
When Burlington arborist Warren Spinner came back from vacation last week, his inbox held upsetting news: Vandals had snapped the branches and trunks of four saplings.
The city’s chief tree doctor made the rounds, inspecting the damage: On Loomis Street, someone had maimed a crabapple and lopped off a Japanese lilac at its base. On nearby North Street, he saw a partially uprooted ash.
The final casualty, on Mansfield Avenue, was a tulip tree whose central trunk had been snapped. Andy Raubvogel and Nancy Kaplan had planted it two years ago in front of their house on the greenbelt — the city-owned stretch of grass between the sidewalk and street.
Spinner is no stranger to this kind of crime, which occurs up to 20 times a year in Burlington. He’s been tending Queen City trees since 1980, and tree vandalism happened on occasion then, too. Still, he finds the impulse puzzling.
“We’ve been trying to figure out what possesses an individual to attack a tree,” Spinner said.
He knew these particular victims well. So did Margaret Skinner, an entomologist at the University of Vermont who chairs the nonprofit Branch Out Burlington. Both had a hand in raising three of the vandalized trees.
On a sultry morning last week, Skinner stood next to a row of recently planted river birches on a secluded plot of land off Shelburne Street. Wearing overalls and red clogs and occasionally leaning down mid-sentence to pluck weeds, Skinner explained that planting trees in Burlington entails more than plopping them in the ground.
Currently, a small group of people cares for as many as 300 trees that get added to Burlington’s urban forest each year. Since 2001, Skinner and her fellow Branch Out Burlington volunteers have run the nursery. Rather than buy the “balled and burlapped” trees, which come ready-to-plant but generally cost several hundred dollars, they purchase younger trees for as little as $15 and nurture them in the nursery until they are street-ready.
Spinner curates Branch Out Burlington’s tree collection, picking species based on size, hardiness and aesthetics. He and his crew also handle the planting. They supplement the 80 to 100 trees that Branch Out Burlington supplies each year with trees purchased from other nurseries.
“He knows every tree on the street, when it was planted, when it was last pruned,” Skinner said. As she pointed out Kentucky coffee trees and corkscrew willows, she explained that they don’t grow many native species because most have a hard time adapting to urban life — sugar maples, for example, can’t tolerate salt from the plow trucks.
Spinner is counting and cataloguing all the trees in Burlington’s publicly owned urban forest, and he estimates it contains roughly 13,000. Four victims in a forest that size might not seem significant, and both Skinner and Spinner readily admit they face bigger problems: bracing for the arrival of the havoc-wreaking emerald ash bore and other new pests, for example. Storm damage is a perennial problem.
Still, to see years of watering and weeding get deliberately undone is demoralizing, Skinner said. She understands why residents might think, “Ah, four trees. We’ve got so many other trees. Who cares? but for us,” she continued, “Every one of those trees are precious.” Getting more people involved in tree care could reduce vandalism, Skinner suggested. “If I had my druthers, I would love every neighborhood to have a tree warden.”
Step into Raubvogel’s and Kaplan’s backyard, and it’s clear they share Skinner’s arboreal zeal. An enormous sugar maple dominates; nearby they’ve planted an aspen grove. As Raubvogel described it, “When the wind blows, everything twinkles.”
The tulip tree, he made a point of mentioning, was a variegated one, meaning its leaves come in multiple shades. It was one of just two in the city, as far as he knew.
“Planting another tree is not a big deal,” said Raubvogel, who is a partner at the Burlington law firm Dunkiel Saunders Elliott Raubvogel & Hand. But he choked up describing the moment he discovered the mutilated tulip. He and his son, who had recently been diagnosed with cancer, were returning home one Saturday evening from the first chemo treatment when Raubvogel saw it.
Danielle Fitzko coordinates the state’s Urban & Community Forestry Program. She described tree vandalism as an ongoing problem that’s more pronounced in Burlington than elsewhere in the state because of the colleges, the bar scene and its “progressive planting program.”
“Those smaller trees are really vulnerable to vandalism,” she explained.
Outside of Vermont, people have committed high-profile acts of tree vandalism in the name of political activism — papaya plantations chopped down in Hawaii, presumably in protest against GMOs. Or in pursuit of profit — redwood tree burls are being sawed off and sold in California.
In Burlington, Spinner said, it often seems to coincide with the graduation season, but other than that, “there’s no rhyme or reason, no pattern, as to when, why or how many are going to get vandalized.”
With a few notable exceptions, people don’t get caught, Spinner said. On one occasion he stumbled upon someone cutting a tree in Battery Park. “I actually ran the person down while on my cell phone with the police, and we corralled him.”
Spinner hires college kids as “seasonals” during the summer, and when he got to the courtroom for the Battery Park case, he recognized the prosecutor as one of his former tree crew workers.
“Best job I ever had was working for Warren Spinner,” said Chittenden County State’s Attorney T.J. Donovan last Friday.
Tampering with trees, public or private, is a crime that falls in the category of unlawful mischief, according to Donovan. Unlike in New York City, where people can be prosecuted for arborcide, Vermont doesn’t have a tree-specific charge.
If a culprit is found guilty, Spinner is generally called on to calculate the damages. It’s a complicated assessment, he said — one that factors in the tree’s species, trunk diameter, location and general condition.
Police reports weren’t filed in the latest incidents so legal action is unlikely. Still, Donovan said, “Tell Warren if I get the case, I’ll have zero tolerance.”
Spinner did what he could to salvage the remains. The lilac was clearly a lost cause, but he replanted the ash and pruned the crabapple, hoping for the best. A friend of Raubvogel and Kaplan purchased another tulip tree for them.
The couple and Spinner are determined to keep planting. “I remember a battle I had on Buell Street,” recalled the arborist, launching into a story about an especially persistent offender. “I replaced some of those trees three times before I won.”
The original print version of this article was headlined “All About Arborcide: In Burlington, Vandals Target Trees”
This article appears in Jul 9-15, 2014.


While it is definitely sad to see trees vandalized, it truly boggles the mind that the vandalizing of 4 saplings gets this much space in 7 days, yet they will not touch the fact that McNeil biomass requires the cutting and burning of 1,200,000 trees per year.
Really.
300,000 green tons per year x 1 ton / 2000 lbs x 500 lbs per average NE tree = 1.2 million trees
But don’t worry, the biomass apologists promise that cutting and burning trees is “green”.
Thank you, Warren Spinner.
Want to see some large-scale tree vandalism in Vermont that 7 Days has strangely refused to report on? Check this out…
McNeil Biomass Incinerator — Vermont Sources Map
Zoom in to see extent of each logging operation and click on stumps for more information.
http://www.energyjustice.net/map/mcneil
Comparing responsible forest management to the vandalism of planted trees in an urban environment is silly. Really, are you actually suggesting that there is a reasonable comparison here? Would you rather have the energy McNeil generates come from Hydro Quebec? This uber VT Nimbyism is getting kind of old. No Nukes, no Wind, No Solar, no logging, no fracking, no VT gas, no hydro, no ______. Where is the electricity to power your smart phone and laptop going to come from?
I encourage you to learn a little more about silviculture and forest management. I checked out the map and saw nothing more than a bunch of managed forests. Most of these land owners are likely in the current use program and are harvesting timber and firewood, or chip wood, or managing sugarwoods. Likely so they can avoid having to sell their land to developers and keep it in their family. Would you prefer condos or housing developments over managed woodlots?
Reality check. There is no free lunch. Even the tomato on your gluten free vegan sandwich was killed and the plant it came from cut down and tilled back into the soil. Go visit a farm or a managed woodlot. Talk to a landowner that cares for their land and harvests timber and firewood. Get a clue.
You likely live in a house made of wood and wipe your bung with toilet paper. Where did those resources come from? Trees. Comparing intentionally injuring or vandalizing a tree to silviculture is absurd.
Responsible forest management? Much of the wood for McNeil comes from clearcutting. Of course woodchucks will make self-serving claims that clearcutting the forest is being done to “help” nature.
Human delusion and rationalization knows no bounds.
Also the carbon footprint from McNeil is 50% worse than a coal plant in terms of carbon released per energy produced, so just about any source would be better than burning trees based on climate concerns.
Nobody said never cut a tree, but cutting and burning trees for energy is the dumbest possible choice for energy generation and a stupid waste of our limited resources, almost as stupid as the perpetually recycled toilet paper comment.
Now if only we can replace our wood paper products with hemp paper products. Hemp TP, Hemp notebook. Someone made hemp plastic, I’m sure we can make hemp logs. Hemp is way faster to grow than wood so that would be better and more efficient use of resources.
“Much of the wood for McNeil comes from clearcutting.” Prove it.
Clearly the Rankin cycle can only be approx. 25-30% efficient…at best. I’m not arguing that the McNeil plant is an efficient use of resources but once again, your original point was comparing vandalizing planted trees in an urban environment to silviculture as a form of vandalism. Clearly not the same thing.
I do agree that burning wood for electrical production is not an efficient use of the resource, unless there is cogeneration involved and the waste heat is being used for heating. This has been the intention from the beginning at McNeil, but unfortunately it hasn’t happened…yet.
“Also the carbon footprint from McNeil is 50% worse than a coal plant in terms of carbon released per energy produced, so just about any source would be better than burning trees based on climate concerns.”
Once again…prove it. You would really rather have a coal plant in Burlington? There already was one, called Moran. The citizens of Burlington voted to shut it down and build McNeil…using the democratic process. And then they voted to have the most state of the art emissions controls installed and paid for with taxpayer dollars.