Our industry

[Rupe]

rupe, what i was trying to say is that up here in glasgow about 70% of costumers don't know what tree work is really about..they think we are landscapers that have only got basic felling ticket ( dumb lumberjax ). yeah i try to impress costumers..because when they really see what its about and the equipment and skill involved they change there attitude towards us and pass my number onto all the friends. yeah i buy fancy gear and shiny toys because it makes my business stand out from pikeys with white transits..which explains why i get most of the work i quote for.

 

I think tree surgeons are mostly looked at as dumb lumberjax..and i think we all should try to show and explain to our costumers what the difference between pikeys and professional arborists is.

 

they has been many occasions where i have been rigging down stem when i could have felled it or chubked it down..simply because-i enjoy it and i want to show the the costumer whats involved and i always get them coming out asking whats that for and they are really impressed.

 

I think we all like our shiny toys and stuff, and some of it is useful at work, but I think the time for impressing is at the quoting stage, and using long words to make someoen look dumb is not a good idea. If you get the job then you have already achieved what you need to and there is no further need to impress other than to carry out what you have said you would do.

 

The chances are you were the cheapest quote, so you need to get the job as quick as possible to ensure that you are earning more per hour for that job than the pikeys would have done, otherwise you might as well leace it to them.

 

What i was gettign at is that it doesn't matter to the customer the technical details of the work, if they think it just climbing trees then let them think that, if they want the top of their pointless tree cut off then let them have that, and if they want to remove perfectly good trees than thats fine too. Just give them what they want and you will get good referals.

 

As said above it all boils down to raking up anyway.

 

The 70% of the public that you mention aren't worth working for anyway, its the other 30% that already know a bit about what makes a good tree company that you need to be aiming at. But chances are, if you are being asked to quote then you must be in that 30% bracket already, the pikeys see to all the other work and those customers are welcome to them.

[Rupe]

Skyhuck, I wonder how long you can use a chainsaw up a tree in pruning operations, to offset the amount of oxygen created by that tree in a year with carbon dioxide from the saws exhaust??

[skyhuck]

Skyhuck, I wonder how long you can use a chainsaw up a tree in pruning operations, to offset the amount of oxygen created by that tree in a year with carbon dioxide from the saws exhaust??

 

Not a clue??

[Rupe]

Me niether! But I bet if we take into account traveling to the jobs etc. our carbon footprint is far worse than the trees (we are working on) are good, if that makes sense.

[skyhuck]

Yes I think to suggest we are some kind of echo hero's is something of a joke.

 

We work for people not trees.

 

Yes we may do as little damage to the tree as we can while trying to get what the customer wants, but most of the time we do the tree no good.

 

If I fell a tree, take it home and burn it instead of gas, thats about as green as I get.

[Rupe]

We work for people not trees.

 

That sums it up really.

 

I have very few customers, well 2 that I can think of straight away, who have tree work done to make the trees look nice, i.e. the removal of deadwood and some thinning, just for appearance sake, no h&s and no light issues just for visual amenity.

 

They are both very rare individuals, they possibly have too much money, but the work is great. After thats it just satisfyign waht people want and doign it easier than everyoen else so that the cheapest price can also be the highest hourly/day rate.

[Paul Barton]

This conversation exactly highlights the split in our industry: those that are pro trees to enhance our landscape and society and those that will do any tree work for money regardless of the consequence.

 

Perhaps there really is a big difference between being a 'tree surgeon' and an 'arboriculturalist'?

 

How is arboriculture to be taken seriously at a policy level when our industry exists with such a split?

 

Maybe we should divide and re-brand as 2 seperate entities: tree conservationists and tree maintenance contractors....

[Paul Barton]

...except tree maintenance actually sustains the industry by making a profit and conservation work does not!!

[Amelanchier]

Paul, you probably didn't see my earlier reply cos it drowned.

 

http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/general-chat/12543-our-industry-13.html#post333635

[Paul Barton]

Paul, you probably didn't see my earlier reply cos it drowned.

 

http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/general-chat/12543-our-industry-13.html#post333635

 

Ah, thanks Tony.

 

The FC are really getting stuck in to 'our territory' aren't they!!

 

So perhaps that's the answer - 'tree surgeons' stay in arboriculture and those that want to influence future tree management jump over on to the forestry wagon as urban foresters....

 

I get the distinct feeling I am shooting my mouth of having read very little about 'urban forestry' as yet so I fully expect these comments to be shot down in flames....