Quick little foreword:

This article is an extension of the tree poaching article I published back in April. This article is not a “part 2”, but it is in a similar spirit and tone—one of lamenting. This article explores the myriad of ways the tree care industry has mutated our views on nature. Before you go yelling at the screen that this article paints with broad strokes—I know it does; read the whole thing to the end.

This is a long article, but it covers a lot of ground. I posed the question to our Instagram followers if this article should be one or two parts. By 51% majority, the one-parters won.

I do a bit of talking directly to the arborist-readers and the non-arborist readers throughout this article.

I’ve had this growing problem with the tree care industry for my entire time within it. It wasn’t until a conversation with Dillon after he went to a tree-appraisal seminar that we realized it possible to capture an entire philosophy into a single word: Anthropocentrism. 

This word means ‘human-centered’.

Anthropocentrism is a worldview where the human interest is placed first, foremost, and forever. At the expense and destruction of the natural world, the exploiting of nature and all of her resources. While that sounds a bit harsh, it is kind of natural from a biological perspective. Social species protect their own, right? To that simplified end, I can understand it.

In the greater domain of philosophy, a debate rages on about the role of anthropocentrism as a driving force behind the global climate and environmental crisis. Many of those arguments are very semantic and highly nuanced; more nuanced than I can be about it.

I say, though, I find it difficult to argue against anthropocentrism as being a major (if not the biggest) contributor to the global/environmental crisis.

I don’t mean to demonize this mindset as a whole. Anthropocentrism is natural, and in some cases a force for good. It can be used to spin an argument that encourages environmental conservation; in that humankind’s best interest is included in the ecocentric view (ecology-centered view).

The ecocentric viewpoint includes humans in with other important elements like the environment, water, soil, other organisms. That environmental health is our health. It is a much less selfish, and much more inclusive worldview. One where the importance of environmental health is self-evident.

But I’m not here to write on broad philosophy, I can’t postulate confidently on those things. But I can postulate on the role of anthropocentrism in a smaller domain, one that isn’t as broad as human philosophy.

You’d sort of think (well, I did at least), that an industry claiming to be working for trees worked in an inherently ecocentric way. As I’ve grown up, I’ve gradually learned that my expectations were wrong and naive.

How could the tree industry not be an anthropocentric industry? Without some human need, there are no arborists and no tree care companies. Tree care companies don’t operate in forests, they operate in areas where humans and trees coexist.

I thought we were supposed to enable the peaceful coexistence of trees and people. But an opaque and made-up boundary has made our relationship one-sided. Nature isn’t a far away concept, it is everywhere. We’re part of it, despite our endless attempts to dictate it.

The idea behind this article comes from talking with thousands of people about their trees. From seeing the thousands of trees around me in focus, not like background.

I didn’t land on these conclusions and work backwards. These aren’t the justifications of some hippy tree hugger. These are evolving conclusions that took miles, years, conversations, and countless hours with trees and in woodlands to reach.

I don’t have secret or arcane knowledge. I read the same books available to everyone. We can see the same trees. The evidence of this claim is abundant:

Our cultural views on nature kinda suck

There are a lot of misguided taboos in our culture about trees and nature. Those notions come from many different places, and one of them is, ironically, the tree care industry. And as a participant in that space, that’s what I’m going to focus on in this article: The industry of tree care’s role in mutating our perceptions and expectations of nature.

Our culture permits beauty as the only allowable function of trees on our properties. Referred to in some literature as ‘amenity tree care’. This is the predominant form of tree care in the United States. This outdated thinking is leveraged by tree care companies because they themselves have bought into these stigmas. Tying together “beauty” with “healthy” and “strong” trees. Less-than-perfect trees are demonized and exploited by this industry. Some tree care companies (and landscape companies too I suppose) are hired on the notion to “clean up” your property.

To keep your property free of nature, and to keep our trees less tree-like.

The tree industry isn’t the only cause of these cultural views. Of course not. And despite the industry’s misguided contributions to culture, it is in a unique position to affect change to public conscience in a better way. A big problem I have is that it does not do that. 

But it CAN!

Ultimately, we face a failure of science communication with the public. The other side of that coin is a failure of science education within the industry itself.

Many of those working in the tree industry don’t realize they’re in an ecological field. It does not instill into its members a feeling of environmental purpose either. Industry experience often only teaches arborists or tree workers on how to work on trees safely, and, while safety is important, the reasons to do so are purely through the anthropocentric lens.

You can do whatever you want to trees. But we have to be better communicators (and better understanders) of what is done for people, and what is done for trees. People delivering tree care or tree work and people receiving it conflate the two. That is a fundamentally important distinction.

Without knowing the difference, arborists or people caring for their own trees can inadvertently be working against trees, and against the local nature. They don’t see themselves as either contributors or enemies of nature. They just see themselves at their job. And if we stay in the ‘job’ mindset for just a moment, not working with trees and not studying trees is simply not doing your job.

I do not think of ecocentrism as a ‘niche’ way of thinking. It is the opposite. It is the most encompassing, broadest reaching, and purposeful way to think about nature. 

Destructive views on nature

The problem here is complicated: Neither clients nor the tree companies have a well-formed and nuanced perspective on nature (or trees, for that matter). Not everyone in the public is an environmental biologist or ecologist; that’s fine–their ignorance is fine (that’s why they hire ‘professionals’). But it is unacceptable that the tree care industry shares and encourages these taboos because it has such power over it. Workers quickly learn how to kill trees, and only after many many years, even think about how to stop doing that.

Trees are a key ingredient to nearly every biome. The ecosystem services they provide dramatically increase as they grow into their later mature, veteran, and ancient stages. And American culture and arboriculture only allows trees to get to the point where they just begin to show features associated with those later stages.

At that point, the trees are often killed because they’ve lost their “pristineness”. They’re “too big”. Or have some decay on their trunks. They’re “dying”. “They’re too high risk”, as if there is no way to reduce risk besides killing. No thoughtfulness.

I don’t like to point to famous quotes, but this one from Upton Sinclair really rings true in this case:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

Taboos

More arboriculture is done in conversation than with a saw. I’ve been the second or even third professional opinion on a tree before. I’ve heard how people view trees, both non-arb people and arb people. 

Non-arb folks sometimes think that removing all of the suckers is good for the tree because that’s what their tree guy says (we’ll get into that soon). When they turn to sources that only see trees as in service for humans, it is no wonder we’ve got some silly ideas about nature. 

Imagine a legacy where you’re known as a killer. This is a common flex in online tree work culture. Tree assassin, tree slayer, contract killer, how cute. Lauded as someone who's spent a lifetime removing habitat. Removing biodiversity. Removing green space. Removing carbon sinks. When did that become cool? 

These are often the people who are being asked the questions about tree safety. About tree importance. About preservation. These guys are ‘experts’ in tree work. Not tree biology. Not ecology. The concepts behind biology and ecology are not hidden away behind a college education. The concepts are not hard to grasp either, and in fact, I argue, the longer you work with trees, the more these concepts become evident on their own. But when you earn your living on not-understanding these things, why bother?

By talking with clients as people who I share nature with, the outcomes are meaningful. People do want to take care of their trees and their nature. When I present clients with the important things we can actually do for trees and for those that depend on trees, they are receptive to it. They want to look after their trees. I’m not some slick salesperson. I’m a tree nerd who is trying deliberately to navigate these conversations in a way that improves this place.

There are arborists and practitioners who are on the side of trees. But there are few of us. Before we expand on what we tolerate as acceptable and beautiful, we must see the playing field for what it is, and look straight into these taboos.

Pruning

American homeowners and arborists are both entrenched in strange pruning dogma. Under the impression that intervention is always necessary. Or that trees need to be pruned, and that they’re dependent on us! “I want an estimate to prune my tree back to health”. It's fine for clients to not understand reasons to prune. It is not fine to let them think that's the effect our pruning has.

Throughout my various articles I’ve said in as many ways that I can, that trees are organisms, they aren’t statues. They can sense their environment and adapt to it, and that also means what you do to it has an effect on it. Trees do not need balancing to become ‘healthier’, removing dead wood generally doesn’t improve their vitality, and often ‘properly made’ cuts are still damaging. Think about it. You’re removing living parts of them. Knowing how to make a cut often gives tree workers the wrong impression that that is the license to make any cut.

To use one of Jack’s analogies here: Technically you can live with only one lung. But that doesn’t mean you would choose to.

Removing dead stems may reduce risk in places where there are targets, but it’s often sold as a way to improve the health of the tree. That’s almost never the case. This type of thinking leads to homeowners trees’ often not getting proper care. They’re misled (intentionally or accidentally) to believing that removing the dead wood prolongs the life of the tree. Reducing risks is good, but again, we can’t conflate risk management with health management.

Trees can be pruned to whatever end in the United States, property law allows for that. We have the freedom to have our trees poached, and the companies have the freedom to poach them. Mistreatment of trees is common. Many pruning recommendations are completely arbitrary, however. Done simply for profit disguised as tree care, and often to the detriment of trees.

Meaningful pruning reduces risk while incurring the least amount of damage to the plant in order to maintain and prolong the litany of benefits trees provide. Meaningful pruning is not removing all of the ‘suckers’. It’s funny, I often look at trees that clients say have been pruned in the past. And as I look through the tree, I can only find evidence of work in the lower half of the crown. A classic sign of production tree work, not arboriculture.

Another sign of low-tier pruning is when climbers cut stems out of their way. This is one of the many reasons so many urban trees are lion-tailed. We’ve got this strange taboo and fundamental misunderstanding about water sprouts or suckers. Epicormic stems.

“They steal energy away from the tree” is a funny one I hear a lot. Or pruning them off “helps the tree breathe”.

Very little, if any, meaningful work is done by pruning the interior crown of a tree. I could go on and on about this one. Once trees are “gutted” or “lion-tailed”, the residual risk they pose is often higher than it was before it was pruned! Short term risks go up this way by creating limbs with end-weighted centers of masses. In the long term gutting a tree sets its retrenchment processes back and reduces overall photosynthetic area for no measurable benefit to the tree or the risks it poses.

Homeowners and tree trimmers tend to think more branches on the ground means more meaningful work is being done. Oi vey. Living tissue has inherent function to the organism, right? Like, no shit? Removing it for the purpose of creating a larger mess on the ground is detrimental to the tree. This isn’t challengeable. Every single cut made on a tree must have a purpose that offsets the stress it imposes onto the plant. Another classic mistake of the tree cutter mistake a tree’s tolerance to stress as a license to stress them out.

Using the above photo for an example for a second, if the homeowner was informed of the increased risks their tree now poses to their home, they likely would not agree to having this done to their tree. Right? And if they were informed and still accept the risks, then that is fine. In this area, I know very well this client was uninformed, and so too were the folks that did this to the tree.

And don’t even get me started on “crown cleaning”.

Soil

A weird hybrid between agricultural fertilization habits and tree care habits are the popular approach to fertilizing trees in the States. Most of these methods originally were meant to increase growth yields of certain plants, like vegetables and fruits, in order to increase profits. Tree care companies have been excessively fertilizing trees for decades now with fertilizer formulas to overdrive growth that were really meant for “working plants”. In most cases, peoples’ trees are not working plants.

It is well documented that excessive nitrogen, for example, causes an increase in plant susceptibility to stress and disease. Excessive nitrogen is severely destructive to soil microbiology, which is becoming a growing focus of good soil management. Forcing the plant to grow towards a state where it is dependent on what it is being given by us, and instead of by nature. And if you’re in the business of exploiting trees, the previous two sentences sound pretty damn good.

When new clients tell me they’ve been having their trees fertilized by companies in the past, my first question is always “did they do a soil test? If so, which ones did they do?”. I have never been told yes to that first question. Seriously! How does anyone know what a particular soil needs without checking?! It is absolutely mind blowing. 

In the absence of a soil report or tissue analysis, I don’t think it is wise to use the fertilizers tree care companies frequently apply to trees. Similarly, I’ve seen folks have their green grass lawns fertilized near wetlands and other bodies of water, which again, is mindblowing to me. We seem to justify compromising nature when a customer is willing to pay for it. 

Allowing soil to exist and develop as it would normally in native ecosystems often does provide trees with an adequate array of macronutrients and micronutrients. I’ll show you how arborists can replicate that a few paragraphs down.

The soil in our neighborhoods vary in certain qualities like texture, nutrient levels, or compaction because of the conditions we keep them in: Visually pristine. Free of decomposition, free of features, mowed, and in monoculture. In places where we cover the soil with grass, there are some common effects that can be seen that are meaningful for trees. 

Our silly cultural marriage to green lawns and weed free landscapes hold our trees and ecosystems back. Historically, green and fruitless lawns were an expression of “fuck you” money. To have unproductive land was a flex of wealth. It was known and intended to be pointless. The reality of the green lawn is a “fuck you” to nature instead of your neighbors, now that everyone’s got one. 

Lawns kept with green grass generally are “neat”, as in, there’s very little decomposition occurring on the top layer of the soil (no biodiversity either, but I won't go into that in this article). Those soils also tend to be more susceptible to compaction, drying out, water infiltration, (I could probably list twenty things); all of which are a more difficult environment for trees to grow in. Not to mention the run-off from constant urban fertilization no doubt contributes to water quality issues pretty much everywhere in the US. In ordinary settings, organic matter accumulates here and is decomposed by microorganisms in the soil. Their byproducts nourish the soil and develop a soil profile that trees have evolved to live in

There are other fundamentally destructive practices that occur to our urban soils that originate during the construction process too that can lead to long term tree stress. Excessive digging and backfilling with off-site soil is problematic for soil continuity. Generally trees don’t respond well when their roots and soil are significantly disturbed. This is especially true for mature, veterans, and ancient trees.

Soil compaction during construction or from bucket trucks is often an undiagnosed chronic stressor for trees too. Lack of tree protection zones in construction sites is depressingly common. Grade changes, both adding or subtracting soil to an existing soil where trees grow is a horrible practice. Raising the soil grade is a recipe for encouraging self-girdling roots to grow (among other root related issues).

Installing weed barriers in gardens has a profound negative impact on soil (I could write a whole article about that), and having a crew of gas-powered leaf blowers clean up all of the leaves in fall removes a ton of fuel for soil genesis. Working against the soil because that’s how people get paid.

Returning soils to similar states is a goal good arborists have when managing trees. When we do this, there is often less need for soil fertilization because the natural processes are at play. Not only that, doing that helps to ensure nutrient levels don’t get insanely out of balance by our constant meddling in soil in fertilizers. Essentially letting nature happen, a return to nature.

Some inputs may still be periodically necessary, depending on the soil. But I argue, far less inputs than what is currently the norm as annual soil injections.

Treatment

When we go to the doctor’s office with issues, they ask us first if we’re sleeping enough, eating well, drinking water, before anything is diagnosed or prescribed. Ethically, at least. Another imperfect industry I am sure. 

Tree care companies lack this nuance and often jump to treatments. I reckon overfertilization or overtreatment are parallel to overprescribing people. The industry supplies us with an abundance of chemical treatments and we’re informed by pathologists at conferences on their uses. A sort of “pill for everything” mentality is promoted this way.

One of the problems with seeing the world through a pathologic-lens is that the horticultural element is often an afterthought in arboriculture. Real pathologists are aware of the granular details, but those can’t really be conveyed at entry-level conferences. Sometimes using these products is the correct course of action, but often is the single solution offered to clients. 

To be fair, some diseases do indeed demand treatment. But are there ways that other stresses can be minimized? Yes! Just like the doctor’s initial questions, is the tree being watered? Start with the simple stuff first when assessing tree problems.

Spraying chemicals everywhere isn’t what makes trees healthy in the long term. These are short-term and oversold methods. Long term tree health is managing stress. Making sure the tree’s horticulture is adequate before we jump to treatments. What spraying everything aimlessly does is reduce biodiversity. And in a time of well documented global insect decline, this is especially important.

Within Big Arb, there is a separation between companies than prune and remove trees from companies that do what they call “plant health care”. It’s funny, as if pruning doesn’t affect health. I’ve always thought it bizarre and silly to separate these two domains of tree care.

“Plant health care” companies have a distinct intolerance for nature. It is a cultural problem because homeowners jump to this conclusion (again, they are allowed to not have nuance here), but production tree spray operations support that and encourage it. Use of the word “control” is ambiguous and misleading. When I think the word ‘control’, I think getting it under control means getting rid of a problem. And while yes, lowering populations in some cases may get rid of the problem, that isn’t what the layperson thinks. They think we’re getting rid of the “bugs”.

PHC technicians here learn about thresholds of insects while receiving their pesticide licenses. However, that element of attention is nearly absent from the work orders new clients have shown me from previous work they’ve received. The practices here are strictly profit driven too, just like the over-pruning of trees. The use of insecticides specifically, as I’ve seen on work orders from clients, is egregious. These chemicals shouldn’t be used in perpetuity in most cases, especially when sprayed. But they are. And their companies are designed to do just that. 

These companies will sign you up for an indefinite series of visits to kill and remove insects from your plants. A company I used to work for implements an automatically renewed contract with the same services until you cancel. As if you’re supposed to know when the treatment is complete! And so a treatment of insecticides happens at your home over, and over, and over again. The target pests were nonspecific, as were the trees and shrubs to be sprayed.

If this isn’t a wicked example of misunderstanding and mismanagement of nature, I don’t know what is. Killing massive populations of insects intentionally. In perpetuity. For profit.

I got thinking about this when I saw minor herbivory on the leaves of a client’s black oak. The first thing she said to me was "should we spray it?".

I know exactly where she got that idea.

Trees play a disproportionately large role in our ecosystems compared to other organisms, both in their size and the support they provide. But that doesn’t mean we strictly prioritize them without zooming out and considering the life they support. Some of the practices tree companies use directly prevent trees from being trees. Trees are food. A bit of herbivory is a good thing. Insecticide treatments should almost never be done preventatively or in perpetuity.

Herbivory on trees shows that the nature around us depends on these trees. Big and small. Food webs and such.

Wildlife

Excessive pesticide usage has a lasting effect on insect populations. As part of a greater food web that extends beyond just your yard, screwing with it affects the whole web.

We seem to have a narrow band of wildlife we allow to exist in our urban spaces with us. Squirrels are OK, but opossums are not? The notion of wildlife depending on trees has only just entered into mainstream arboriculture conversations in America. Only recently contextualizing trees as fountains of life—and we’ve got a long way to go—but I’m happy to say we face the right direction now at least.

Seeing trees with metal caps covering cavities is quite the indicator of intolerance to nature. A deliberate “no” to the wildlife that can utilize those spaces. Those don’t do anything for stopping or slowing down decay, either. I could also write an entire article on not “cleaning” breakages from trees (in fact, I think I will). Basically, benefits to the environment of leaving a torn stem far outweigh the benefits of “cleaning” it.

A pond is an available resource to migrating birds, let’s say. While the pond may not always be in use by birds, its importance of just being there is implied. We know, oh, come spring, ducks and swans will need and rely on this space.

In exactly the same way, tree cavities and hollows provide for wildlife. An animal may not always occupy that space, but just like ponds, wildlife will find these features if they are present. These features are removed by tree trimmers daily to keep trees “pristine” and free of dead wood. Not for the sake of the tree, but because both human parties think it is good for the tree. Part of this cultural issue is that tree trimmers often believe this misnomer too. “Ya gotta go get that dead wood”, or you gotta always make a finish cut.

The notion that trees need to be pristine and free of dead wood is a sterile perspective to have of trees. It removes the tree from its context. Wildlife depends on all of a tree’s parts, living, dead, or somewhere in between. Tree risk is important to manage, but removal of dead wood is often pitched as something that benefits a tree’s health. There are few cases where this is true.

Retaining dead wood habitat (also called ‘saproxylic’ habitat) is another way to provide for the wildlife that coexists with us. We do this in areas where their risks are low, which is most areas. Actively removing useful and reasonably safe habitat is a disservice to the ecosystems your trees are in. It makes them less tree-like, and the arborist less arborist-like.

Risk

American Big Arb loves to throw around the word ‘defect’ in place of ‘feature’. To fear decay, to fear wildlife habitat, to fear less-than-perfect trees. That’s how we’re taught in the industry. A distinctly anti-nature verbiage which does not encourage curiosity or investigation. Simply wave a piece of paper around that says the tree is high risk and you and the boys get to killin’. Again, property rights in the US allow for this. The tree care industry provides the language on how to say these things, and the Big Arb industry provides the tools to kill ‘em fast.

American arboriculture doesn’t have much to say on veteran tree management, the industry here is quite behind some common European sentiments. That isn’t to say tree poachers aren’t in Europe too, though, they just have more hoops to jump through, which probably makes poaching a bit less common. The notion that you can simply destroy a 300 year old tree because you don’t like it is silly and might get you looked at funny. This is also likely due to, at least in the UK, they have more cultural appreciation for their veteran and ancient trees, which we’ll discuss further on.

Because a majority of tree companies fear and do not understand liability, removal is a frequent recommendation. Not to mention, a profitable one. They aren’t aware that trees can be examined closely, they aren’t aware that determining if a tree genuinely does need to come down requires subtle attention to detail. Most often not determined by a quick glance. Many arborists and tree cutters have a fast trigger finger. They also don’t realize that even if they aren’t a TRAQ certified person, if they’re an arborist working with large trees, whether they like it or know it or not, they are doing some risk management.

The risks trees pose in the US is highly overstated by both arboriculture literature here and tree companies. There are times and places to be concerned about risk. Of course there are. Survivorship bias and scare tactics are prevalent, and there is a widespread deficiency in risk communication. When one tree has a catastrophic failure in a storm event, everyone in the neighborhood wonders if their tree is next. A ripe scenario for poachers. 

Tree care is done with already existing trees. The whole notion of “remove and replace” is weak. Use of or belief in that philosophy of tree caretaking is indicative of not-knowing how to actually take care of trees. It removes responsibility from the company; by the time the next tree develops problems, they’ll be long gone.

Fungi

We’re afraid of fungi, both you and the tree companies. The number of times I have been a second opinion on a tree removal for the simple presence of a mushroom is astounding. Fungi are highly speciated and do vastly different things to trees. Few fungi outright kill trees. It is more often humans that kill trees when they see fungi.

Fungi are one of the most vital kingdoms of organisms on the planet and are required to keep global ecosystems functional. They are part of nature, not some abhorrent force of nature. It is important to have an arborist look at your tree if you find a large mushroom emerging from it, but in my experience, nuance here is mostly lacking.

Trees can deal with fungi, and largely, they do. When trees do suffer from pathogenic fungi, that is still OK. That is part of the forest, and the results of that fungi’s work is important to others that depend on the tree.

Fungi are not inherently evil things that want to cost you money and kill your trees. At the same time, they’re an inseparable part of tree biology, which makes them a reliable source of justifications for tree cutters to kill your trees. At some point, fungi will come. Trees and fungi are inseparable. Every single old tree you see has various different fungi living within them.

The literature on trees and fungi is awesome and complex, and if there is something the folks working trees dislike, it is nuance and complexity.

We think dead or dying trees are undesirable things that are an eyesore, and American arboriculture has an appetite to overstate the risks they pose. A beautiful nature isn’t something that is only green. It is a rainbow of colors. Dead and dying trees can be managed by good arborists, and we do this because of their contributions to the ecosystem. We do this because that’s what arborists are supposed to do.

Veteran and Old Trees

American arborists and their American clients are not often exposed to veteran trees in ways that highlight their importance, either in person or in the media they consume. When the tree companies find them, they see dollar signs and overstate risk. And not just from their anthropocentric greed, but for culturally and scientifically not understanding them. They too do not see dead wood as history or habitat, they see it as disease. When they see large amounts of dieback, they instantly see a dying tree. A dying tree looks very different from a retrenching one. They somehow have not realized tree health is not a one way street.

American arboriculture doesn’t put much emphasis on taking care of old trees because of both a lack of cultural reverence and our aversion to nuanced risk management. American arboriculture tends to look at all trees the same. Remove all dead wood from trees, remove all suckers, a large cut is OK so long as you don’t hit the branch collar, blah blah blah, common tree guy stuff. But as soon as there is some decay in the trunk, suddenly we can’t leave that tree. Too risky. We can handle all of the risks of killing it though.

Veteran trees are not necessarily old or ancient trees, but all ancient trees are veterans. Veteran trees are ones that have complex elements to them, features of decay, habitats, colonized by fungi. Some trees like willow develop veteran features at relatively young ages. Sometimes good arborists intentionally ‘veteranize’ trees by adding features to them. Sometimes we veteranize trees unintentionally with ill-advised pruning wounds. What makes one good and another bad is context and purpose.

Veteran and ancient trees are the prettiest trees to me. Not the conventional deadwood-less, featureless tree. Trees with their histories on display. These are giving trees. These are the treest of trees. It is the older and larger trees that do the meaningful environmental work. 

An understanding of natural tree lifespans is near absent. What we see in our country is, instead, the “useful lifespan” of a tree. This is my largest personal gripe with our industry. The inability to identify and work with less-than-perfect trees.

Understanding old trees should be fundamental to any tree curriculum. It is a gap in mainstream tree care in the US. To compare to other areas, literature from the UK or Netherlands, for example, emphasize the understanding of older and larger trees.

Offsite, greenwashed replanting efforts further justify profit-driven removal of veteran trees by replanting saplings elsewhere. These efforts are rife with controversy for not living up to their promises; lack of care beyond planting, lack of oversight, and monoculture issues to name a few.

We wrongly focus on what can be seen quickly rather than trying to understand the complexity (and importance) of the roles trees play within the greater picture. We’ve got these ideas that we’ve got to rid trees of “pests” and diseases. Trees aren’t defenseless and selfish organisms. They are giving and unselfish and adaptable organisms that evolved complex mechanisms that we don’t fully understand.

Throughout their long lives they sequester carbon, intercept rainfall, support our soils, provide habitats for generations of other organisms, etc.. I could go on and on. They are fountains of life. And the older they are allowed to become, the deeper and richer the fountain becomes.

Cultural History:

We have a few “landmark” trees here in the States. Hyperion, the Angel Oak, General Sherman, to name a few. These are the few trees we allow to be imperfect. But what people don’t realize is that through many human lifespans, people have agreed not to cut those trees down. Isn’t that something?

It’s like we don’t realize that you can just decide that for any tree. Before those trees were iconic, they weren’t.

In other countries though, there is much more reverence for ancient, landmark, or notable trees. Older nations have much longer continuity with their history than we have. Again, that isn’t to say that poaching or that the maladies of production tree care aren’t present elsewhere. The significance that a tree could have been around during a critically important event in a country’s history is self-evident to them.

In the US, we have tend to view trees as commodities. Replaceable ornaments in our lawns. Not just by homeowners, but by municipalities too and tree companies too. Trees are strictly viewed from cities through economic benefits, conventional cartoonish beauty, and nothing else.

Here, we are more likely to slice off primary roots of a tree, dramatically increasing both the risks and the stress, because the city code is gospel. We cannot make arrangements for exceptional trees, nor are we going to select a company who can provide alternatives to maiming natural history. Instead, we’ll go with the cheapest bidder. If the tree dies, we’ll just replace it. There was no way to prevent it.

It is funny too, the community we found this tree in is well aware of absence of the American elms. And still despite that, amenity culture is strong. Nobody cares if nobody cares.

A friend of mine is a pretty smart and interested arborist. The company he works for leverages his credentials on their excessive Facebook advertisements to try to get more tree work. This company is a typical mom and pop tree killin’ outfit, but my friend wants to work with trees instead of against them.

He’s made several attempts to sway the old minds of that company, and each time he’s pretty much told to buzz off, despite putting his entire career into the company. What is he to do? I’m not sure yet, but it is a perfect example of the American special: “the way we’ve always done it”. That company is not interested in taking care of trees. And in fact, that’s what they think tree care is. Cuttin’ and killin’. What they’re actually interested in is enriching themselves from exploiting trees. And if that ain’t a shining example of American culture, I don’t know what is.

This isn’t just my friend’s problem—it is everyone’s problem. It represents exactly where we are.

Production Tree Work

Combine all of these taboos and misguided ideas together and you’ll find anthropocentric production tree work to facilitate the work. The ubiquitous norm in this country. Emphasis is on speed and productivity. Emphasis is on quantity over quality. On how cool you look on Instagram.

Production tree work equips for fast destruction of trees. There is a large body of tree workers in this country that think that’s what tree care is. And to some degree, I can’t blame them, when that’s most of what they see at conventions. The newest chippers, the newest grapple trucks. That’s what they see all of the other companies equipped with. Once they bite this hook, they’ve got big bills to pay, and the biggest jobs are the ones that involve killin’ or making big cuts. A slippery slope that the industry suppliers hope we slip down.

All of these taboos are commonplace, and tree companies are literally built to perpetuate them. Kill all of the nature. Remove the habitat. Pump trees full of roids and then when they break after they lion-tail them, then they come to kill them. Beautiful trees only.

But remember, the tree work companies themselves are only part of the problem. Partly to blame. They themselves believe these things, often. The ways their companies operate doesn’t really allow for nuance because it would be too much of a headache, or incur too much cost to their clients.

A bigger chipper doesn’t mean better arboriculture. Big flashy equipment does not improve the arboricultural outcomes in most hands. In fact, I argue, big equipment often worsens arboricultural outcomes for trees and tree owners.

Growth

There are reasons to prune, to treat, and times to be concerned with decay. There are times to remove trees too. I argue that all of those things are done in excess due to misunderstandings about what trees need and about the roles trees play. All of which are exacerbated by production tree work. There is a role for production arboriculture, but this model doesn’t fit all scenarios. It doesn’t fit most scenarios.

Different tree care models are emerging to help address the lack of conscientious care. These companies don’t equip for killing trees, and instead deliberately equip for their caretaking. A small-arb movement is under way. There is hope.

I know I said I don’t like using the words of others. But just like I began this article with a quote, I want to end with one:

We Ents do not like being roused; and we never are roused unless it is clear to us that our trees and our lives are in great danger. - Fangorn of Lord of the Rings

The few strong arborists who give a shit are on the move. We are the committed opponents to these taboos, misguided ideas, and Big Arb.

Looking at trees only as amenities is an incomplete way to work with nature. I don’t know if we’ll ever have a complete view of trees. But remembering that trees are everyone’s is a vantage point to always begin from. Trees do not exist in a vacuum. Beautiful trees have habitat within them. Good arborists take care of trees, despite their imperfections, and strive not to worsen them.

These taboos and stigmas are dispelled in conversations with people, your clients, your bosses, your climbers. With these beliefs, our environments are worse off. That is part of how we can influence culture. If you know about nature, talk about it. Clients don’t expect us to have all of the answers. They expect us to try.

This article is written in the spirit of that: we do have influence. You must think about how to wield your influence. When we arborists influence the public in a positive way, they let you do arboriculture on their trees. The Tree First practice is living proof of that; it becomes a positive feedback loop.

I have heard arborists justify their destruction with “that’s what clients want”. Whether it be lion-tailing, killing insects or killing trees, or whatever. The client actually wants guidance on their trees. That’s why they’re hiring a professional. If the client knew arbitrary pruning was bad for their tree, would they still want it? The answer is no. Just like any other arborist skill, communication skills need sharpening. And you know how you get better at that? Practicing.

There is a growing sentiment amongst good and thoughtful people in the tree care industry. That is one of unfulfillment. This comes from a place of knowing or feeling that what tree care does is often against nature. And due to familial commitments, financial reasons, job security, whatever, we don’t rock the boat.

Let me tell you, rock the boat. It is worth it. There are resources on the other side of production arboriculture; the trail is being blazed. If you’re considering an ethical tree care practice of your own, do it. The spirit of the small-arb movement originates in those very same feelings of unfulfillment.

We arborists are easily accessible to people who own little bits of nature in their yards. And we have nearly endless opportunities to improve this place. Arborists are in a unique position to be the tip of the ecocentrism spear. To be the gateway to ecocentrism, to taking care of this place. Once we let go of the paradigm of production tree work, we can take arboricultural and ecological principles and actually apply them.

You don’t have to write articles or proselytize to be better nature advocates. You must learn to the differences between tree work from arboriculture. Do not mistake the two.

You must study.

You must speak.

You must not be hasty.

You must be deliberate.

Tree First, Forever