speech is just that and having an opinion of something in no way violates copywrite or any other law. I certainly would like to hear from any HI who has been subjected to penalty, in Florida (or any other State with similar regulation), for simply having an opinion re. pest infestation or damage caused thereby.

Originally Posted by Ian Page

If I lived in Florida...I probably would. The issue you seem to be missing, or avoiding is within your own quote of the Florida statute.

482.165 (1) " It is unlawful for any person, partneship, corporation etc. to Practice Pest Control..."

Now look at the definition of 'Pest Control', which identifies what actual activities are covered. It says nothing about anyone having an opinion but does address 'identification'.

I'm not the one missing what it says ... "It says nothing about anyone having an opinion" as long as you keep that "opinion" to yourself.

Once you express your "opinion" you have cross the line to "but does address 'identification' " as you have "identified" what the pest which caused the damage to whomever you are talking to/writing report for/is reading the report.

You may not like what it says, but, nonetheless, THAT IS what it says, and THAT IS what they enforce, and PEOPLE DO get fined for it and are given cease and desist notices.

482.241 Liberal interpretation.—The provisions of this chapter shall be liberally construed in order to effectively carry them out in the interest of the public and its health, welfare, and safety.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

And if you think the above does not apply to you (not 'you' as in the singular, but as in the plural 'anyone'), then there is this:
- 482.165 Unlicensed practice of pest control; cease and desist order; injunction; civil suit and penalty.—
- - (1) It is unlawful for a person, partnership, firm, corporation, or other business entity not licensed by the department to practice pest control.

No one says you have to like it, but be prepared for:
- 482.191 Violation and penalty.—
- - (1) It is unlawful to solicit, practice, perform, or advertise in pest control except as provided by this chapter.
- - (2) A person who violates any provision of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
- - (3) Any person who violates any rule of the department relative to pest control is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

- 775.082 Penalties; applicability of sentencing structures; mandatory minimum sentences for certain reoffenders previously released from prison.—
- - (4) A person who has been convicted of a designated misdemeanor may be sentenced as follows:
- - - (b) For a misdemeanor of the second degree, by a definite term of imprisonment not exceeding 60 days.

- 775.083 Fines.—
- - (1) A person who has been convicted of an offense other than a capital felony may be sentenced to pay a fine in addition to any punishment described in s. 775.082; when specifically authorized by statute, he or she may be sentenced to pay a fine in lieu of any punishment described in s. 775.082. A person who has been convicted of a noncriminal violation may be sentenced to pay a fine. Fines for designated crimes and for noncriminal violations shall not exceed:
- - - (e) $500, when the conviction is of a misdemeanor of the second degree or a noncriminal violation.
- - - (f) Any higher amount equal to double the pecuniary gain derived from the offense by the offender or double the pecuniary loss suffered by the victim.
- - - (g) Any higher amount specifically authorized by statute.

First, did you miss this part: "for each licensed business location, each person, partnership, firm, corporation, or other business entity"?

No, I didn't miss that part. To me the part "...or other business entity" says that one has to be licensed if one attempts to positively identify an insect while acting in a business capacity, which I clearly was not doing when I brought it up in a forum. The same applies to Billy's comments.

You are commenting from the perspective of writing something up in an HI (or other) report. Can you imagine if every Tom, Dick and Harry were held legally responsible for their layman's unpaid opinion about a neighbor's bug problem? Do you really think someone could be successfully sued for that? I doubt it.

Once you express your "opinion" you have cross the line to "but does address 'identification' " as you have "identified" what the pest which caused the damage to whomever you are talking to/writing report for/is reading the report.

Depends on the language used. To me, saying something looks consistent with what one has seen before is very different from positively identifying anything. "The tunnels are similar to those I've seen which have been later confirmed to result from termite infestation" and recommending follow up with a licensed pest controller is vastly different from saying, "the tunnels are caused by termites." I can certainly see how HIs could get into trouble with careless language about this stuff, but is the only option to avoid any mention of what appears to be insect damage?

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

while acting in a business capacity, which I clearly was not doing when I brought it up in a forum.
.
The same applies to Billy's comments.

You are commenting from the perspective of writing something up in an HI (or other) report.

" I can certainly see how HIs could get into trouble with careless language about this stuff, ?

.
You are on a Home Inspectors Forum . ( to learn ? )

How else are we to respond to your Post?

If your here for Quick Answers to only specific parts of your statements then we will know how to answer them .
.

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

No, I didn't miss that part. To me the part "...or other business entity" says that one has to be licensed if one attempts to positively identify an insect while acting in a business capacity, which I clearly was not doing when I brought it up in a forum. The same applies to Billy's comments.

I doubt Billy was referring to you mentioning "termite damage" on *this forum*, I suspect Billy was referring to relating that information to anyone *on your report*.

Again, I also suspect that Billy, like me, was letting you know the laws may govern what you say *in your report*, such as the laws Billy mentioned and I posted.

You are commenting from the perspective of writing something up in an HI (or other) report.

Now you got it, Kristi, and I suspect Billy was referring to the same thing.

Depends on the language used. To me, saying something looks consistent with what one has seen before is very different from positively identifying anything. "The tunnels are similar to those I've seen which have been later confirmed to result from termite infestation" ...

That is identifying what you think the tunnels are from - you "identified" the cause of those tunnels, and that is indeed, at least in Florida, within the definition of pest control.

The pest control guys fought long and hard fights for the tight control they have, and the legislature heeded their cries because ... because improper application of pest control chemicals and treatments may not simply be useless, they may be hazardous and even deadly.

and recommending follow up with a licensed pest controller is vastly different from saying, "the tunnels are caused by termites."

Nope, not "vastly" different, only "slightly" different.

I can certainly see how HIs could get into trouble with careless language about this stuff, but is the only option to avoid any mention of what appears to be insect damage?

That is not even an option, the option is to report the damaged wood and were it was. Think of it this way, if you saw a poorly engineered structure, would you, not being a licensed engineer, say that it was poorly engineered, or would you refer to a structural engineer for appropriate repairs? What if you called it poorly engineered and the engineer came in, did all the load calculations, and said that there was nothing wrong with the engineering, that the structure was, in fact, well engineered because (and listed things you had not noticed or whatever other reasons the engineer had for that conclusion)? Could you be sought out for giving poor engineering advice? Yep.

If the engineers in the state had a strong licensing program, they may track you down for performing engineering without a license.

Not sure why people "don't get it" as to the fact that there are licenses for things???

Originally Posted by Ian Page

If I lived in Florida...I probably would. The issue you seem to be missing, or avoiding is within your own quote of the Florida statute.

And you'd lose.

Pest Control was Licensed here in Florida long before Home Inspectors were Licensed.

The Department of Agriculture has fined HI's for claiming "this was termites, this is wood rot, etc." if they don't have the necessary credentials.

We can state it in a manner that gets the point across, but must use different words.

They are very strict, and $10K fines are a good deterrent.

Dom.

(EDIT: was answering Billy's post here, hadn't seen the other two below that...) YES, in a forum! Where all sorts of opinions are offered that would never be included in a report...and in a thread asking about what kind of siding was shown, not about what insects may have been there. You're the one, Billy, who started the whole argument about whether the tunnels I was seeing were insect tunnels, and I responded, and it seems the whole discussion got side-tracked from there. Sure, I'm willing to learn about legal issues of HIs, and it's fine by me that the conversation went that way. However, you know I'm not an HI myself and that none of this would go into an HI inspection report anyway, so why question my right to offer an opinion about what the insect might be? Is the solution to deny that any insect tunnels even exist, as you did?

Krist's report is intended for her employer, not the general public.
As an employee Kristi may be allowed to produce a report for the company, and not be subject to the PCO regulations.
I think maybe.
What do you think?

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

Krist's report is intended for her employer, not the general public.
As an employee Kristi may be allowed to produce a report for the company, and not be subject to the PCO regulations.
I think maybe.
What do you think?

I know you would be wrong if in Florida.

UNLESS ... unless the company had a Florida CPCO 'qualifier' for the company's operations in Florida ... AND ... and if Kristi had a Florida issued WDO ID card for her inspections in Florida.

Keep in mind, I am talking about Florida - I do not know how many other states have the same or similar pest control licensing laws as Florida has, or if those laws are enforced with the efforts used in Florida.

Believe me, I understand the necessity of licenses, and the point you all are making. I don't think we even disagree, it's a matter of different perspectives on the same issue. My point is that this is a discussion forum, not a report. Plus I never positively identified any insect, or even suggested that insects still infest the structure.

If Billy had said in post #3 that I shouldn't report an infestation, this conversation would make a lot more sense to me.

As for my own issues when it comes to reporting, I don't even remember whether I said anything about insects, that was turned in a while ago. More importantly, I am in a very different legal position from you - I'm sure the info I provide is protected by multiple layers of legalese, or the company I work for would be much more concerned about how field reps word things. These reports are specifically for insurance companies, not even policyholders are allowed to see them. If I see something, I describe it - that's what I'm taught to do. The liability issues I'm concerned with are those that are associated with the property.

Was just looking at part e of Jerry's first Statutes post,

(e) The advertisement of, the solicitation of, or the acceptance of remuneration for any work described in this subsection, but does not include the solicitation of a bid from a licensee to be incorporated in an overall bid by an unlicensed primary contractor to supply services to another.

It sounds to me like all this wording is about doing business as a pest controller. I can understand how that might apply to you, but it wouldn't to me because I can't be construed to be paid for my services as such.

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

(EDIT: was answering Billy's post here, hadn't seen the other two below that...) YES, in a forum! Where all sorts of opinions are offered that would never be included in a report...and in a thread asking about what kind of siding was shown, not about what insects may have been there. You're the one, Billy, who started the whole argument about whether the tunnels I was seeing were insect tunnels, and I responded, and it seems the whole discussion got side-tracked from there. Sure, I'm willing to learn about legal issues of HIs, and it's fine by me that the conversation went that way. However, you know I'm not an HI myself and that none of this would go into an HI inspection report anyway, so why question my right to offer an opinion about what the insect might be? Is the solution to deny that any insect tunnels even exist, as you did?

.

As this is a Home Inspectors Forum for Home Inspectors and others that are in the Process of joining the Profession to learn. Misinformation , Misstatements that could adversely affect other individuals should be addressed.

You are free to state any Opinion you wish. Just as I am to point out that it might not be wise used in the context of a Home Inspector .
.* geeze
.

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

Was just looking at part e of Jerry's first Statutes post,

(e) The advertisement of, the solicitation of, or the acceptance of remuneration for any work described in this subsection, but does not include the solicitation of a bid from a licensee to be incorporated in an overall bid by an unlicensed primary contractor to supply services to another.

It sounds to me like all this wording is about doing business as a pest controller. I can understand how that might apply to you, but it wouldn't to me because I can't be construed to be paid for my services as such.

"but it wouldn't to me because I can't be construed to be paid for my services as such"

Presuming Florida here ... you are 'working for' (being paid) by the company who is addressing the report, you are 'the inspector', and if the company was reporting on wood destroying organism, then 'the company' would need to be a CPCO or have a CPCO qualifier, and you as 'the inspector' would need to have a WDO ID card prior to doing 'the inspection' and prior to putting your findings in a report 'identifying' the pest.

Kristi, there is no need to continue this because, if you were in Florida, and you were doing that *in Florida* ... *you* would need to be either a CPCO or a WDO ID holder. No ifs, no ands, no buts about it. I cannot understand why you do not get it as your posts indicate you are an intelligent person. Oh well, that *is* the way it is here.

Yes, and its important to keep in mind what legislation affects what state and/or province vis-a-vis home inspectors before we make one statement fit all situations.

I think Dom hit the nail on the head; "state it in a manner that gets the point across, but must use different words."

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

I think Dom hit the nail on the head; "state it in a manner that gets the point across, but must use different words."

Totally agree ... and that is what Billy and I have been saying too ... so of course I totally agree.

I can see the point that it's good to get things right for those who read the thread later. But all it would have taken was right at the beginning someone saying that insects shouldn't be identified in inspection reports.

Presuming Florida here ... you are 'working for' (being paid) by the company who is addressing the report, you are 'the inspector', and if the company was reporting on wood destroying organism, then 'the company' would need to be a CPCO or have a CPCO qualifier, and you as 'the inspector' would need to have a WDO ID card prior to doing 'the inspection' and prior to putting your findings in a report 'identifying' the pest.

Who says they're reporting on a "wood destroying organism"? It's possible they might investigate further, but they aren't going to adjust any premiums based on the fact that I saw some tunnels, even if I did report it. I really don't know. ...Actually, I just looked at my training materials, and I'm supposed to report and describe insect damage for my insurance surveys. I believe the company has reps working down there.

Kristi, there is no need to continue this because, if you were in Florida, and you were doing that *in Florida* ... *you* would need to be either a CPCO or a WDO ID holder. No ifs, no ands, no buts about it. I cannot understand why you do not get it as your posts indicate you are an intelligent person. Oh well, that *is* the way it is here.

And I don't understand what the big deal with me talking about insects is, when there are threads all the time about "what kind of insect did/is this?" Those threads don't clarify that reporting on such stuff isn't allowed.

Quote:

Depends on the language used. To me, saying something looks consistent with what one has seen before is very different from positively identifying anything. "The tunnels are similar to those I've seen which have been later confirmed to result from termite infestation" ...

That is identifying what you think the tunnels are from - you "identified" the cause of those tunnels, and that is indeed, at least in Florida, within the definition of pest control.

NO - I said that the tunnels are similar to something, I did not ever say they were from termites! It's the dance of the words.

I really feel like my words have been twisted, and it got out of control. I never said I'd report any insects or their damage. I never identified anything. What's the big brouhaha?


I agree that the stuff looks similar to hardboard. Maybe it is.

Kristi
As you must have read in my posts, I support your position and defend my own. The statute(s) quoted have been misrepresented entirely. The intent of the legislature is not to curtail freedom(s) of speech (read opinions) but to protect the public from ill-informed, unscrupulous persons or entities from performing work as a Pest Control Operator without being properly licensed. The legislation is not a catch-all so as to prevent anyone/someone from having an opinion as to what they observe. The issues are how the observations are made, how they are reported and most importantly, for what purpose.

If insect/pest infestations or damage caused by such, is observed then for sure the matter is going to be referred to a PCO - why? - because I have already formulated an opinion that (a) they are, in fact insects (b) there is damage and (c) the damage and infestation requires remediation. If no opinion is made (as to what is observed) one may as well refer the observation to an auto mechanic for all the good it may do.

For obvious reasons the pest control industry is well regulated in all States but those regulations still, DO NOT, no matter how the Florida statute is herewith presented, supercede anyone's right to have an opinion or belief, nor can the statute suppress an individual's right to express that opinion unless they are (in the instant matter) engaged in specifically indentifying pests as a PCO and acting in that capacity. In which case a licence would be required.

So if my neighbor across the street, in Florida, calls me over to look at the funny looking wiggly things having Sunday lunch on his siding, of course I am going to advise him to get a can of 'termite kill 'em' rather than weed killer and recommend a professional termite inspection. Why? Because I have an opinion that they may be termites and probably not butterflies.

I seriously doubt the intention of the Florida State legislature was to curtail my neighborly advise, as other posters infer by their repeated reference to Business and Profession Code Statutes. Neither would it be their intention to prevent a HI (or any other occcupation), in the normal course of their business, to not have an opinion over any and all issues they may come across as long as they made appropriate recommendations in their report for professional evaluation and/or remediation.

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

I can see the point that it's good to get things right for those who read the thread later. But all it would have taken was right at the beginning someone saying that insects shouldn't be identified in inspection reports.


Who says they're reporting on a "wood destroying organism"? It's possible they might investigate further, but they aren't going to adjust any premiums based on the fact that I saw some tunnels, even if I did report it. I really don't know. ...Actually, I just looked at my training materials, and I'm supposed to report and describe insect damage for my insurance surveys. I believe the company has reps working down there.
.
And I don't understand what the big deal with me talking about insects is, when there are threads all the time about "what kind of insect did/is this?" Those threads don't clarify that reporting on such stuff isn't allowed.

.
.
Your Right Kristi,

With Your Unique Employment Requirements coupled with an unrestrained privilege to state Your opinions.

Perhaps future threads should be limited to the General Chit-Chat or Home Owners
sections as to not be confused as Reference Material by anyone when archived.
.
* for clarity Ants are not Termites Carpenter Ants

Thanks, Ian, for the well-worded post. That seems to me to be accurate, but then I can't speak for those in other states, nor do I know what SOP for HIs is - how things like this are reported (or not) in a home inspection is outside my realm of knowledge. I agree, though, that unpaid opinions, like those commonly offered in this forum, do not fall under any statute I've yet seen.

MN statute is pretty different from Florida's, and says nothing about pest identification:
"Subdivision 1.Requirement.

(a) A person may not engage in structural pest control applications:
(1) for hire without a structural pest control license; and
(2) as a sole proprietorship, company, partnership, or corporation unless the person is or employs a licensed master in structural pest control operations."

Billy, I don't know if you're being sarcastic or what. I don't have unrestrained privelege to state my opinions. I may have a little more leeway than HIs, but even my opinions are stated in terms of "FR suspects..." and we're supposed to always remain objective.

Do you propose that all pest-related questions be moved to chit-chat or homeowners sections, or just mine?

People viewing posts in this forum, if they have any sense, should not take individual posts out of context or believe every post they read here. I would hope that they know their job, its limitations, and the statutes that apply to them. My signature states that I'm not an HI, and don't do what HIs do. Until now, that hasn't really been an issue.

I hope I haven't annoyed or offended anyone here. I like all those who've replied in this thread.

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

"

Billy, I don't know if you're being sarcastic or what. I don't have unrestrained privelege to state my opinions. I may have a little more leeway than HIs

Do you propose that all pest-related questions be moved to chit-chat or homeowners sections, or just mine?
.

.
As your threads appear to really be (for your purposes) General Chit Chat.
.

It surprises me to hear you say that, Billy, it's very far from the truth. I come here to learn, and if possible, to share my knowledge to help others. I wish I had more knowledge to share.

This thread got off track because of our different perspectives, I think, and resulting misunderstandings. My job is similar in some ways, very different in others. I haven't been trained the way you guys have, I don't have anywhere near the experience or knowledge in such a wide range of things, and I don't have the same resources to refer to.

But I ain't dumb, and have experience in some things.

Sorry Kristi.. one of the first things you are taught when you train for your LPCO License here in KY is that detrioration of wood, and the masonite type materials, all have a time when they look like infestation damage.. in your photo it is clear there are no issues with infestation. University of Perdue has the best Entomology studies possibly in the world and Mike Potter wrote the book on it everyone uses as the bible on insects.. we meet with him often in our ongoing continuing ed classes. Your photo clearly shows nothing more than water damage, I blew it up 10 fold and spanned across and there are no insect infestation signs.. and that really is why you should never add anything more to your report than is absolutely clear.. leaving the rest to the Pros.. Here is a great site with more info... University of Kentucky Entomology

Kenny,

Are you referring to post number four (4) above from Kristi?

That sure looks like more than rot to me, there is frass, and there is a hole which is typical of Carpenter Ants from my pov.

Well, what can I say? I was there, I've seen a lot of carpenter ant damage, to me it looks very similar to what I've seen before. But I'm not a PCO.

From that U of K site:
"Besides being objectionable by their presence, carpenter ants damage wood by hollowing it out for nesting. They excavate galleries in wood which have a smooth, sandpapered appearance. Wood which has been damaged by carpenter ants contains no mud-like material, as is the case with termites. Shredded fragments of wood, similar in appearance to coarse sawdust, are ejected from the galleries through preexisting cracks or slits made by the ants."

It's the smooth, sandpapered look to the curving tunnels that makes me think ants.

As for my reports, here is how I would state it: "FR [field representative] suspects insect damage in addition to rot." That's it. It's up to the underwriter to decide what to do with my suspicions (probably nothing), but I don't feel I'd be doing my job if I didn't voice my them.

Try to understand that I'm not doing the pro's job. My customer is not the homeowner, seller or buyer, they get none of my findings directly (and, I suspect, little of it gets to them at all), and there's no pro involved unless the homeowner calls one in independently.

So, there's no siding that looks like hardboard but is less dense? Or does hardboard come in a range of densities? I tapped on it, examined some bits that came off, and it just didn't seem like hardboard...but I don't have an extensive knowledge of the different types so I should really take the answers people have given at face value, shouldn't I? Silly Kristi. Maybe it didn't seem dense because it was so full of insect tunnels!

Wow. From the original poster's innocent query of what is this stuff? Responses have morphed into constitutional arguments about 1st amendment rights. Seems a bit far afield.

I enjoyed reading this thread and appreciate the thoughtful replies about freedom of speech and the legalities or illegalities of reporting/not reporting, identifying/not identifying the critters. Not sure which side of the fence I'm standing. I would report this as damage apparently stemming from insect activity or damage that rendered an environment attractive to exploitation by an unidentified species and recommend evaluation by another.

I will respond to Kristi's original question and leave the larger more ethereal plain to others with more time and knowledge in this matter.

I think the stuff in your photo is celotex that has been rendered/fitted by the factory with a "skin" to resist weather. I found this same looking material on a house I inspected in the Philadelphia area recently. It seems like a particularly bad choice of finish in an area that gets any appreciable rain. Maybe it's fine to use in Phoenix. Hope this helps.

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

This thread got off track because of our different perspectives, I think, and resulting misunderstandings.

I agree.

Looks like OSB siding to me. Hate the stuff.

Definetily not frass or tunnels from insects.. water damage does the exact same thing as shown in the picture.. 25 yrs. as LPCO technician, 15 yrs Licensed LPCO has taught me the difference, but Mike Potter has helped also!!

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

infested with what I'm guessing are carpenter ants..

Originally Posted by Billy Stephens

.
No Infestation , ( Moisture Water De-laminated )

Installation Problem ( no gap at the Bottom. ) Water Wicks up causing deterioration and Rot.

Most Likely Composite Siding Identification by Siding Solutions, Inc.
.

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

Yes infestation. I could see the tunnels. .

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

. At any rate, I think the tunnels are more carpenter ant size....

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

Oh, please, Billy, trust me on this. I know carpenter ants tunnels with all too much familiarity
..
This has or had some kind of infestation very like that. You can see the frass. One doesn't have to be licensed to spot damage that's this obvious.

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

"The tunnels are similar to those I've seen which have been later confirmed to result from termite infestation" ?

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

(. You're the one, Billy, who started the whole argument about whether the tunnels I was seeing were insect tunnels, and I responded,?
.
Is the solution to deny that any insect tunnels even exist, as you did?

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

If Billy had said in post #3 that I shouldn't report an infestation, this conversation would make a lot more sense to me.
.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

I cannot understand why you do not get it as your posts indicate you are an intelligent person.

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

NO - I said that the tunnels are similar to something, I did not ever say they were from termites! It's the dance of the words.

Originally Posted by Billy Stephens

.
.
* for clarity Ants are not Termites Carpenter Ants

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

I've seen a lot of carpenter ant damage,

I should really take the answers people have given at face value, shouldn't I?
.
Silly Kristi. Maybe it didn't seem dense because it was so full of insect tunnels!

.
Well I tried.
.
.

So Kenny, what are you looking for when you're determining whether something is insect damaged, carpenter ants in particular?

(I know termites and ants are different! Not even related, different orders altogether.)

I know I am jumping in late here but no one has mentioned the possibility of Dampwood Termites. They will only infest wet, rotted wood. They will make a nest that has structure to it slightly different from carpenter ant galleries.

http://rc-images.s3.amazonaws.com/a3...1861.jpg?gen=1

I rarely see carpenter ants in rotted wood especially composite siding,

//Rick

Carpenter ants have easily identifiable tunnels, none of which are in your pic, they are uniform and smooth, not looking like dry rot or moisture damage that has dried.. they kick out their dead etc.. and the body parts can easily be seen beneath the area especially in a location as you have there.. that's not all but you can easily google and get an education.

Originally Posted by Kristi Silber

I hope I haven't annoyed or offended anyone here. I like all those who've replied in this thread.

Kristi, you're a funny gal.

If you stood back and looked at what goes on here, you'd find that if many of the folks here were in one room instead of on a forum there'd likely be fisticuffs during discussions of some of this stuff - which would be followed by everybody having a beer (or coffee or whatever) once the issue was settled.

Point is, this forum does, in a somewhat crazy manor, manage to convey a great deal of information that will be ripped apart completely till the actual facts of the matter come out - and that's why it's here.

As lightly as you tread it's unlikely you will be "upsetting " anyone. The only thing I really see as a problem is that your stick for "kneecapping" isn't big enough.

Bill, thanks very much. Great post, I appreciate it.

Point is, this forum does, in a somewhat crazy manor, manage to convey a great deal of information that will be ripped apart completely till the actual facts of the matter come out - and that's why it's here.

Yes, exactly, and that's why I'm here! I love the debate that goes on. My experience in other forums has been such that I am wary of treading on toes without meaning to. Some people hate it when you speak your mind.

On that note...

Originally Posted by kenny martin

Carpenter ants have ... that's not all but you can easily google and get an education.

I have googled for info in the past, that's why I was asking what you were looking for and didn't see.

A couple years ago I had a shed that I wanted to adapt as a chicken coop. Once I started, I realized that it was badly infested with ants. I did my research, looked at them with a magnifying glass, I'm pretty sure they were carpenter ants. They were in the studs, plywood, and styrofoam insulation. I had to tear the whole thing down and start from scratch.

I am not without experience of rotten wood, though of a different nature. I'm an ecologist, and I've spent many thousands of hours in the forest, seen a lot of rotten wood, including a lot of insect infested rotten wood. I'm interested in it, take photos of it, try to find out what's making a particular pattern.

In my experience, water and rot do not normally make curvy, smooth-sided, evenly sized channels looping across the grain that end in a round hole.

Now I post a photo, say I can see tunnels that look very similar to those I've seen carpenter ants make, but also say I couldn't get a good photo of them. And they are obviously not recent tunnels. They're exposed, so the ants (if that's what they are) aren't hanging out there anymore, plus they've been dormant here for months. Insect parts in the frass could have degraded, the wood further rotted and made the tunnels not so clean looking.

So when someone says there are no tunnels based on admittedly poor photos, not having actually been there, can you blame me for defending my position?

One thing I was wrong about is to say it was currently infested. I don't know that.