Chinderah Tavern Fig Tree

Eric Frei

On 12 August 2010 at approximately 2.00am a large limb failed from the white fig (planted in 1894) in the car park of the scenic Chinderah Tavern near Tweed Heads NSW.

There's a lot of controversy, even a sit in protester and calls for boycotts if the tree is cut down.

I have watched the case for some time, reading all I could but eventually had to visit for myself to see first hand what the play was.

The tree IS NOT PROTECTED so this plays into the recent Today Tonight show about tree disputes.

It also opens the can of worms I have long spoken about where rules change midstream and councils protect trees at a whim.

This story illustrates the various players. I have attached 3 PDF's from news articles (in order) I think that presented the story well, including the editorial.

It was coincidental that the day I decided to go and see was the day 2 TV crews turned up and the manager was available, who was very approachable and considerate of the situation. Whilst I was there a council guy showed up so did some consultant for a Heritage NSW report. This is a big deal, all in a little sleepy town like Chinderah.

I also made a video which takes many of the factors into consideration .... by watching the video you'll get a very good insight to the whole story including some great pictures of the tree and failed parts.

YouTube - Chinderah Tavern Fig Tree

YouTube - Chinderah Tavern Fig Tree

The picture below shows reknown arborist, Australian Champion tree climber staging a sit in and getting chatted to by the cops.

Attached Thumbnails

 

Attached Files

	tweed tree 1.pdf (1.73 MB, 61 views)
	tweed tree 2.pdf (1.28 MB, 49 views)
	tweed tree 3.pdf (538.9 KB, 74 views)

__________________

Eric Frei

A copy of the Heritage Assessment is attached.

A copy of the Council Meeting Minutes is attached.

Attached Files

	Chinderah Tavern Tree Heritage Assessment.pdf (689.9 KB, 62 views)
	Chinderah Tree ExtraordinaryMinutes30August2010.pdf (54.9 KB, 31 views)

__________________

Garry Brockley

Incredible to say the least! if the insurance have now refused to cover any further damage made by this tree then i dont see how the protesters can stop the removal no matter what the arb reports say, if one of them or some one they know is hurt they would be first on the owners back for compensation.
a very tough few weeks ahead for all concerned.
well presented and put together Eric

__________________

max

Very interesting case Eric.

I feel it is inevitable that the tree will continue to deteriorate. I am not a big fan of props and bracing but accept that they have their place particularly for culturally important trees. Even so such measures may only slow the passage to decline.

Personally I would recommend that:
1. either the tree be removed and a replacement planted (and protected) or;
2. the tree be made as safe as possible (by reducing the weight on the longer limbs, using bracing, props and erecting an informative safety notice!). I would then take seeds and or cuttings to propagate a replacement that could either be planted nearby or transplanted when the parent tree was eventually removed.

Has anyone actually diagnosed what fungus is responsible for the decay and carried out any investigations to establish the level of decay present?

Cheers
Max

Eric Frei

We are waiting on 2 arborist reports to get published.

__________________

treeshaveneeds

There look to be a number of limbs with cracks, and I would want to remove them, or at least cut them back substantially. Typically, when an insurance company refuses to pay for more damage, the owner has to comply with removal -- or have very deep pockets to cover potential liabilities. Not many of those people around.
It may be possible to narrow the crown sufficiently, and have a bold arborist declare the tree is safe with continued monitoring , and (tiny possibility) have the insurance continue. But either another insurance company would have to be involved (and they all talk to each other) or the tree will have to be removed -- a real pity.
Cuttings from the tree might help to perpetuate these genes.

Eric Frei

Historic fig tree spared the axe | Tweed News | Local News in Tweed | Tweed Daily News

__________________

Bowani Siam

Good concise video. Nice one dude!
That rich fella at the start of the video should really stop complaining. How much more value can you want from a property? It's already worth a pretty penny. Why don't people appreciate the value of trees?

Eric Frei

In the PDF attached you'll be able to read both tree reports.

I also again inform you all that the QTRA method of assessing risk is questionable, do not take it as gospel. A thread on that here.

Tree risk assessments| 15methods compared

In addition an email has been recently circulated from the QAA written by Jan Allen of Terraark. Appears QAA forwarded her email to their member base.... copy below.

Attached Files

Chinderah tavern tree reports.pdf (1.61 MB, 45 views)

__________________

serialtreekiller

Move the pub

Eric Frei

In response to the QAA and Jan Allen's propoganda I offer an alternative point of view ..... copy of email sent to Tweed Council.

__________________

Drouin Tree Service

Great responce there Eric

__________________

Drouin Tree Services | Excavator Hire - Drouin and SE Gippsland | Landclearing Melbourne

Eric Frei

I wonder how many QAA members have tree lopping businesses and should reconsider their membership when they have their organisation not acting in their best interest by lobbying to protect trees that they can cut down.

__________________

treeshaveneeds

Well put, Eric!

__________________
My business: Tree Pruning and Removals -- Strump Removals -- Advice -- Consulting -- Arborist Reports
If you want an honest opinion, call Brent Ferris...because, Trees want to Live Too !
We do great jobs, even in small yards.

Free Estimates Oakville to Oshawa - North to Bradford (Will travel further if cost of travelling covered)

Eric Frei

Mob rule rejected elsewhere.

And in this case it was a protected tree unlike this tree, good story.

Fair Haven Council rejects notice of tree cutting | thehub.gmnews.com | Hub

__________________

ArborComm

Have you done the QTRA training Eric? The course I attended was run by a guy that had forgotten more about trees than most I've met have learnt. It wasn't clear in the video what sort of assessment you undertook of the tree before you offered your opinion. Did you do any testing other than a visual walk around inspection to ascertain exactly what levels of decay existed, etc, etc, etc. I would hope that your opinion was based on fact, not guess work. I think you'll find that the vast majority of highly qualified arborists both here and abroad are very accepting of QTRA, and with very good reason. I certainly saw a number of over-inflated ego's put in check on the course I attended by an extremely qualified and experienced arborist. All those ego's are now well and truly believers in the system.

Eric Frei

My comments are in red.

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________

ArborComm

Eric, sorry you took my comment so personally. Your tag line is "Ignorance is contagious, check yours". Could that be applied to somebody who attacks something like QTRA without having attended the course and actually allowed their own doubts to be answered by those most able to do so.

Is this not an open forum where differing views are allowed to be aired, or is yours the only correct one. Ego much?

Eric Frei

My comments are in red.

__________________

Eric Frei

For those who do not know QTRA = Quantified Tree Risk Assessment.

Here's a list of all their PDF's.

It's a multiplier system to give a number for RoH (Risk of Harm).

Target value ratio X Impact potential ratio X Probability of failure ratio x (optional weather ratio) = RoH

However it is not really geared for structures, so they have a fudgy value method. It is looking at risk of death really.

From their document.

So 1/10,000 is considered the benchmark.

Now the value of a human life is, but pay attention to what they do for property (I made that part red):-

Now with structures it gets real interesting.

From their own document it says:-

So if the target property which is always there is likely to incur a repair cost equal to a human life (£1,000,000) it gets a 1/1 rating.

But if the building is likely to cop only $89,800 damage then it gets a lower rating multiplier of 1/20.

So the roH changes according to the value of the target, tell the insurance companies then that according to QTRA expect a lot of claims under $24,943 because between $2,493 and $24,943 the ratio is 1/72.

Impact potential is derived from a chart where the size of the piece gets a value.

Probability of failure is:-

So here, lets run the numbers for a gum tree with lots of deadwood above a house roof.

Target value ratio is:- because damage is likely to be between $104 and $2,493 ... so the ratio is 1/720

Impact potential ratio is:- I reckon the deadwood is between > 25mm (1") dia.- 100mm (4") dia ... so ratio is 1/82

Probability of failure is:- Well I reckon the ratio is 1/1 because no doubt deadwood will fall and already has.

Weather factor is:- Not req'd as deadwood sheds regardless.

720 x 82 x 1 = 1/59,040 which is well above the 1/10,000 so don't bother deadwooding the tree.

Lets switch the roof for a kids playground which is occupied continuosly for 3 hours per day which is a ratio of 1/8

So the answer is 1/656 so deadwood the tree.

With structures/buildings the weather factor isn't really relevent as unlike people the structure is always there and will cop it, but some will debate that the tree will fail most likely in adverse weather however it is not always the case and certainly was not the case for the Chinderah Tavern Fig Tree or many of the trees in New Farm Park or the tree that fell in Bardon. There may be variances in the damage if the wind is stronger but that is very debateable.

From a powerpoint presented by David Evans 2005 note the ass covering in red.



So you need a licence to use that QTRA eh, another dang rip off, I could make an online calculator for a few hundred bucks eh. QTRA is a licenced system and so is Thermal Imaging, both from UK. The UK has 1000's of years of history to get licencing, class segregated society, hierarchical order (you know, Lords, Princes and Queens etc) and taxing right, even Robin Hood tried to settle the score in his own way. LOL

What next, a licence to use a pocket calculator?

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________

Eric Frei

Every year there's a "production" under some trees. Here we are just looking at the occupancy rate for that location. To make it even easier the location is unaccessable at all other times.

The production runs for 2 months with occupancy 24hours per day 7 days per week during that time. The other 10 months of the year no-one is there.

So during that 2 month period there is 1/1 ratio but annually there is only a 1/6 ratio.

It states in their PDF:-

Another similar example would be where weekend markets are held near or beneath trees, for example a Sunday market. Lets face it, the chances of you getting hit on the Sunday is 1/7 anyway as the tree could fail any other day. You could even expand that to 1/14 as it's only Sundays from 6am to 6pm that people are there for the market. But what if, what if it did fail on that Sunday at peak 10.00am time? Do you want to be explaining to the judge or choroner that you were playing statistical numbers.

Would QTRA have given this case a risk lower than 1/10,000?.

Depends who is inputting the data eh, if it's a tree hugger they'll lean toward the data that minimses risk, if it's the tree hater they'll give it worst case scenario. This is just considering target value and occupancy .... and this has been part of the Laman Street Figs "movements" debate where an alternative report has provided a different risk as it used different numbers and even considered a weather factor.

In reality, both numbers should be provided, and according to the information provided it states so.

Also there seems to be some play with numbers that goes like this.

The probability that a tree fails is 1/500, therefore in a year (365 days) you could expect a tree to fail if there were 500 trees. In fact based on that logic you'd expect 1.37 trees to fail (500/365). But that is not how things work.

Lets make it easier and this has been discussed on mainstream media here about our weather. The chances of a flood are 1/20, so it didn't flood this year so next year what are the chances of a flood? 1/20 not 1/19 The probability is always the same ....

Lets play the game even simpler. The probabilty of tossing a head over a tail is 1/2, you toss the coin and it comes down tails (you lose) so are you guaranteed the next toss it will land heads? Of course not. But there are people out there confusing many with these types of numbers.

If the probabilty of failure of trees was 1/100,000 it is absurd to say IMHO that in a forest of 100,000 trees one should be expected to fail, but you will see this logic applied consistently.

Of course I am just a tree man, not a statistician, mathematician or actuary so any further discussion or information pertaining to this is invited.

Attached Files

independent-arborists-report-laman-street-newcastle-final-draft.pdf (329.9 KB, 47 views)

__________________

Eric Frei

Some more about probability from here.

__________________

Eric Frei

Just letting you know that in the WA case where Richard Pennicuik protested up a gum tree the council wanted to cut down he was convicted for obstruction.

The so called "timely action" of Brett Hamlin is pretty similar.

Also even after video evidence of forestry contractors smashing a protestors car and hitting them they got off relatively light with 70 hours community service, IMHO the judge could see through the smoke and mirrors.

Tasmanian forestry contractors attack protestors

Again, some would say the above statements of mine demonstrate my attitude toward removing trees, again an incorrect assumption, more like my respect for law and people's legal rights. For some strange reason others think it appropriate to take away people's legal rights for a "green" cause, in fact the QAA circulated the email so one must ask do they condone illegal protests and will they deal with their members when they do it?

__________________

Eric Frei

Seems it is on again. Now the tree is not protected and in the middle of a large car park.

Junk mail duo in tree-ring circus

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________

Eric Frei

Latest instalment video to watch about this tree.

__________________

George Valentine

Eric

I can see why you are so "invested" with this case and really, a excellent example of so many other examples out there...!

The more I see of this tree, the more I'm starting to see, how much of a hazard the tree is and if I would be a customer of that pub/bottle shop I would not park my vehicle under the tree nor I would walk or stand under it, particularly in windy conditions.

This brings me to that "right of duty or duty of care" that I was so critically criticised recently on another post of mine. If one have an understanding and experience in these situations (certified or not) and some self respect with appreciation for ones life, surely these situations, activate every alarm bells one has acquire through experience and well being of others.

Is from the moment one becomes aware of the dangers that, a need to do something about, takes over. Now, is one only going to care if they get paid to be concerned about or become involved...??? well according to some "idiots" in this industry, seen posting here often, yeah, that's they mentality and behaviour...!

So, if an hazard is only recognise if you get paid to do so, I would like to see how many of these nut heads would be going to this pub and park their vehicles under this tree...??? unless they would like to have they vehicle smashed for replacement by insurance...!

From your last video, is obvious that you are providing some critical information to allow ones interpretation of the trees health and condition. The use of the aluminium broom handle is near as effective as my specially made 1" steal rod that I used on the old Pear tree with the termite next hidden under its root boll but, I wonder, if the tree owner would give you permission (I don't see why not, after all it would work in his favour) to drill the tree for core samples and inspection (image recording or pics) with a borescope commonly know as the snake scope.

I find these instruments to be a great assistance to determine the trees's health, a fairly inexpensive tool and a quick away to get real time images and pics (stills) to be used as indisputable evidence. Some people my think that the holes sizes require to examine the tree inside, will compromise the trees health and stability, when in reality one can go as small as a 10mm hole for both core sample and camera inspection.

If the tree is going to come down, no need to worry about the hole(s) but if the decision is made that the tree is to stay, I then seal the hole(s) and for that there are a few ways one can go about it.

You see, if the tree owner gives you the permission to inspect the tree, which in legal terms is called "tree assessment", one does not need to be "certified" to do such examination. The knowledge of how and what to do in these examinations/inspections/tree assessments, is not only applicable to those that went to school to learn and come out in most cases with the head full in info, but no hands on experience, that is only expected and new certified people are far from being experienced, that come with time and from getting their hands dirty.

Some of the major differences in between the inspection been made by someone with lots of years of experience in tree issues and uncertified and someone with a certification and many times little experience is that, legally one can not charge the assessment fees to a private individual (exceptions may apply), would not be able to be contracted by councils or government authorities to preform tree assessments with the resulting reports to be ignored (in more cases than not) if it came from a non-certified tree person.

For the private person that has a hazard tree and wants it removed, and asks me for my opinion, or if I see a tree that is an hazard (is like second nature to spot them after a while...!), my inspection/findings/assessment/report verbal or written are in many cases, allowing the tree owner to take the necessary legal steps if required. In more cases than not, these trees can be removed at any time with nothing more than the owners request/permission but when significant trees or trees that have been "tagged" with some sort of legal red-tape, my observations to the tree owner can in many occasions change the outcome or the way the tree owner would go about the issue in the first place. They know (as I tell them) that not being certified, my assessment is not legal but, have been a few cases where the tree owners approached the council "armed" with my findings, pics, etc, (evidence) and they are accepted as such, and activating the council legal system and certified people to confirm the findings and the tree comes down in the end...!

I do enjoy to do these inspections and use my tools to find problems that are in many cases undetected by the naked eye. I did do a few and I rarely do them now as I'm slowing down considerably due the health reasons but I may be requested or I may decided to get involved, always free of charge, if the tree wood species is of interest to me for my turnings, otherwise I don't bother. I may do a hand full in a full year, on a good year...!

You see that, I'm trying not to use the term "arborist" as I'm trying to void further criticism as, and until I joined to this forum, I've used the term arborist to explain many of my actions in the tree world, if asked if certified, I answer no, I'm not certified, without feeling untruthful or guilty, therefore I'm using the term "tree person", which I used a lot more often than arborist, anyway...!

Interesting that the word "arborist" in English language, is very identical to the term/word in Portugal for people dealing/working with trees issues. The translation of tree in Portuguese is "arvore" and the term/word "arvorista", was used for those dealing with trees health and general condition, including the knowledge to plant, trim/prune, or cut trees but particularly, with the ability to climb trees...!


Interesting that, another day I was reading in this forum, on the "interpretation" people have of the term "Arborist", some given from various dictionaries and others that, was interesting to say the least. Those that are in my situation focussed of the examples that defined their situation better, while the certified people, didn't accept those dictionary examples and brought in examples of a definition that suited more their positions, that was interesting to watch...!

When do some people start to realise that, big trees on their own, are a "bigger" source of risks, for obvious reasons, as everything is big from the branches to the problems. Then, people don't seem to accept that trees age and all reach their life expectancy at some point, some are more resilient than others and there are many factors that can determine its decline so, one can not simple justify the need to preserve a tree just because is big and old.

I am also pleased that you are doing such a tremendous job with these issues, backed up by your certifications but particularly for me, for the knowledge and dedication you show to have on tree issues and as and independent tree person. You may have just saved all your common sense and attitude towards these kind of issues, just by keeping yourself away from the cosy council and government job positions that you would be very qualified for (unless you were told that you are over-qualified for the job...! I know, I have been denied positions/jobs in my working career, by such ridiculous excuse...!) and I doubt if never offered to you..!

I hope that you can keep that sort of energy and dedication to the industry, for many years to come...!

Good luck...!

Cheers
George

__________________
"Never do to others, what you don't like for yourself...!"

Eric Frei

George,

The gathering of data and facts is similar to that of where a radiologist takes the xray but a doctor interprets it.

I today had a discussion with another high level arborist where he also suggested getting a pipe cam and shoving into the cavity to "check it out".

I also said it would tell him little, and also tell him what he already suspected. It would also not change the treatment.

That's a key thing, the treatments are limited and I have said all over this forum and still maintain today, why bother when the investigation when the treatment will be the same. From the New Farm Park trees to Laman street etc the way you shore up a tree is a constant, reduce lever arm, reduce sail, cable, brace, prop, increase vigour and vitality and root system. I do not need BS equipment to know the obvious.

I believe people who are less tuned in need the equipment and data. Many experienced respectable arborists have the basic tools and know the deal. I carry a petrol Stihl drill these days, always have an increment corer, a keen set of eyes and common sense.

This tree cannot be left alone, in fact it was a huge risk to leave it the way it is and whenever I visit the site I do not park under it. Oh, but I do climb in it, why is that? Because if a piece fails I can jump out of the way but I cannot move my car that quickly. I seriously cringe whenever I see cars under that tree, especially that huge northern leader, must weigh 5 tonnes +.

Large trees like this do bust up as they age. They've got 100+ years out of it in a terrible location and now the decline phase is here.

How to manage it's decline in it's current surroundings.

Back to:- reduce lever arm, weight reduction, sail reduction, cable, brace, prop and TLC. The issue with fencing it is the distance the fence would have to be away from the tree is equivalent to it's height. So if a tall upright leader failed it wouldn't strike anything. But in doing so it means a rather big fence perimeter and not much carpark, so lopping the tree to 1/2 height means a lot smaller fence ... but why fence if the tree is butchered to 1/2 height? No point for a few years as there would little chance of it busting with so much reduction of weight, lever arm and sail.

How to manage the decline of this tree and keep it's dignity?

That is the art, the balance between integrity and aesthetics is ambiguous .... an opinion on every street corner but the fact is something has to be done as clearly the current situation cannot remain.

Last year both reports failed in a true VTA diagnosis and determination of the extent of decay, no-one was "on the money".

Now lets see what happens, because something must happen before some-one or something is damaged/killed.

__________________

George Valentine

Eric, my comments are in red.

From your comments, I get the impression that you are saying that, the decay present and in such advance stage, does indicate that you would opt for total removal and replacement, right...???

What you have not said is, what is the tree owners opinion, of your involvement with this issue, as I believe, you are not getting paid to do so, at least at this point, correct...???

Cheers
George

__________________
"Never do to others, what you don't like for yourself...!"

Eric Frei

The tree owner is appeasing public opinion and protecting their business from a boycott and being bad mouthed if they remove the tree.

Never been said better than in the Treenet Habitat video, trees also need room to die. This tree simply doesn't have that luxury and throughout that shire large figs like that have been removed in the past, by council etc for similar reason, risk.

Also there are examples of similar figs copping an ugly heavy prune in the name of safety.

The issue now is managing the decline of the tree without removal. Extensive probing of the decay pocket does tell us it is similar in shape and size to the base of the tree leaving a residual wall thickness of unknown millimetres, but relying on wall thicknesses here is a dangerous business as this is not one solid trunk. The transference of tensile root force on say the southern side of the tree to hold up the huge northern side leader has been compromised somewhat due to the extensive cavity.

My personal opinion is the tree should come out in that location as the alternatives are going to be disfiguring and ugly. Plus the site is a commercial premises that will re-develop down the track, and the location of the tree means it will have to go anyway.

The tree has had 115years of reasonable life, especially for that location. How many more years will make protesters happy? And is the risk worth it?

__________________

Eric Frei

Before and after shots of the tree.

Tree at 2 December 2011



And after pruning 16 December 2011

Attached Thumbnails

   

__________________