So you can't do BOTH?

[MasterBlaster]

Guy, this is a quote of yours. It's been bugging me every since I read it. Check it out...

"MB can differ on the amount of joy and thrills that removals bring. But either you're an arborist,=an advocate for the trees, or you're a mercenary removal technician, aerial grunt labor following orders and running from guilt; you cannot be both."

Exactly what does that mean?

Please, elaborate. Especially on the 'running from guilt' part.

 

[MasterBlaster]

 

[Stumper]

Speaking for myself, we have a split personality.

 

[MasterBlaster]

Actually, I am a Gemini...

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
Actually, I am a Gemini...

And I'm a Libran, striving for balance while falling on my face. I regret the "guilt" part; not my business to get in anyone else's head.
But I don't regret raising the point that calling yourself a tree advocate on the keyboard while daily putting saveable trees to death as a hired trecudder seems a tad hypocritical.
Still, I'm not trying to reform anyone. I'm still trying to reform myself, and I have a looonnnnng way to go!

 

[MasterBlaster]

So what do you do with a tree like this???

 

[Dadatwins]

Bark Trace, wood filler, tree paint, get paid and run like h##l

 

[TheTreeSpyder]

This man that had been a customer of mine for a while, had 3 beautiful oaks in his backyard buffering the road site, sounds, smells on this well travelled sweeping curve. City puts power lines in, his trees get a lil trim; a nice slanted best ya could do trim, no gutted V, just a slanted slide. In the backyard he says he can tell(?)!

Well i tried talking him out of it, said i'd call about a safety trim check, really pounded him about cost, shade, home value, privacy around pool, landmarks on the curve for everyone, losing buffer to road noise, pollution, sites; not to mention; removnig them would bring the wires that he hates into the picture of the yard etc.

Someone else has started it; i kinda even forgot to call the city about safety trim (prolly din't need one; extra saafetry, extra excuse). i already plan on asking him about how he feels about the loss of shade etc. in August.

i hate when innocent trees become the battleground between neighbors etc.; and things need cut up the property line cuz it is someone else's tree someone doesn't like(the person). Nothin'makes me walk quicker or more often. i understand sunlight on flowers, but refuse to understand these wars! And usually, amongst the nicer homes etc. too; this ownership etc. seems to exist.

 

[OutOnaLimb]

On a sensible note here, if the customer is bound and determined to remove the tree, it will be done if not by us then by the competitors. Plain and simple. A good arborist should be well rounded on all aspects whether it be pruning, cabling, removals, fert or spraying. Like my grandma says, "the more you know the less likely you are to starve."

Kenn

 

[a_lopa]

Guy ive been having similar disscusions lately,you have to be cruel to be kind sometimes,i recently topped to 7' an ash that was on a drive way nice tree,i am very hesitant to do this to any european tree but they wanted it done.at least the tree is still there (its reshot)it had got out of hand for elderly owners.you have to have comon sence and remember you have to eat.why refuse to do it and watch some hack do it.i totaly disagree with topping being an allround bad thing.and i wont cable any tree that has a fault its just rediculous,you arnt acheiving anything tree still has fault your only adding to it

 

[wiley_p]

That tree MB, (it's an Ash right?) I would read my customer and charge them for what they wanted, no problem removing that tree, cause from a management standpoint its due for rotation, and to "save it" would genearate followup work. so those cause me no moral dilemas.

 

[My like trees]

Cut it down. Did someone actually say they don't do removals?

I have done more removals that helped other trees rather than just a negative.


There are lotss of trees getting taken down for stupid reasons and for stupid money. I will find a balance, where the money from a tree will do far more good and help me get repeat work from that person and thier friends.


See the thing is, ive taken down good trees, so does every logger on here and the loggers KILL hundreds a DAY.

You can't just say walk away from any live tree removal.

You could go to a removal, take the tree down and alow light in for 10 other trees. One life for ten, sounds good to me!


Or the person get one to remove the live tree and the arborist sees 4 or 5 trees that need major attention or else they will be dead in five years. Then the removal can turn into a huge positive, if your not willing to even look at those trees than you can't really do the great service.

 

[NeTree]

Originally posted by OutOnaLimb
A good arborist should be well rounded on all aspects whether it be pruning, cabling, removals, fert or spraying.

I would add "good business sense."

Not every location in the country is as supportive to the concept of walking away from customers. 'Round here it's just too competetive to turn down work.

You can try to educate the customer, and sometimes you win,- but at the end of the day, there's still kids to feed and bills to pay, and good intentions don't go too far in accomplishing either one.

 

[wiley_p]

In our area its super competitive also and often the most vocal of the save a tree at all cost club are often the ones who do cheap removals and top frequently.

 

[Tom Dunlap]

If any of you who subscribe to the thought that "If I don't do it somebody will" or "Topping isn't as bad as removal because the tree is still there" are working for money not the trees. Nothing wrong with that but it puts you in a different group.

No comparison between logging and arbo. Justifying a removal of a great amenity tree so that several understory trees can grow is off track. You're mixing biology with botany and that doesn't work. What about all of the other living things that are connected with the "removal" tree? Micro-organisms, larger mammals and birds, shade for other plants. Besides, pruning pays better, and more often, than removals.

This discussion has been going on for years. It boils down to work for money or trees. If you are working for money, there's nothing wrong with that unless you claim that what you're doing is for the trees. That's hypocrosy.

Tom

 

[OutOnaLimb]

If any of you who subscribe to the thought that "If I don't do it somebody will" or "Topping isn't as bad as removal because the tree is still there" are working for money not the trees. Nothing wrong with that but it puts you in a different group.



And exactly what group does that put us in? Of course we do it for the money. One of these days when I win the lottery I will be able to afford to do it solely for the trees, but untill then, I will have to keep on rationalizing the pro's of doing removals on live healthy trees.

Kenn

 

[wiley_p]

I think topping is much worse than doing a removal, I think crown reduction, with no folow up plan is worse than removal one of the least understood aspects of tree care (pruning) is done with regularity and no concern because " we arent removing the tree" it will be some time before I consider myself a decent pruner, there is a lot of responsibility that isnt considered. I will happily remove a tree to plant one that makes morer sense based on site, etc. There is nothing wrong with applying forestry practices in the urban environment. I'm at 26,000.00 wholesale on tree costs so far this year this is 1" caliper and up, where the rest of ya at? Removing a over "pruned" Doug fir next to a house that has a recently constructed driveway, and planting a Norway there is a pretty nice thing yes or no?

 

[jkrueger]

Doing both or either!

You have my permission to do what turns you on about working with and taking care of my trees which adds to the greatness of this planet health.

 

[begleytree]

I too hate to remove healthy trees for some insane reasons.
That said, I also enjoy eating and sleeping indoors.
I work hard to find a happy meduim which will save the tree and still make the owner happy, sometimes you win, others you loose.
If it is going to come down, I will be the one to do it if at all possible.
And I will not loose a minutes sleep in the process.

Interesting- which side does that put me on?

I work in trees for the money.
I care about the trees I work with.
Some customers don't know how to take me until I explain that I don't work for them, I work for the tree.

But I do eat. My life comes first.
-Ralph

 

[a_lopa]

Originally posted by Tom Dunlap
If any of you who subscribe to the thought that "If I don't do it somebody will" or "Topping isn't as bad as removal because the tree is still there" are working for money not the trees. Nothing wrong with that but it puts you in a different group.

No comparison between logging and arbo. Justifying a removal of a great amenity tree so that several understory trees can grow is off track. You're mixing biology with botany and that doesn't work. What about all of the other living things that are connected with the "removal" tree? Micro-organisms, larger mammals and birds, shade for other plants. Besides, pruning pays better, and more often, than removals.

This discussion has been going on for years. It boils down to work for money or trees. If you are working for money, there's nothing wrong with that unless you claim that what you're doing is for the trees. That's hypocrosy.

residential tree work you have to find a happy balance,if someone wants something removed i will give them a rough time frame on when the tree is going to be an issue and let them decide.but of course being truthful and saying it will 500 now and 750 or more later on.i will say this when i dont think its relevent to touch the tree at this stage.they take so long to get to an enjoyable stage make the most of it
Tom