Why Is It So Expensive to Cut Down a Tree?

I saw that video last night. He makes a few good points But I felt the majority was unsubstantiated. There are a lot of claims with no evidence, simply - “ I feel this way”. I’ll admit I couldn’t finish it. I think perhaps he has not been around enough legitimate tree companies with big iron to make an informed opinion on the topic.

He starts by discussing the decline of urban forests and I would agree, I’m seeing a ton of tree deaths in my immediate area. Sure, there are plenty of unnecessary removals but there is also plenty of legitimate work that does not need any upselling and the machines all make that more repeatable and fast.
Everyone on this site knows what the labor pool looks like, it’s amazing how much more can be accomplished with 1 or 2 people and some iron in comparison. It would take a crew of 5-10 to compete with a grapplesaw removal in a backyard with limited access. Saying that machines are driving the price up and ruining the industry is inaccurate, in my opinion. Of course they are expensive but so is labor, insurance, worker’s compensation, etc.

Personally I wish our industry reduced the amount of debris to be hauled away. Cut and leaves have always had a reduced cost. I think if more people would accept handling debris slowly themselves we could cut way back on cost by not requiring the processing machines and all their associated costs. I know that’s not reasonable in an urban setting with post-stamp yards but that’s my 2 cents.

Also, everything is “expensive”. This has been rehashed a million times over every trade and marketable commodity.

How much should treecare cost is my question? What if we surcharged by the pound of material removed, that might put things into perspective.
 
There's some interesting comments on the Tree First YouTube channel too. I remember the first time I saw a crane and tub grinder pull up to a great big huge elm in a metro area city on the prairies here. The maybe 150 yr old elm was completely gone in about an hour or two and stump ground before lunchtime. Poof - tree was never even there. It's a marvel how efficient humans have become at ripping stuff out. And I agree with the comment about Europe - different ethos there than in N America. Especially with their food too - organic content, polyphenols etc. Here - syrups and sugars, canola, pesticide residues in oats and all manner of syntho chemical goop in processed foods. I think this is a great heads up - gotta admit some times - what are we doin?
 
Mick Dempsey! said:
Watched the first five minutes.
Thoughts.
American tree companies rarely reduce trees like they do in Europe.
In the US it’s out or a ‘prune’ which seems to be a thin, lift and deadwood.
Pointless.

If you reduced mature trees, you wouldn’t lose so much cover.
Click to expand...
I have done countless reductions with small companies. I will be doing two more next month actually. I also see A LOT of hacks sell topping as reduction, which technically it is, but that is another conversation. It's the bigger companies that get the commercial and municipal accounts that don't like doing proper reductions, especially on street trees. It seems to me that the clients with that many trees are expecting to get bulk pricing because of how many trees they want worked on, and that doesn't cover the cost of a quality job, so they just do "enough" to point at some cuts and say "we pruned it"/"we made it 'safer'," and move on to the next one.

Part of the problem is the outsourcing of work to the lowest bidder, without regard for who will actually do a good job. When my city in particular had it's own tree workers on staff, things were done much better by an arborist who cared. When she retired. I applied, but they were used to paying her a pittance, and I was used to making as much as they paid her in her last years there, which they refused to pay me as a starting wage. So they started using one of the shitty, but very cheap operators here who promptly hacked up most of our old trees with a mix of liontailing and light topping. They also planted Bradfords next to a main throughfare, so we'll see how long that lasts.
 
Neill said:
I saw that video last night. He makes a few good points But I felt the majority was unsubstantiated. There are a lot of claims with no evidence, simply - “ I feel this way”. I’ll admit I couldn’t finish it. I think perhaps he has not been around enough legitimate tree companies with big iron to make an informed opinion on the topic.

He starts by discussing the decline of urban forests and I would agree, I’m seeing a ton of tree deaths in my immediate area. Sure, there are plenty of unnecessary removals but there is also plenty of legitimate work that does not need any upselling and the machines all make that more repeatable and fast.
Click to expand...

I do agree that equipment is a GREAT answer for a lot of tree work to improve both safety and efficiency. I think his rant is against trees being removed that don't "need" to be removed...but the company will do it (or some, maybe even push it) because they have equipment payments to make.

I haven't worked for a big company either...but I have a hard time believing that a commissioned salesman hired on as a salesman (as opposed to somebody who worked their way through the company because of their love of trees) isn't pushing more removals at least in some circumstances. They have quotas to hit and are incentivized by selling higher priced jobs. Clients seem them as the expert. If the tree really only "needs" $500 of work to make it safer, but they can sell a $3500 removal.... well, people respond to incentives. That is a pretty universal concept. Some people are incentivized by money and pleasing the front office. Others are incentivized by "less measurable" factors.

Neill said:
Everyone on this site knows what the labor pool looks like, it’s amazing how much more can be accomplished with 1 or 2 people and some iron in comparison. It would take a crew of 5-10 to compete with a grapplesaw removal in a backyard with limited access. Saying that machines are driving the price up and ruining the industry is inaccurate, in my opinion. Of course they are expensive but so is labor, insurance, worker’s compensation, etc.
Click to expand...

I do agree that it is inaccurate to say that machinery is driving up the price or ruining the industry. Yeah...1-2 people + the right machine is faster than 5-10 people. The cost to pay for the machine is usually less than employing the other 3-8 fairly paid people. But when company A rolls up with a $800,000 machine while company B has 6 people of questionable immigration status who are not paid a fair wage company B can temporarily be cheaper, but they don't have a sustainable model. Find company C with 6 legal workers who are paid well they are probably priced in line with company A. But company C is getting hard to find.


Neill said:
Personally I wish our industry reduced the amount of debris to be hauled away. Cut and leaves have always had a reduced cost. I think if more people would accept handling debris slowly themselves we could cut way back on cost by not requiring the processing machines and all their associated costs. I know that’s not reasonable in an urban setting with post-stamp yards but that’s my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

It would be great to leave more debris. But I even have trouble convincing people on farms to do let us leave it. Let alone a city lot where they have no place to keep it and no means to haul it - even though the city does provide a free place for non-commercial disposal.

Neill said:
Also, everything is “expensive”. This has been rehashed a million times over every trade and marketable commodity.

How much should treecare cost is my question? What if we surcharged by the pound of material removed, that might put things into perspective.
Click to expand...

How much should it cost? My answer starts with the question?: "How much professionalism do you expect out of the service provider?" then "How much is that professional worth?"

surcharge by the pound...might work on removals. But that's tree removal. you propose that after "tree care". I've heard the joke about people hacking trees hard "they must be paid by the pound". Should a surgeon be paid by the pound of flesh they remove? If they are taking out a tumor, do you want them to "take as much as possible" or "take everything that is needed to get the tumor, but no more?"
 
data farm 26 said:
As a Luddite who also opposes the TCIA, I support this message. Don't even need to watch the vid :)
Click to expand...
A) It's a stupid title to the video. I'm sure TCIA rejects many articles. They aren't publishing a 600 page volume each month. I don't think there is a conspiracy against the point he is making.

B) Curious why you oppose TCIA? I'm not going to try to defend them one way or the other...I'm just curious? I'll speak for myself...I continue membership because I appreciate the emphasis they put on safety within the industry. I also feel they bring manufacturers and the industry together (but that does lead to what he complains a bit about in the video - money talks) What I don't like is that this industry is full of small 1-3 crew companies, but TCIA seems to be focused on the much larger companies and assume everybody operates like that.
 
I view the TCIA as a promoter for my least favorite parts of tree work. Machines, pesticides, finance, etc. Same for the big business models you're talking about, they are all anti-human entities, imo.

They may claim to be pro-human with the safety angle; many individuals may even believe that. But I view it as strictly a numbers game. The aim of this trade group is to maximize profit. Injuries, high insurance, workers comp claims, all bad for business.

When I first started out in trees I was working for this accredited company where I saw the most dangerous shit go down, the mom-and-pop orgs were generally safer ime. The tcia company just knew how to cover their ass because of all the bs forms and what not, made to protect the business more than the worker imo.

That bitter cold winter I picked up the mag with the write up about the managers conference happening in Hawaii. To me it's at least partly a good ol boys type of thing where managerial types stroke eachother and scheme on how to exploit the workers better and squeeze a bit more juice out of homeowners for bs work that doesn't need to be done in the first place. :)

They also promote racial profiling in their ctsp manual, or at least they used to.
 
@ATH all fair points,
As far as the “$ per the pound” comment I made- that was more directed at a removal situation of course and to the sentiment to the original post “why is tree work so expensive”. Professionalism over weight removed could certainly be a better metric, but doesn’t answer the value of the trade. We can probably both agree that’s worth more than minimum wage
 
Neill said:
....We can probably both agree that’s worth more than minimum wage
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I've come to the conclusion somebody not worth $20/hr isn't somebody I want to hire (at least not long-term below $20 - $17-18 might be a good starting place just to see if somebody with no experience is going to work out).
 
ATH said:
Absolutely. I've come to the conclusion somebody not worth $20/hr isn't somebody I want to hire (at least not long-term below $20 - $17-18 might be a good starting place just to see if somebody with no experience is going to work out).
Click to expand...
Start them at what you think anyone worth keeping should be starting at, and give them the chance to be worth that. If they aren't, it's usually apparent in a few weeks, and if that $2-3 extra for a few weeks is too much to lose, then it may be too soon to be talking about hiring a guy.

A happier worker is usually gonna work harder. There are enough people who promise to make things better in the future and then underdeliver that it's more common than not to find entry level guys that expect that and struggle to even feel like it's worth trying to do that job when they can do literally anything else for the same pay.

For better or worse, it seems like the only people who do well in this business have a serious passion for the kind of work we do. I haven't met many people that really have that, and the ones that do are easy prey during times when there aren't any really great people hiring. Sometimes they bounce from one shitty company to another and give up looking for better. Met a lot of those guys at one place I was at for only a few weeks.
 
Last edited:
Bart_ said:
A small percentage of the expensive pricing out there is the I don't want the job over-bids that get accepted, no?
Click to expand...
I assume so. Nothing wrong with bidding it that way if you are willing to help but don't want to or are too busy. If your bid is still the best, so be it.
 
ATH said:
I assume so. Nothing wrong with bidding it that way if you are willing to help but don't want to or are too busy. If your bid is still the best, so be it.
Click to expand...
You may even be the most expensive bid, but if they only get other bids from total jackasses by chance, then they may just assume that's just what a good company is gonna cost to hire.
 
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