I have read through the responses in this thread, and I think it's pretty amazing how people have reacted to the original comment (even if that comment is now nothing but a period). As an environmentally-minded human I side with those who would support holistic and more environmentally friendly approaches to PHC. I do, however, see a pretty clear divide in the responses to this thread. Some are speaking in generalities. I believe, generally, that it is always better to find non-chemical responses to problems when they can be found. I also believe, generally, that proper cultural practices and further customer education will help to push our industry towards progression.
That being said, I also believe there is one thing the responses to this thread have neglected to address - and that is the now globalized nature of our society. The strongest line in this thread could probably be seen as the response to EAB. This is not a naturalized threat. It is not native, nor does it respond to holistic treatments here as it would in its indigenous zones. It is impossible to tell a customer that they will have to remove a dozen mature trees because "I believe it is better for the environment" - even more impossible to tell a township they will lose 100+ trees because I refuse to use chemicals. Yes, synthetic chemical pesticides are a last resort - and in the case of the EAB, the time for last resorts has come. Is it environmentally ethical for me to watch native species succumb to a non-native invader when I know there are preventative measures?
In my very humble opinion, we have been given stewardship of the land. We, as arborists, have specifically taken on the stewardship of our respective area's trees. Should we not then do everything in our power to protect the trees which we have dedicated our professional lives to? We have already decided to protect, enhance, and sometimes remove the tree populations of our customers through use of what we call "better practices." I can't help but think we've come to this conclusion from some sort of scientific discovery - is chemical treatment not the same? Many of us are managing urban forests, where residents, infrastructure, and nature must coincide with some degree of environmental equanimity. To throw that balance completely out of whack simply because I refuse to use chemicals seems, to me at least, to be actually short sighted.
I don't know. I might not know what I'm talking about, but I - like many of us - have to deal with these thoughts everyday. I may be wrong, or I may be right. I do what I believe is ethical and helpful to the environment in which I serve.
Thats all,
TNM