Ulterior motives, realised

Having done the Picus test on the beech tree I blogged about below, and submitted a report recommending a 20% crown reduction, cable bracing and rhizosphere improvement, I felt like I had done the best for that tree. I know the clients weren’t happy with it, thanks to the phone call from the developer (!) acting on their behalf, but felt that I had proved the tree could be retained and made safe.

However, things change. The wife living at the house called me up. First argument – that Ganoderma could be putting out spores attacking all the trees in their garden, including another big beech recently pruned. I explained how, as soon as a cut is made, hundreds of spores of all kinds of organisms will be landing on that wood; removing this beech and its Ganoderma will not stop infection. Her second line of attack rattled me more – an emotionally manipulative argument, discussing the tree falling on her and/or her family, killing her children. She had ‘found out’ that I would be liable for such actions, if the tree failed after I made my recommendations.

Although I knew this, and told her as much, I still went away that night worrying. What if I have made the wrong decision? What if it does fail, and I’m in court faced with negligence or manslaughter? However, I managed to settle myself down – other, experienced consultants proof-read my report and looked at the Picus results, and reached the same conclusion I had.

I naively hoped that would be it – if they did the work I recommended then their fears for safety would be alleviated.

Apparently not, since it was the husband’s turn last night. He gave me all kinds of bulls**t. They can’t insure for their house, given that cable bracing “is using giant bungees to hold a limb up when it fails”. No, it’s not; it reduces loading on a potential weak point, to prevent failure. Their neighbours are signing a petition to fell the tree because he’s been scaremongering about how dangerous it is. Did he tell them that my report had made recommendations that would reduce risk to an acceptable level? It’s got no long-term future, felling it would be euthanasia. Sorry, but no. Euthanasia is mercy killing; the tree is not suffering, the problem’s with him perceiving it to be in the way.

And, the closest he admitted to wanting it out the way for reasons other than safety – he’s spending £40,000 re-landscaping his garden, and doesn’t want that trashed “in a year’s time” by “a crane coming in” to fell the tree. Firstly – the tree could last far longer than a year. And secondly, well, there’s the reason for wanting rid – a tree with 150cm dbh has the maximum root protection area of 15m, that’s a big area on which our poor client can’t alter levels or put in garish garden features.

So, this morning, I sent a very considered and careful e-mail, putting in writing about what “an acceptable level of risk” means, about how cable bracing works, about the relative strength of Ganoderma (quoting an excerpt from Lonsdale’s Principles of Tree Hazard Assessment and Management, on how trees can sit with this fungus for many years without compromising safety). I reiterated the tree’s benefits – amenity and historic value, wildlife benefits, pollution attenuation, evaporative cooling, shading, and reducing waterlogging in his precious garden. I also explained the council see all these positives, as demonstrated by the protective order.

His response? They’re applying to fell the tree, “because it is dangerous”. They’ve hired an Arb Association approved consultant (what, like the company I work for?) to “review” my report and support felling the tree.

I don’t know whether I am more angry or upset. I had a tear in my eye. Firstly – I’ve failed trying to save a significant, majestic, wonderful being that can easily be made safe but kept. It’s down to the tree officer now, who (if these guys are as underhand as I suspect) may never see my report. I hope their new consultant recommends my work; but what if they care less about morals and integrity, and support the felling. I’ve tried, really bloody tried, to help save a being far older than any of us involved – and failed.

I honestly get upset about this kind of thing. Trees aren't inanimate objects in our landscape; they are living, respiring, growing organisms. The ecosystem services they provide far outweigh the minor ways in which we, as humans, should be altering our lifestyles to co-exist with them. This tree was at least 150 years old, possibly more. There is no way, morally, killing it can be justified when with some sympathetic treatment it could live for decades longer. It is truly heartbreaking to think that this tree could soon be felled - killed - because of selfish and greedy owners of the land on which it stands.

Secondly – I’m angry. Bitterly angry. Angry about the emotional manipulation to try and sway my decision. Angry about these ill-informed, greedy homeowners ignoring my advice because it’s not what they wanted – even though it was for the good of the tree, good of the environment, and even would have benefitted their property. Angry that they want to undermine my findings because I was too professional to side with them on this. Angry that they own a beautiful house made even better by a beautiful beech tree – I cannot overstate how significant it is. If you don’t like trees, don’t buy the house with them; go live with your sterile strip of lawn, and fancy landscaped features. I’d happily live under that tree, Ganoderma and all.

Another case of money being more important than anything else – and my crushing realisation that I can do nothing about it. Is this what consultancy is going to be like?