Trees live their entire lives locally.
When I was younger and said something that was self evident, my older brother would say, “no $#!@ Sherlock!”
But seriously, it is worth reflecting on. Trees live their entire lives locally.
Everything that a tree needs must be found right where it is. Water, nutrients, and sunlight must all journey their way to and through each tree. Trees can’t go on the hunt for better resources, they can’t seek out greener pastures. They are entirely dependent on their immediate surroundings to sustain them.
This is why arborists often cite the common refrain of “right tree, right place” when planting a tree. It is a reminder for all of us to carefully consider the tree that is being planted and whether it is planted in a good location. Once the tree is planted, it isn’t going anywhere, it must live all the days of its life in that specific longitude and latitude. By abiding in this principle, we can prevent the premature cutting down of what otherwise could have been a long lived and enjoyed tree.
In light of the importance of getting the right tree in the right place, it would appear prudent for a homeowner to call an arborist first. They could help a homeowner understand what the right tree is for the yard, and where to plant it. But, perhaps the homeowner should hold off on the phone call for one minute.
While yes, arborists are exactly that, people whose occupation is to work with trees, specifically trees in an urban environment. Planting a tree, one might expect, should be a relatively easy task for them. But it might not be.
In order to address this question, you have to understand what it means when someone says they are an arborist. When someone says they are an arborist, and have a credential to back it up, it usually means they became a certified arborist through an organization called the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). The ISA is by far the largest organization devoted to tree service professionals with over 31,000 members spread throughout the world.
Here is a short list of some of the topics that certified arborists are educated in: tree biology, tree health, pest management, cabling, pruning, removing, and yes, planting trees.
Once a person has accumulated enough hours in the field (which can be combined with related post-secondary education to fast-track the hours needed), they are eligible to write the ISA Certified Arborist exam.
The exam is a standardized multiple choice test.
Since it is a standardized test, this means that everyone/everywhere is asked the same sets of questions about trees. A person in the Netherlands, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, U.S., etc are expected to know the same knowledge set as the next person. For example, you won’t get a question on the exam such as, “which of the following is not a disease commonly found on X species of tree?” That question couldn’t work, it is too specific. There are many parts of the world where that particular species of tree cannot grow but instead hundreds of others do. It would be almost impossible to pass an exam that had this level of specificity.
Even though that is the level of specificity that homeowners should expect from an arborist.
That level of detail would be incredibly helpful. Suddenly when someone wants to plant a tree and asks whether one species of tree is more likely to survive than another species, the arborist could be far more informed to make a reasonable recommendation. The problem is that this isn’t the case.
This is in large part why you are far more likely to see a truck in the tree service industry hauling around a wood chipper than any other tree health related product (mulch, fertilizers, compost, young trees, a compressor for air spading, etc. etc.) This set of knowledge is far too specific to regional issues than the knowledge associated with trimming/removing trees. The process by which a tree is pruned or removed doesn’t change, no matter where one is in the world.
Some might say that companies remove and prune trees because that is where the money is, but many would beg to differ. Of the companies that do engage in tree health care, most if not all, will attest that the profit margins are far higher than in tree pruning and removal. This is simply because the input costs in tree health care are much lower. It doesn’t require a big truck, loads of equipment, or a large crew size. Plus there is the obvious rationale, tree removal isn’t exactly recurring revenue.
The knowledge and skill required to prune or remove a tree is universal. An arborist is equally capable of removing a tree in Melbourne, Australia as in Toronto, Canada. The skills are transferable. Case in point, there is a recent phenomenon in the tree industry called contract climbing, arborists within this category can travel anywhere in the world and utilize their skillset.
The irony in all of this is that arborists are being educated such that they can work anywhere even though trees themselves do quite the opposite; giving and taking of what it can exclusively from what graces its presence.
So how do arborists acquire knowledge specific to their locale? In our information age of course a keen arborist can seek out the correct actions to take regarding trees, but what is the process by which arborists are informed of locally relevant knowledge?
Or to give an example, let’s say a new potentially devastating pest came into a region, how would an arborist be adequately informed so that they can carry out the best course of action?
There isn’t a process in place.
There is a hope. A hope that somehow through social media, friends/family, media outlets, etc. that a critical mass will be reached such that every single person is informed.
This is how many municipalities operate. When a new threat to the urban forest arises, billboards go up, social media campaigns begin, newspapers publish articles, perhaps even a public forum is initiated. All in attempts to reach as many people as possible so that they can make the best decisions possible.
This is great, it is good to see our municipalities caring for the urban forest.
Is it effective though? What if the threats are on multiple fronts? Can and should the public be informed on all these fronts?
The truth is that there are multiple fronts. Should a public campaign begin to notify every homeowner about invasive trees on their property? What about a campaign to plant trees? What about a campaign for pests like hemlock wooly adelgid? What about spotted lantern fly? What about oak wilt?
Municipalities feel like they have to carry out multiple campaigns because they simply don’t have jurisdiction over many of the trees in the city. They need residents to carry out the implementation. In my city of Hamilton, ON approximately 56% of trees are located on private property. Over half. It gets hard to implement a process for anything when the first task is garner support from a broad spectrum of individuals, many of whom may not be interested.
Where am I going with this rabbit hole?
Municipalities have an implementation problem. They know trees are beneficial to communities. They know it is important to plant trees. They know it is perhaps even more important to retain mature trees. They want the urban forest to thrive but it is hard to do so when they don’t have much say in what happens with the majority of trees in the city.
Private tree services on the other hand have a knowledge problem. They lack the local knowledge that could be used to make better informed decisions.
Both parties want and need access to what the other party has.
And yet the two parties don’t talk and exchange information.
Here is a direct quote from my city’s urban forestry strategy published in 2021, “Outreach and education should target city departments, Council, private landowners, planners, Indigenous people, developers, utilities and any other groups with an interest in the urban forest.” Essentially every person and group was mentioned except the group which carries out the vast majority of tree work on private properties, the privately owned tree service.
So why not have the private tree sector communicate with the public sector? What if both parties could stand to benefit from being in closer relationship?
The current relationship appears to be a little sour. From the outset it appears that municipalities need to implement lots of rules so that the urban forest doesn’t get completely cut down by greedy tree services. From the tree services perspective it appears that municipalities create needless hoops to jump for work that needs to get done.
From observing municipalities across the country it appears that they have one primary tool in their toolbox for working with the private sector. Implement a tree permit process for the cutting down of trees. By making the process more time consuming and costly for homeowners/private tree owners, the hope is that people will second guess their decision to cut down the tree. The efficacy of the tree permit process is another conversation, one in which I don’t feel equipped to address.
The point though is that we have all heard of the carrot or the stick approach, this is the stick approach. It appears to be the first go-to option.
What could a carrot approach look like? An approach where every party; from the municipality, to the private tree service, to most importantly, the community as a whole, can benefit.
A mutually beneficial option doesn’t have to be expensive or time consuming. Even just a newsletter a few times a year to regional arborists. Or perhaps ISA Certified Arborists can acquire the compulsory CEU’s (Continuous Education Units) needed to maintain their credential by participating in an annual meeting.
Something, anything, is better than nothing.
