Trees vs. Tree Surgeons?

Originally posted March 2023.

Any tree surgeon who shares their work on social media will likely be familiar with the scenario of posting a snapshot of their latest job carrying out the full removal of a tree and in turn receiving at least one critical comment that they were wrong to do so. The likelihood is, the very same fellow arborist who made this judgement will have similar posts of their own with someone else providing the very same feedback. And so the cycle goes on.

Thus raises the question, where do we draw the line between fulfilling the requirements of a customer and serving our own moral perspective of what is best for trees and the environment they satisfy? Of course, if the tree is dead/dying or dangerous then it is a completely null point to debate and this should always be considered before enforcing negative commentary on each other's work.

The role of an arborist is a job title; it is a career, something people (well the qualified ones of us) train for, it is not a calling or a title placed upon us by a higher power fating us to be responsible for the trees of the Earth. Therefore, as a profession it must also provide an income and to do so we must complete work for customers who acquire our services. Should a potential client make a request to have a healthy, established, tree on their property be completely taken down, this will likely trigger one of two responses from their chosen local tree surgeon:

- The "happy to oblige" response. Many will view this as just any other job; they have been asked to act within their professional position in exchange for an agreed sum that will help pay their bills and continue to fund their business.

- The "maybe we can provide alternate guidance" response. Others will view the removal of a healthy specimen to be a shame; maybe even a more extreme view than just a shame, an actual atrocity. They will strongly suggest to the customer that the tree remains and propose a reduced plan of action to manage it instead. To directly oppose the original intentions of the potential customer, they risk their suggestions falling on deaf ears and the job going to an alternate arborist such as those described above - especially with the industry as saturated as it currently is.

There are arguments in favour of each approach, many of which it is safe to say are largely financially driven. As a business should you simply fulfill the customer's expectations to receive payment or as an arborist should you facilitate your knowledge to act in the best interest of the tree and hope there is still a potential transaction? It is worth noting, should the tree remain and a more sympathetic approach be decided, then it is likely a cycle of maintenance work will be initiated and provide further income in the future as it is continued.

Everyone will have their own interpretation of what is the "right" choice; based on their own business strategy, financial situation and "moral code". As previously acknowledged, it is likely individuals will act or have acted in a different manner to what they will penalise someone else for based on circumstances at the time. Throughout all, the surrounding environment must be respected and industry standards adhered to.

It is very possible the real question is how do we compensate for the removal of trees that is occurring out of our control? While planting a sapling or small specimen will not immediately restore the legacy of a mature tree, they all start somewhere and we can only hope any new ones will survive and thrive to one day have the same strong presence.

Here at Deadwood Arborists, we intend to support the potential life of new trees whenever we can and invite others to share in this via the "Giving Back" page on our site.