Tree-son?

For the eighth year in a row, Finland has been crowned the world’s happiest country. Also, Finland is 75 percent forested.

“I believe these facts are related,” British author Matt Haig wrote.

Do trees make us happier? Yes, according to the USDA: “Studies have shown that trees benefit our mental and physical health. Spending time around trees reduces stress and anxiety, lowers blood pressure, and improves mood.”

In case you’re keeping track, the U.S. just dropped a spot on the happiest ranking and now sits at 24th in the world. The U.S. is also only about 33 percent forested … stupid deserts, grasslands, and lakes! Are these facts related?

What about locally? Remember back in 2011 when Oprah said San Luis Obispo was the happiest city in America? That idea’s been pooh-poohed since then (often by those of us who ride the struggle bus to economic vitality every day), but in February, the notion was revived when Clara Hogan, writing in Livability, made an argument that we’ve earned that lofty reputation as “happiest,” naming our outdoor amenities, our slow pace of life, our nurturing of entrepreneurism, our “lively” downtown, our access to farm-to-table food and worldclass wine, and our “big little town” atmosphere as reasons.

SLO Town’s urban forest wasn’t one of her points, perhaps because according to Washington Post data, SLO’s tree cover is a mere 16.5 percent. Are we chipping away at our potential happiness every time a tree is felled? How many more trees do we need? Are we planting the right kinds of trees? So. Many. Questions.

According to SLO City Arborist Walter Gault, our urban forest is well-managed (by him), with input from the SLO Tree Committee that meets on the fourth Monday of every month. Gault’s got a big job. The city manages more than 20,000 public trees, and certain trees on private property require permits to remove. For every tree removed, how many new ones should we plant?

Maybe we’re just 10,000 trees away from real bliss. As part of SLO’s goal to become carbon neutral by 2035, a program between Cal Fire, ECOSLO, the city, the U.S. Forest Service, and Rotary International to plant 10,000 trees is underway. The current tally is 3,009 new trees planted with 6,991 to go.

So, when’s the last time you consciously thought about trees?

“Hm. I wonder how tall that tree is?” “Wow, that jacaranda turned that car parked under it completely purple!” “Do some people literally hug trees? Do they get splinters?”

For most of us, trees are an afterthought, completely taken for granted. In SLO, however, some people have trees on the brain.

“I see the city and their woodchipper, and every time I see that woodchipper my heart drops because they’re going to cut down something else,” SLO resident Carla Cary lamented.

“This beautiful Italian stone pine on Murray at Broad is too good for SLO,” resident Richard Schmidt snarkily wrote in an April 21 Nextdoor post. “So our green-bragging ‘tree city’ has granted permission to cut it down because an Orange County speculator wants to build an ADU [accessory dwelling unit] and doesn’t want to save the tree.”

“There are certain streets that have virtually no canopy. Islay is one of the streets. Islay and Leff are two streets, which would be in the Mitchell Park neighborhood,” SLO resident and retired peach farmer Fitz Kelly complained. “Between Osos Street and maybe down as far as Nipomo [Street], virtually no trees there, if I’m remembering correctly.”

For the record, Kelly is often the only member of the public who attends the monthly Tree Committee meetings, so obviously more of us take trees for granted than fixate over them, but still! A lot of people are watching our trees and the fate that befalls them.

Who knew trees, or the lack thereof, could be so controversial? Well, nemophilists, for one. They’re people who are fond of forests, and SLO Town and other cities such as Arroyo Grande and Morro Bay have made concerted efforts to increase their urban forest and tree canopy. All three are Tree City USA members. Will more trees improve our quality of life? Maybe. Do we need to fight a battle over every tree that someone seeks a permit to remove? Perhaps. These are gnarly, thorny (puns, sadly, intended) questions.

Must we lament every stony pine taken out to make room for more housing? Semiprofessional gadfly Richard Schmidt thinks so. The architect and self-described amateur botanist argues the city’s urban forest is being mismanaged. He claims that

instead of planting more native species, the city is planting “genetic junk,” like marina strawberry trees.

“They are exotic; they support 48 species of caterpillars as opposed to oaks, which support 275. It just seems to me we’re moving in the wrong direction with this particular tree regime,” he barked (ha-ha!). “I don’t know whether it’s the arborist, the Tree Committee, or who has decided we need to plant exotics, things that are not native, because supposedly they’re going to do better in global climate change.”

Are you worked up about trees yet? Sage Canadian farmer Nelson Henderson once said, “The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.”

Wisdom bomb. You may now return to your previously scheduled tree-free programming. Δ

The Shredder has grumpy roots and branches. Hand it a chainsaw at shredder@newtimesslo.com.

This article appears in Aug 21-31, 2025.