2 loss of habitat (Newbold et al. 2015). Gillian Martin, founder of the Cavity Conservation Initiative, a wild- life advocacy nonprofit, and Andy Trotter, Vice Pres- ident of Operations at West Coast Arborists, Inc., a municipal tree care company, came together to assem- ble arborists, wildlife rehabilitators, biologists, and advocates to address the impacts from tree care work- ers to urban wildlife, creating the first Tree Care for Birds and Other Wildlife working group. From the beginning, the all-volunteer effort sought out project leaders and champions who straddled the lines between the mostly separate wildlife and urban forestry professional and advocacy circles. Though to the lay person environmental fields such as wildlife management and urban forestry seem similar, they are separated by professional silos, a challenge com- mon to other disciplines (Vogt et al. 2016; Vogt 2018). For example, one member frequently described them- selves as the “tree person at wildlife meetings and the wildlife person at tree meetings.” While our group’s experience showed initial clashes in the closely held narratives and agendas of two professional communi- ties that both broadly support conservation in urban environments, the group came together as a coalition of voices to navigate several fundamental challenges: • Tree care workers generally wish to act respon- sibly around wildlife but were mostly unaware of how to do so. • Wildlife laws and regulations, such as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in the United States, were unknown within the tree care industry, putting workers at risk of significant fines and criticism. • Wildlife, especially nesting wildlife, were vul- nerable to direct and indirect impacts from rou- tine tree care operations. • Simple advice such as “avoid tree care during the breeding season” was often recommended but both failed to protect wildlife who breed outside their region’s typical season and stood to decimate the tree care industry if implemented universally by banning work for as much as 6 or 7 months of the year in some places. To address these challenges, the growing coalition prioritized the development of wildlife best manage- ment practices for tree care professionals to follow based on existing research and expert opinion of wildlife biologists and arborists. The initial effort was focused on the state of California with the intention ©2022 International Society of Arboriculture Bassett et al: Lessons Learned from Developing Wildlife BMPs to expand efforts to other states and, eventually, internationally. The initial best management practice development effort was spearheaded by a core team of arborists, wildlife biologists, and advocates, and coupled with an extensive outreach and education process. We sought support and buy-in of the process from the start. Before even drafting the first guidelines for Cal- ifornia, our program sought and received endorse- ment of our collaborative process of creating best management practices and associated training and educational materials from 36 wildlife and tree care organizations and experts. This early outreach pro- cess successfully helped to establish awareness and trust in our process and helped to recruit a diversity of experts to inform the guidelines. The educational pro- gram included efforts such as presenting and hosting booths at both arborist and wildlife conferences, host- ing training courses, publishing magazine articles and blog posts, sharing educational newsletters and updates with a growing email list, establishing a social media presence, and developing an educational website (www.TreeCareforBirds.com). To reach broader audiences, such as homeowners, partnerships were forged with organizations with strong general public outreach arms, such as Audubon Society chap- ters, to disseminate information on wildlife-friendly tree care practices and hiring qualified arborists. CHARTING A PATH TO BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AMIDST A RESEARCH VACUUM AND COMPLEX PROFESSIONAL IDENTITIES The effort to understand how tree care professionals can act responsibly around urban wildlife raised many questions in our group: How should situations where trees pose a public safety risk and contain nest- ing wildlife be navigated? How much wildlife knowl- edge should arborists be expected to know? How do wildlife laws apply to tree work, and what are the consequences when wildlife is injured or killed during tree work? How much wildlife is negatively impacted by tree care operations, and how do you weigh those outcomes with the contributions of urban forests to wildlife habitat? We found very few peer-reviewed articles that addressed the impacts of tree care operations to urban wildlife. In grey literature searches, we found several examples of regional guidelines or educational
January 2022
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Search Text Block
Page #page_num
#doc_title
Hi $receivername|$receiveremail,
$sendername|$senderemail wrote these comments for you:
$message
$sendername|$senderemail would like for you to view the following digital edition.
Please click on the page below to be directed to the digital edition:
$thumbnail$pagenum
$link$pagenum
Your form submission was a success. You will be contacted by Washington Gas with follow-up information regarding your request.
This process might take longer please wait
