As I wrote before, this debate has been underway for at least hundreds of years and won’t be resolved today. What we can do is try to learn from each other and check to see if maybe our position still makes sense. What we can do is invite the kids to be aware of the debate.

For some, the standard debate technique is to exaggerate the other side’s position so it looks foolish. You all recognize that technique, especially when it is used against your position, and I’d just suggest it may be less than the honesty the topic deserves.

I’m going to try to follow my own suggestion and not exaggerate, but you will be the judges, of course, and that’s just how it should be. You keep me honest, and I will, when I have the resources, keep you honest.

So what is the topic, the debate? I suggest it is respect.

Respect for branches of a tree? Well, sort of, though that does sound funny at first.

Let me again say that this is a debate that began long before us and will continue long after we are gone. Different folks with different experience of the world have honest, heart-felt, disagreements about how to act in the world. It has probably always been to the advantage of our species to take different approaches so the odds are some of us will survive.

But here’s where I think different groups start to come to very different conclusions. Some believe that we are so powerful and numerous that our actions have the potential to, at least, severely limit our ability to survive on the planet. That is, what you do might mean somebody’s kids are going to pay a terrible price – and maybe already are.

Most of us have an immediate reaction to this notion, one way or the other, and it pretty much determines our position in the debate. If the notion that our actions can threaten the well-being of others seems ridiculous, then this is all tree-hugging, preservationist overreaction (polite version). If that notion gives you pause, if you are concerned enough to consider it as a serious possibility and wish to avoid threatening the well-being of others, then this is not just an academic debate and this is all painful disregard for lessons of history and our responsibility as stewards of the planet (polite version)..

So, back to respect for tree branches, sort of. Should anyone, adult or child, harvest live tree branches at any time. Of course they should, in time of need, for educational purposes, to aid tree health, etcetera, and etcetera.

To argue that one side advocates a total ban on branch cutting is to resort to that exaggeration thing I wrote about earlier. To argue that if you allow one branch to be cut, all will be cut is that same kind of exaggeration. Neither side honorably or honestly advances its cause by making these arguments. Everybody knows that, which is why many try to say the other side is making just those arguments.

We all have anecdotal evidence of the effect of cutting live branches, ranging from there does not seem to be any effect to the tree was never the same again. And we all have our collection of what we believe is scientific evidence of the effect of cutting live tree branches, ranging from it stimulates the tree to better growth to it opens the tree to disease, etc.. And everyone is apparently right some of the time (and wrong some of the time) – so I think those arguments are distractions that get us nowhere.

What is on point is deciding what to teach kids about cutting live branches.

I think it is a fair summary to say one side assumes live branch-cutting can have no larger consequences and says that we should let kids have fun and work to teach them branch-cutting technique, uses for cut branches, etc., They accuse the other side of wanting to ban fun and useful learning for no good reason.

And I think it is a fair summary to say the other side assumes that live branch-cutting can have larger consequences and says that fun and technique should include respect for the ecosystem, including the individual tree. They accuse the other side of teaching a disrespectful, thoughtless, and overly-exploitive approach to nature that makes hollow of any fun or learning that is otherwise going on.

I am in the r-e-s-p-e-c-t group. It seems the conservative position to be cautious in using resources. We seem to have had an impact on the ozone layer, we certainly create pollution, and I suspect we are still learning about how much we affect the planet. I think kids are learning every second and that there is enough evidence in the world that teaching concern for our impact on the planet is a survival issue.

Could I be wrong? Sure; so could you. I just think the evidence is pretty clear and, even if I am wrong, it is better to learn to conserve resources. Are there times when it doesn’t matter if live branches are cut? Almost certainly; but I don’t think we see the future to know what the impact of cutting a particular branch will be, and we can choose what habits and attitudes we want kids to learn.

So I say teach kids about the possible consequences of live branch-cutting, when such cutting is appropriate, when it is not, when there are better substitutes, how to use both kinds of branches properly, etc. I say be sure kids know lots of serious, honest people think cutting live branches unnecessarily is a bad thing - and some places even make it against the law. If it is your position that is ridiculous, teach that, too. Let the kids begin to make informed decisions - and begin to find their place in the debate.