right tree right place no mercy

P

ppsavage

Participating member
Location
tucson
Right tree right place.

If this rule is violated then any "care" that follows is a misallocation of resources.

If we truly followed this concept of right tree right place we could save resources on a massive scale and simultaneously significantly decrease pollution generated by our industry.

Native trees and maybe some tough, proven (non invasive) exotics in our given ecosystems for new plantings, anything else is experimental and frivolous.

We need to stop compromising with wrong trees and coming round for yearly visits to keep em alive, it's really not an intelligent way to go about urban forestry.

Once we cull all of the non essential work from our offerings we can set our efforts to some more essential tasks like growing soybeans and cleaning plastic off the beach.
 
Our field is very misunderstood in my opinion. Developers and landscape architects (who often have little experience on the maintenance end) do the majority of the cookie cutter urban design and planting. Arborists are then called in to "fix" the outcome which becomes a repetitively frustrating cycle on repeat. Solutions? Involve arborists from the beginning and actually consider their trade valuable with respectable compensation for their input? How do we make sustainable practices profitable when as of now the opposite dominates? Just look at the lawn care industry........The soil seems to be a good place to start. Making a living without becoming part of the "world destroying machine" seems to be the challenge.
 
Last edited:
macrocarpa said:
How do we make sustainable practices profitable when as of now the opposite dominates?
Click to expand...
Not entirely sure. Maybe charge a decent price for consults and only recommend the removal of hazards? Strongly encourage to do no "care" and save the money for a nice vacation maybe a cruise or something.
 
macrocarpa said:
Our field is very misunderstood in my opinion. Developers and landscape architects (who often have little experience on the maintenance end) do the majority of the cookie cutter urban design and planting. Arborists are then called in to "fix" the outcome which becomes a repetitively frustrating cycle on repeat. Solutions? Involve arborists from the beginning and actually consider their trade valuable with respectable compensation for their input? How do we make sustainable practices profitable when as of now the opposite dominates? Just look at the lawn care industry........The soil seems to be a good place to start. Making a living without becoming part of the "world destroying machine" seems to be the challenge.
Click to expand...
Great post homie..
 
JD3000 said:
I've got veto power over landscape architect's plant decisions now.

They fucking hate it.

:bananahappy:
Click to expand...
I can hear it now:
Landscape architect: Pyrus calleryana - while we still can!
@JD3000: No
LA: Gleditsia triacanthos
JD: No
LA: Acer platanoides
JD: No
LA: Acer x freemanii 'Jeffersred'
JD: No
LA: You must want a conifer, that is easy...Picea pungens
JD: Hell no
LA: Multi-stemmed Betula nigra
JD: Fine...only if it has 5 or more stems and is no more than 3' away from the building. :inocente:
LA: Perfect...that is exactly what I had in mind. And I'm glad you said yes, because there are no other trees in my book.
JD: :X3:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Kask Stihl NORTHEASTERN Arborists Wesspur TreeStuff.com Teufelberger Westminster X-Rigging Teufelberger
Back
Top Bottom