There are very few absolutes I believe in that cannot be either understood through a different lens or discarded altogether, but that certainly is food for thought. That is an altruistic, rhetorical argument. One major issue, which seems to be neglected largely in most literature regarding trees is exemplified in kikori's dealings with his client, and I'm sure most all of us have dealt with it in the past. The issue is the client's knowledge and understanding of tree processes. This knowledge and understanding can be influenced by myriad sources, and is almost certainly the cause of a great deal of poor management practice. But, it can begin as early as the tree is planted; consider any wrong tree/wrong place scenarios one has encountered in one's career. When a client approaches an arborist, there is already an expectation of the quality or of the exact service which will be performed. This can put us as sales and certainly as field arborists in a pickle in regards to the management plan we are capable of putting forth, and budget of the client plays a huge role here as well. I would argue that the knowledge of the client dooms far more trees than the saws of the arborist (but perhaps this is me being altruistic).
With regards to the actual practice of endweight or height reduction. I always consider that the trees we deal with are not the fine forest form to which their genetics have been tuned, and generally grow in a way that requires the attention of an arborist in order to first assess the risk and then take action in mitigating said risk. I agree with certain points in the argument above, but I feel myself resisting the altruism inherent within. Yes, certainly, I would much rather let a tree be a tree, but in order for me to do so, I would have to let that tree be a tree in a forest, this is where trees belong and where there is no risk of damage if and when limbs fail. The trees I deal with are generally open grown (or in a small grove/row), urban trees which already suffer from unique urban stresses and poor branch and root structure due to the lack of competition and support from other trees, as well as the lack of space in which to develop. They almost universally suffer from the lack of organic layer to both shelter the root system and provide optimal soil conditions (which again, the trees are genetically inclined towards, and work towards if we stop raking and expecting grass to abut them). Because of this, I respectfully disagree with the argument above. The point I believe the poster is trying to make, however, is not lost on me.
On an anecdotal level, I have dealt with many trees with both major and minor components which either would have failed or did fail and caused damage without reduction pruning. Which brings me back to the client. If a tree has a component part fail, which could have been avoided with proper structural pruning during the tree's development and the homowner chooses to remove the tree, then could it not be argued that leaving the tree alone led to its demise as well? What is the argument regarding bracing or cabling? Trees fail. Failure in urban trees represents a risk because people and property can potentially be damaged. Arborists both assess and problem solve to mitigate these risks. The conscientious arborist is required to present a solution which represents the compromise between safety and tree health and perhaps preeminently; the clients wishes.
Therein lies the conundrum for the arborist. Altruism is pretty hard to fit in there, but I'm sure some can make it work.
.
