The trees that stand in my neighborhood once saw forest. They then saw farmland, and then the land eventually became suburban/urban. Now they see houses, but they wonder where their neighbors went. The sound of leaves in the wind is becoming harder and harder to hear.

The neighborhood is dotted with gigantic veteran and mature oaks, mature maples, and a handful of very old hophornbeams who have seen some shit. Those trees germinated before the place was leveled and were surprisingly spared from massacre.

I’m sure the trees that were giants back then were not spared. Many of the neighborhood’s current biggest trees survived the onslaught only to face a new (but similar) menace: Poachers.

Last fall while walking my dog, Winry, in my neighborhood after work, our route was determined by the sounds of chainsaws. Not away from them, towards them. The sounds led us to a helmetless crew removing a very large eastern white pine that I admired each time I walked Hazelhurst Street.

A groundsman was at one of the work trucks replacing a chain on a saw. “What was wrong with that tree?” I asked him as we walked by.

“I don’t know; that’s all this guy knows how to do” he said while gesturing towards the climber, who I assume is also the owner of the company.

This company portrays itself as a legitimate company with all of the buzzwords on its large chip truck “tree care,” “voted best blah blah blah.” The disinterested groundsman didn’t hide the truth very well when he said basically “all we do is kill trees.”

The classic sign of poaching on my street. A huge stump in the front, with a harder-to-poach tree in the backyard.

Many of the front yard giants in my neighborhood have been poached, but the backyard giants remain. This is because of the challenge they pose to the poachers who prefer easier prey. The common struggles of tree cutting companies incentivizes them to find reasons to remove any tree. After all, that’s the most profitable thing to do. And when you don’t know much about trees, you either leave ‘em or you kill ‘em. Nothing in between.

Poachers justify removing trees by either convincing the owner to agree to it or by accepting that request.

Their skillset is not in service of trees; no “tree service” is being done for trees. It’s done for their paychecks, without knowing how their pillaging affects entire neighborhoods. Without knowing even why poaching trees is problematic. Without any regard for the rights of nature.

And they don’t know, and they don't care. That’s what tree work is to a majority of arborists and trimmers.

I feel no sense of camaraderie with most tree companies. It’s kind of a bummer. I feel no shame writing this article, as I don’t expect many of them to read it. Neighborhoods like mine, the people and trees and wildlife in it, the ecology, are all worse off because of the prevalence of tree poachers.

As someone who cares deeply for nature and especially trees, I’d be damned if I didn’t express my indignation that tree care in the US has mutated into an industry that is so anti-nature. Ethical consideration is replaced by productivity and exploiting nature. That is the norm in this industry.

What is tree poaching?

Tree poaching is similar to people poaching elephants. Killing something for the deliberate sake of it. This can apply to forests where trees are poached for a commodity like timber, but in this article, poaching refers to the deliberate destruction of a low-risk urban or suburban tree for profit. Here in the US, risk from trees is highly overstated by the tree industry and is tactically used by poachers to frighten folks towards tree removal. Introducing the term ‘poaching’ or ‘poachers’ into the American lexicon to describe this is important.

Poached tree in front; more challenging bounty in the back. At least they left a snag, I give them credit for that. 3 streets away from my home.

Tree companies are taught a small handful of patterns to look for, inclusions, any amount of decay, etc.. and use those to justify killing trees.

An unknowing client is allowed to have an uninformed opinion on tree risk. That is OK. By reaching out to arborists, homeowners think they’re doing the right thing. That’s sort of the obvious path to go down. Who else do you call?

But they don’t know that arboriculture as an industry accepts a terribly low standard of care. And good arborists with good perspective are very rare. And as a result, well, plenty of trees are maimed and killed despite homeowners thinking they’re doing the right things.

While writing for industry publications, for example, during the editing process, I’ve been asked to rephrase certain statements because they may turn some readers off. Dislike of my use of phrases like “tree-killing” and “people who kill trees.” This indicates to me that the omnipresence of low-quality tree care is something we’re not ready to acknowledge.

I reckon acknowledging the commonplace of bad practice might suggest our industry’s efforts are in vain. They are not in vain; they just aren’t totally sufficient to eliminate bad practices. I don’t think bad practice will ever be eliminated.

I think identifying its presence is critical. And so, too, are the words we use to describe it. And so I call it poaching. If you think you’re encountering poachers, ask them many “why” questions to their recommendations, and quickly they will expose themselves. When it serious doubt, hire a consulting arborist. Seriously.

Here’s a scenario that has probably happened to you or someone you know, or someone they know: A tree service recommended a large tree be cut down for some reason or another. The owners think this is a bummer but believe the tree service is acting in good faith and looking out for their best interest.

The tree is removed, but the tree’s stump looks totally solid after they were told it was hollow. I know I am simplifying here, as a tree can be justifiably condemned while still having a solid trunk. But trees being vaguely diagnosed as “diseased” or “hollow” are common tropes I hear a lot, and the owner doesn't have much recourse once the evidence is chipped up or hauled away.

It is also common for homeowners who aren’t informed of the importance of trees (and nature) to request their removal for some anthropocentric reason like they don’t like the way it looks or they don’t like picking up leaves. This is like filling in a creek with soil because you don’t like it. Absurd, right? Because messing with a creek has obvious consequences downstream. The same can be said for needless, profit-driven tree removal. These are vital elements of nature that have purpose and function at micro and macro levels. This is unchallengeable.

What’s the problem with people removing their own trees at will? An ecocentric worldview doesn’t see nature as something to recklessly exploit or exercise tyrannical dominion over. It is easy to think of killing a 200+-year-old organism because you don’t like it as a totally childish notion with an ecocentric view. It is similar to the inherent need to protect our waterways and streams and lakes.

But there will be a tree service there to ask no questions while happily accepting removal requests, which I’ll touch on later. Tree removals rake in the big bucks, and there’s an industry behind that notion supplying it with ever faster ways of destroying them.

When one has just a pinch of understanding or appreciation of nature, arbitrarily removing ancient organisms comes off as hilariously selfish. I’m not talking about removing tiny buckthorn trees growing between your fence. I’m talking about mature and veteran trees, the huge ones, the ancients. The ones that have served their communities for centuries. These are the trees that offer the most ecosystem services.

Why does tree poaching exist?

Property law in the United States allows for it, plain and simple. You have the right to maim and destroy nature on your property, just as the tree services have the right to sell it to you. There are some exceptions to nature destruction: in certain areas near me, wetlands are protected. A slow progress towards conscientiousness, but progress nonetheless.

The timeless copout of tree guys is “if I don’t do it, someone else will.” Nothing indicates they don’t fully grasp their responsibility to nature quite like using that statement to justify their actions. Room for growth and maturing. Arborists are supposed to defend and support nature but have wholly lost their way. Arborists working for poaching outfits have discretion over their climbing and rigging, but not necessarily their arboriculture. And I have a serious problem with that.

Jack says that accepting "if I don't do it, someone else will" is a reflection of the industry culture. It downplays the importance of our roles, and it downplays your own ethics each time you justify unnecessarily killing a tree. It shows that money still takes precedence over doing the right thing, over reputation, and over standards. Instead of “how fast can you remove that tree,” a more profound and rare skill is “how effective are you at convincing owners not to remove their trees.”

The tree care industry lacks accountability and oversight. It is one where nature ethics are such a foreign concept that some tree companies don’t even realize they are poachers. After a tree is destroyed, it is easy for someone to say it was unsafe. The evidence is gone. It is difficult to challenge after the fact. Enforcement against poaching or malpractice is nearly totally absent and inherently difficult.

A trio of mature oaks on my street were maimed with enormous removal cuts against their trunks. "Properly made” cuts by the book, yet implemented in an unwise way. This is malpractice for so many reasons. Same trees, different angles.

The manufacturers and the products supplying this industry help perpetuate poaching of trees too. There are more people in the industry interested in the Instagram-glorified fast destruction of trees than there are those interested in the way of the tree. The manufacturers have won the attention of the tree cutters and so-called “arborists”, and the tree companies themselves are designed to do what the industry supplies them with. A perfect match.

Sure, people know that “Certified Arborists” exist. If you don’t know what that is, a “Certified Arborist” has passed an introductory qualification for working with trees. This standard is treated as the gold standard. It is the baseline. It is not an end but a beginning. Plenty of Certified Arborists are poachers. That credential is a tool like any other and, hence, can be misused (or not used at all). And most importantly, credentials don’t teach ethics.

There are a number of so-called arborists around me that admit when they’re asked if they’re a Certified Arborist by a client, they respond with “Yes I am an arborist.” Despite not being a Certified Arborist. See how that’s problematic? To be an ‘arborist’ you just need a chainsaw, unfortunately. There really is no barrier of entry.

Having a basic understanding of trees doesn’t really get tree cutters paid more. Being productive does. Sure, getting your Certified Arborist certificate might get you a pay bump, but nothing much changes for the field workers with no agency over their work. They’re given a work order and expected to be productive. Not great if those creating the work orders also do not have a deep understanding of nature and trees and have no quality control.

The evidence for this claim is abundant. Take a look in your own neighborhood. Exposed heartwood, large removal cuts made on primary stems, lion-tailing, a lack of peripheral crown work, non-existent soil care, etc. It is easy to find tree work done in haste and not in care. It is commonplace.

Evidence for poaching, though, is a bit less obvious since it results in absence. Neighborhoods with mature and veteran trees are particularly susceptible to poachers, especially ones that were developed without clear-cutting. Check out the photo below.

A heavily poached street. You can see a non-poached area in the background on the right.

Below is a photo one street away from the above photo.

A non-poached street two streets north of my home.

That is the habitat of big urban trees. Where you find prey, you find predators. See the contrast between the two photos? These are one street away from each other. The homes are all built in this neighborhood between 100 and 80 years ago. These are established neighborhoods with deep and spreading canopies that tree companies remove mindlessly.

This isn’t arboriculture. This is poaching.

How is poaching done?

There are many ways this is done.

The door-hanger flyer is a classic technique of tree poachers. They’ll prowl for neighborhoods with large trees. Where they find them, they’ll hang advertisements on doors with some general recommendations. “Call us for expert tree service!” or some silly claim like that. Anyone who knows about trees knows there are no such things as tree experts. Only, perhaps, experts in killing them, which is a different thing. Less consequential services are appropriately advertised with door hangers, not ones that deal with keystone organisms.

Another similar tactic is to mail flyers to physical addresses saying, “We’ll be in your neighborhood soon! Let us know if you need trees removed.” As if you know whether or not a tree needs cutting down. Decisions that affect environmental health should not be left up to people who don’t like or don’t know about trees, ya know?

Sometimes, poachers have good camouflage, hidden behind credentials and accreditations. Part of the tree care business is to not look like a poacher. But do not be fooled; always ask critical questions. Ask why-questions, push back, have the dialogue. A good arborist or company will not poach trees and will not solicit work. Period.

A client requesting the removal of a large, irreplaceable tree is complicit in its being poached. Effectively putting a bounty on their trees. Once a poaching outfit becomes successful enough, the company no longer has to prowl neighborhoods for prey. The clients will offer up their trees, either knowingly or unknowingly, to the axe. A company boasting they’ve been in business for 40 years is meaningless. In an industry that is painfully slow to change, this reads, “We’ve killed many trees.”

Our Problem

During my 2 and a half years in this neighborhood, that pine I mentioned is the seventh large front yard tree that I was familiar with that was killed, and I’d say 6 of those 7 were poached. The other, I believe, was somewhat justified as a legitimate risk to the house it was next to, and I seldom see that. This doesn’t factor in the unknown number of trees removed near me that I wasn’t aware of. While those numbers might not seem low, multiply that by every neighborhood with mature trees across decades.

It isn’t just a problem for my neighborhood, though. It is a problem for your neighborhood, too. Urban trees aren’t commodities like in a timber plot grown for harvesting. The trees removed by poachers aren't done so for some prized timber or some forestry product.

A line separating properties where trees were poached and trees were not poached.

They aren't turned into paper. They aren't turned into someone's house. They aren't made into utility poles. They are often removed for their own deliberately destructive purpose or from the naivety of their owners. They are put through a chipper, destroying them. And then re-sold to you as mulch.

Any solicitation about your trees should be met with extreme caution and extreme skepticism. Immediately recommending that your trees be removed should be met with the same critical suspicion. There are justifiable reasons to remove certain trees. But is it realistic that entire streets of front yard trees are removed because they are all high risk? Is it realistic that someone can make that judgment call from just a quick glance at a tree?

No.

Ruining the neighborhood

In my own neighborhood (an urban place), I’d say about 80% of the remaining mature/veteran trees are in backyards. And this isn’t because the neighborhood was designed that way. Backyard trees are more likely to become veterans and ancients because it is harder for poachers to get their bucket trucks back there to kill them, and most tree services don’t have exceptional climbers (despite what they think). It is harder for them to convince people to pay the prices for backyard bounties.

Less urban places with larger yards are more likely to have their backyard trees poached. But the point remains that front yard trees are easier to access, therefore faster to kill, and more likely to be poached for profit.

I witnessed another poaching of a favorite tree of mine in December, which prompted the writing of this article. Photos below.

I wish I had a photo of this oak before it was poached, it was a lovely tree. You would’ve loved it.

Some weeks after our neighborhood received door-hanger flyers from some poachers, I saw a large crew drive through my neighborhood with their banners. Two chip trucks, a bucket truck, one towing a bobcat loader too. A crew equipped for killin’.

Sometimes trees do need to come down, but I know my area; I know how companies roll here. Around midday I took another walk in the direction that the crew drove to find a favorite white oak of mine had been destroyed.

I counted 130-145 rings (kind of hard to keep track with many small rings) on a 4-foot-high stump. This oak was not even in its veteran stage yet; it was a massive and gorgeous sentinel. Just entering its prime.

I’d admired this tree every single time I walked by it.

And it was poached.

What took 150-ish years to grow was defeated in 4 hours. I know tree guys; they’re proud of that.

I can say with frustrated confidence that I looked at and enjoyed the tree more than 100 times. More than whoever hung that door hanger. While I never thoroughly analyzed the tree, I can say this tree lacked obvious concerning features. It was a low-risk tree.

Was this tree removed because someone did not want it? Or was the tree removed because poachers duped the owners? I don’t know.

But it is one less impressive front yard tree in my neighborhood. It is one less veteran from that once full forest that used to be here. It is one less habitat for the wildlife here. It is less carbon sequestered. One less amazing tree. It is less. And a tree company is responsible for that.

Their declining presence in my neighborhood is a problem for nature itself and, therefore, us. The trees here are not replaced at a sustainable level like they are in a natural forest. Some poachers will ruthlessly pillage entire neighborhoods while claiming replanting is a suitable outcome. It’s funny that municipalities and tree companies are just jumping on the greenwashing bandwagon while the general public is catching onto this deceptive practice.

Practices like these can destroy whole swathes of neighborhoods. I see this in the city I live in. Certain pockets or streets have big trees, while others are desolate.

What to do about this

I don’t know. But I do know this is a starting point: to describe the playing field as it is.

The Find an Arborist tool that locates Certified Arborists is a weak tool to find good arborists. That certification is an introductory level one. And while it is important, having passed that exam doesn’t mean that an individual is qualified to serve trees. I know plenty of CA’s who are poachers or who just hunt credentials for a pay raise. They don’t give a shit. It’s business. And again, these credentials don’t teach ethics.

Perhaps this is an embryo of an idea: an independent organization of good arborists. An organization where entry requires one to be approved by other good arborists who verify that their practices are ethical, regardless of their industry credentials. A peer-approved membership, not one where you pass a simple test.

Anyway,

Once the poachers have hunted the mature and veteran oaks from my neighborhood, they’ll move on to another neighborhood. A small handful of veterans might remain because there are some good arborists around, there are people who care about the importance of nature who tree companies do not fool.

The tree care industry is one that deserves critical suspicion because it is rife with poachers and low-quality work. Tree care lacks oversight, and enforcement of poaching tactics isn’t really existent (neither is enforcement against other malpractices). Predatory companies want the most out of a job, regardless of how it affects nature and our communities. You know, business. They’ve gotta pay off big trucks and big chippers, and they’ve gotta kill trees to do it.

“Why else did we buy these things if we aren’t gonna kill trees?!”

To make matters worse, that’s what they think arboriculture or tree care is. Tree care to most tree companies is tree killing.

Do not work with poachers. They are not the defenders of your trees. Protecting your trees has to be your priority. Not just for your own sake but for all of those who benefit from your trees. You may be the tree’s keeper, but you keep it for all of us.

Defending your trees is climate action.

Defending your trees is advocating for the rights of nature.

Defending your trees is caring about the community you live in.

Tree First forever