SA tree lopper gets fined

KevinE · 6th February 2011, 10:31 AM

$22,500 fine but tree lopper says they're dangerous | Adelaide Now

Apocalypsse · 6th February 2011, 11:06 AM

Interesting. I do agree with parts of that article, but for the most part no. I don't particularly like his reasoning there, it comes off to me as a 1 sided view that all gum trees should be cut down, no pruning done to reduce the risk (dead wooding, weight reduction, property clearance, etc). Some trees don't belong next to houses, but the owner has to take the responsibility as well for buying the land and building the house next to or under a 100+ year old tree.

KevinE · 6th February 2011, 11:40 AM

I may be wrong, but I think I may have met this guy last week outside Subway at Modbury. If it's the same guy, I asked him for a card & he gave me some pens instead. I'm looking for a good climber ATM, as I don't have anyone to pass my big trees onto ATM.

Some councils chase the property owner for the damage, others the lopper, others again chase both. I won't be putting any of my customers at risk, that's for sure!

Eric Frei · 6th February 2011, 12:47 PM

For continuity as many news articles as they age get lost/deleted etc:

Quote:

$22,500 fine but tree lopper says they're dangerous
Justice reporter Emily Watkins | From: Sunday Mail (SA) | February 06, 2011

Arborist Grant Carlin, from Waterloo Corner, was fined $22,500 for cutting down a significant tree. Picture: James Elsby

AN ADELAIDE tree lopper has declared war on suburban eucalypts, landing him with a $22,500 fine.

Grant Carlin swears he loves trees but says gum trees should not be allowed anywhere near roads, homes or children's play areas.

His fight has left him with a $22,500 fine for cutting down a river red gum at Kilburn last April.

He pleaded guilty to "undertaking development" without authorisation - an offence under the Development Act - but told the Environment, Resources and Development Court it was a "bad law".

Under the Act, development plans define "significant trees" for different geographical areas. They must not be damaged or cut down without council approval.

He said the tree - with a 3.4m circumference - had dropped a branch on a building on Churchill Rd, loosening asbestos.

"I was guilty of breaking the law. Was I guilty of doing something wrong? You tell me," Mr Carlin said.

"The original intention of the law is to protect beautiful, healthy trees. But even a gum tree with no problems is dangerous because, in its perfection, it is a problem. This tree was healthy but the real issue was that its branch did break."

Mr Carlin, 47, of Waterloo Corner, was reported to Port Adelaide Enfield Council by a resident who noticed the tree being lopped.

Mr Carlin said he had been referred the contract to remove eight trees by waste management company Veolia, which is based on the site.

He told the Sunday Mail he did not care about the fine because large gum trees were dangerous and the law regarding so-called significant trees was inflexible. Mr Carlin said he had been working in the industry for 20 years and had come to know trees.

He said that in his experience, some council arborists did not do thorough analyses of trees when preparing reports on whether tree removal should be approved.

"If there was a study done, I would assume that you'd come to understand gum trees shouldn't even be allowed in suburbia," Mr Carlin said. "If you have a gum tree near your house, the council should force you to chop the sucker down."

Fulham Gardens retiree Margaret Martin, 71, has been fighting Charles Sturt Council for years to have a lemon-scented gum removed from her front yard. The tree has dropped 14 significant branches since 2003.

She said she supported Mr Carlin's quest to have the trees removed from suburban homes.

Mrs Martin said two branches had dropped on the road, one had taken out her letter box and one had narrowly missed her husband Alan while he was watering the garden.

"They just come down without warning. You don't have any idea that they're about to drop," she said.

"I don't think they should be where children could be playing and definitely not in a suburban garden," Mrs Martin said.

She said she was currently preparing a third application to have the tree removed.

A government spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.

watkinsem@sundaymail.com.au

Comments so far on that site are "interesting" and broad.

Quote:

? of ? Posted at 12:46 AM Today

Take a look at the huge gum tree that towers right over the top of Hungry Jacks at Salisbury...now tell me that it is not a danger to the public and the employees...it will be too late once a limb falls down and kills everyone inside Hungry Jacks...I bet the cost factor to remove it comes before any lives that will be lost if something fatal happens.

Comment 1 of 34
#
John of Parafield Posted at 1:00 AM Today

For someone with problem trees the simplest solution is to take a holiday one weekend. It's well known that phantom tree haters raid the yards of people with problem trees when they are away and hammer copper nails into said trees. The copper causes the tree to die, but it can't be proven to be the owner's fault. The dead tree can be lawfully turned into firewood. Problem solved.

Comment 2 of 34
#
BH Posted at 2:11 AM Today

We are on the border - with another 4 houses - of a large property that is owned by an imbecile that planted 4 HUGE gum trees - 40metres from his house on all our back fence lines. It took 4 years for us to get one of them removed after it shed branches and overhung our yard by at least 1/4 of the area. All the houses have had problems, including roots in the drainage and sewers. Cut the bloody things down before they fall down damage property and kill someone.

Comment 3 of 34
#
Shane of Adelaide Posted at 3:20 AM Today

I don't agree with his vigilante action, but I do agree that eucalypts are dangerous. As much as councils and governments want to protect our natural flora, the fact remains that European trees are more attractive AND a lot safer. There have been countless times in our moden history that HEALTHY Eucalypts have just randomly dropped branches and in instances HAVE killed people. I would rather a safer shadier tree in my yard or local park than a ticking time-bomb Eucalypt!

Comment 4 of 34
#
Bob Harris of Broadview Posted at 6:10 AM Today

These types of trees should not be allowed to be grown in any built up area along with many other trees that Councils place on footpaths that they know do very serious damage to fences and house foundations the lot of them should be pulled out and replaced with other types of non threatening ones. When an order is placed on a tree like the one in this story the Council or Government should take full responsibility for any damage that it does.

Comment 5 of 34
#
Matilda of The Wastelands Posted at 6:37 AM Today

I live in Alberton and we have many enormous gum trees in our local parks. Not one child has been killed.

Comment 6 of 34
#
Duane of Adelaide Posted at 7:14 AM Today

A government spokesman did not respond to a request for comment, because rules are rules, and that's the end of that. (rolls eyes)

Comment 7 of 34
#
karl Posted at 7:22 AM Today

This should be a decision for the property owner , not the council. This fine is way to exessive and it shows complete disregard on the impact on the man,s familie. This high fine is is more suitable for a millionaire.

Comment 8 of 34
#
manda Posted at 7:35 AM Today

So true! They maybe our native trees but they are not really people friendly. The fact that we can't get rid of them when they are to close to your house is stupid. We have a huge one in the front yard of our neighbours if that came down on top of our house it would probably kill us all but the council etc are not interested in that health and safety aspect! I shall get my relatives to sue the council if it does come down and wipe out my whole family.! Then they might decide to allow us to chop down the dangerous ones. Obviously killing native animals when they get in the way of progress is much more acceptable.!

Comment 9 of 34
#
If a Tree Falls... of Moana Posted at 7:47 AM Today

The worst I have witnessed is a 5 tonne limb explode from a huge gum tree at a mates place in Sanderston. It was a hot (38C) still day - no warning at all - just a loud crack and crash of the branch breaking the total silence. Our kids if present would have been playing in it's shade. The powers that be need to drop the tree-hugging mentality and perhaps do a bit of research instead. Their moral high ground see's a lot of unresolved dangerous scenarios left in place because homeowners do not generally have the sense of right displayed by Mr Carlin. Used to be too that local councils would fob an application off to a government dept in a lengthy "application" process that would generally be knocked back. Perhaps our National Parks should have 1 seasons fallen limbs in a given acreage recorded as opposed to being cleared away ... I know anything that hits the roadside disappears pretty quick as firewood (In the name of clean up for public safety) Don't get me wrong, I love trees and hate to fell them - but there is good reason you don't camp under them - why tolerate one hanging over your house or place of business?

Comment 10 of 34
#
kavic Posted at 7:49 AM Today

I agree with Grant Carlin. Each "sinificant tree" should be looked at individually. There is a liily pilly tree in our neighbours but most of it is twoering over our fence. Each year we have purple berries all over the driveway pavers that stain. Branches crack off in windy weather and fall on our place. We wrote to the concil but had permission to cut back to the fence line. This cost us $700 which has to be done each year. Not our tree but we put up with the mess. One day it will just fall on our car port as the tree leans our way.

Comment 11 of 34
#
Dr Undies of Sadelaide Posted at 7:52 AM Today

$22,000 fine for lopping a dangerous tree. Real criminals get a slap on the wrist and a $100 bond if they're unlucky! Something's not right with the priorities of punishment in this city. I hope he refuses to pay the fine...like so many real criminals do. I guess that then the council will bring in 'The Special Branch' to deal with the mater.

Comment 12 of 34
#
GBK of Adelaide Posted at 8:00 AM Today

If you have planted the tree you should be allowed to chop it down if you want but to go around chopping all gum trees down is ridiculous. If I needed a tree to be chopped down I would not employ this character to do it, on principle, for his stupidity.

Comment 13 of 34
#
Greg of Port Vincent Posted at 8:19 AM Today

When are we going to get rid of all the bureaucratic bull dust and use some common sense. Its time to stand up to all of this nonsense. 20 years of experience -Grant Carlin - well done!

Comment 14 of 34
#
Christian Posted at 8:33 AM Today

Having taken this route the Council (AKA local fiefdom) are legally liable for any damage any tree causes.

Comment 15 of 34
#
george of mile end Posted at 8:35 AM Today

With dinosaurs like Carlin, there is no hope for the human species. The gum trees are Australian, they were here well before Carlin's family arrived here & they will remain well after his family is made extinct through global warming. He is fighting a losing war but, in the meantime he is making it difficult for all habitat (including humans) that rely on the trees for their survival. His fine is far too lenient. Chain saw owners should be screened and licensed for their suitability to care for trees.

Comment 16 of 34
#
Dee of Somewhere Posted at 8:46 AM Today

I support this man 100%. We are surrounded bu gum trees at our place and I HATE them too...they are dangerous and can drop their branches without notice....councils clearly need to change the rules!!!

Comment 17 of 34
#
Howard MacPherson of Kensington Posted at 8:48 AM Today

Councils and common sense are not synonymous. It appears Grant Carlin and Margaret Martin have been frustrated by ridiculous interpretations of Development Assessment rules and 'rights to action' rules wherein a nuisance tree cannot be removed because it is deemed 'significant' regardless of the facts that it has and will continue to cause damage to dwellings and remain a real and present danger to people. Claims can be made against the owner of the tree for damage but action against the tree itself is severely limited. So, like me, Mrs Martin has lemon scented gums (which grow very tall and are subject to continuous branch dropping) that have proved dangerous with actual damage to her home and a threat to her loved ones. Having challenged council, like me, she has been told the tree cannot be touched because it is 'significant'. How significant would permanent disability or death through negligence be? So, I agree with Mr Carlin and Mrs Martin. Let common sense prevail. Remove dangerous trees and replace them with safe alternative species that are appropriate for the locality and enhance the beauty of the surrounding landscape.

Comment 18 of 34
#
kym of craigmore Posted at 8:57 AM Today

poor tree's, i guess a few fallen branches and leaves falling in our backyards is good reason to cut em all down.why not spray the whole of adelaide with agent orange then we wont have a problem with tree's and weeds

Comment 19 of 34
#
JM of Unley Posted at 9:03 AM Today

Good on you Grant. You are right, many species of gum have no place in suburbia because they shed limbs naturally. It is high time local councils accept this fact and act accordingly. My family faced the absurd situation at an Unley Council DAP meeting where 3 arborists, including the arborist on the Council staff, agreed that the tree In our backyard presented a significant safety risk to my family and our neighbours. Incredibly, one Councillor on the panel still voted against removing it because she makes a point of voting for trees.

Comment 20 of 34
#
Aaron Fornarino of Eden Hills, SA Posted at 9:10 AM Today

I agree. You hear your occasional story every year of some poor adult/child damaging a limb or even worse, suffer a head injury from collapsing branches. The law needs to change.

Comment 21 of 34
#
gavin abe of blanchetown Posted at 9:10 AM Today

how stupid, these trees of significance have been here longer than us yet we build under them. demolish the houses and move the playgrounds. oh and by the way there is such a thing as pruning dangerous branches, you dont have to kill a tree just because you dont like it.

Comment 22 of 34
#
Janice of Adelaide Posted at 9:12 AM Today

Tough mate. This is Australia. Many of those trees started growing long before we built around them.

Comment 23 of 34
#
Leon of Glandore Posted at 9:14 AM Today

Just pay the fine and shut up! We are losing to many trees! This has go to stop! Cowboys like this bloke are far too common and must not be left to destroy what's left.

Comment 24 of 34
#
Gumnuts of Adelaide Posted at 9:22 AM Today

Agree, the law needs to be flexible to work.

Comment 25 of 34
#
shane of australia the asylum seekers paradise Posted at 9:31 AM Today

people should be able to cut gum trees down on there property if they see fit with out some grubby money grabbing council wanting money for a permit i have a lemon scented gum in my front yard that causes me & my next door neighbours nothing but grief from dropping branches,filling gutters with leaves & gum nuts

Comment 26 of 34
#
Grumpy old B@ST@RD of Adelaide Posted at 9:36 AM Today

Grant Carlin is right! these trees are dangerous and do drop their branches without warning! when will the councils wake up? not till someone is killed i suppose.

Comment 27 of 34
#
Jerzy Kurzymski Posted at 9:42 AM Today

I agree with Mr. Carlin 100%

Comment 28 of 34
#
northern suburbs driver Posted at 9:47 AM Today

what are the rules on significant trees? i was astonished to see an entire row of large gums ripped out along briens road where the new school is going in - and yet a row of scraggly half dead pines remains

Comment 29 of 34
#
kazza Posted at 9:50 AM Today

There is no place for gum trees in ordinary suburban homes, unless they are in council homes or politicians homes

Comment 30 of 34
#
Jenson of Unley Posted at 9:51 AM Today

One of the first things that my father taught me over 50 years ago when camping was to never pitch a tent under a gum tree. Broken limbs littering the underside of these trees is evidence enough of their danger. Tree huggers should have to live under gum trees in tents.

Comment 31 of 34
#
Ben Dover of The Pulpit Posted at 9:52 AM Today

$460 fine for a 'P' plater doing in excess of 160kmh in a suburban 60kmh zone, $200 fine for 2 men who bashed a man to within an inch of his life leaving him with many plates holding his skull together. $22,500 fine for cutting down a tree!! We have gone seriously mad.

Comment 32 of 34
#
Plant me a different tree of Tea Tree Gully Posted at 9:56 AM Today

A man with guts to stand up in what he believes in, I applaud you. I am in total agree with what your saying. I have two enomous gum trees in my back yard and they have dropped branches. I try to keep my year to a standed but now its just a tidy up at my expense as the once a month council collection is just not enough. We no longer enjoy our backyard with the fear of limbs falling on anyone. The only one to enjoy it is the dog and the yard is his. I would be happy to plant trees that wont interfere with my gutters and rot them and dont damage my pipes costing my plumbers. Mr Carlin if I had the money I would pay your fine myself

Comment 33 of 34
#
Maxa of Elizabeth Posted at 10:12 AM Today

The law must be obeyed Mr. Carlin. You are a treee lopper, and not a registered magistrate of the bar. Australia has about two inches of asbestos dust covering it in any case. A left over from the days when it was popular with builders and the company who produced it. Accidents are waiting to happen at every step we take, so you had best chnge you activity to removing motor cars from the roads or something now. Sharks from the seas, sideshows from the fairgrounds.

Comment 34 of 34

Apocalypsse · 6th February 2011, 12:50 PM

The area I work in has over 1000 "Significant Trees", every time a new estate goes up you see houses being built directly under or nearby Red Gums that are well over 200 years old. Yes the trees can be dangerous and we've already seen a LOT of stuff come off from the side about trees but we also need to bring to light the council approving construction under such trees and home owners taking responsibility for where they build/buy.

Eric Frei · 6th February 2011, 01:15 PM

What I do not get is that Viola was the principal contractor, what did they get fined? What did the land owner get fined?

There's a lot of debate about aging/large eucs dropping limbs.

Do Gums just drop branches? Sudden Limb Failure

TrevMcRev · 6th February 2011, 01:27 PM

I just added my comment and a link to that thread, dont know if they'll approve a post with a link.....

So is he a tree lopper or an arborist???
Article refers to him as both.

Eric Frei · 6th February 2011, 01:46 PM

Well, post ya comment here so we know what you wrote.

Apocalypsse · 6th February 2011, 02:25 PM

Soooooooooooo many uneducated posters on there, soo hard to try and get them to see what is right, whether it be to cut the tree down, keep it or legal issues surrounding the tree, its basically tunnel vision to their opinion. At least those comments are a step up from the residents in my work area.

TrevMcRev · 7th February 2011, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Frei

Well, post ya comment here so we know what you wrote.

Ahhh they didn't post it up....

Should have copied it before i hit post but i didn't know it was moderated...

KevinE · 7th February 2011, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Frei

What I do not get is that Viola was the principal contractor, what did they get fined? What did the land owner get fined?

There's a lot of debate about aging/large eucs dropping limbs.

Do Gums just drop branches? Sudden Limb Failure

Because its a very, very poorly written piece of legislation Eric! I don't think anyone has challenged it in court yet.

A few years ago I had a game of email tennis with the bureaucrat at the heritage department who is responsible to administer it. I wanted a clear answer as to whether I could cut the suckers off 2 pepper corn trees that had grown oversize on Phillip Hwy at Elizabeth.

Here is what the act says:

tree-damaging activity means—
(a) the killing or destruction of a tree; or
(b) the removal of a tree; or
(c) the severing of branches, limbs, stems or trunk of a tree; or
(d) the ringbarking, topping or lopping of a tree; or
(e) any other substantial damage to a tree,
and includes any other act or activity that causes any of the foregoing to occur but does not include maintenance pruning that is not likely to affect adversely the general health and appearance of a tree;
to undertake development means to commence or proceed with development or to cause, suffer or permit development to be commenced or to proceed.

To me at least, the 2 lines I've put into italics totally contradict each other? I told this shirt & tie this & his response was "why is it that so many of you guys don't get it & query it, the legislation is very clear!" My response to that was "if so many of us don't get it, it must be poorly written" but he treated me like a moron. Very easy to be full of yourself when you are never going to have to interpret crap like this! Get it wrong & massive fines apply!

The person I corresponded with was the classic "yes minister" public servant! I wish I hadn't wasted my time even emailing him.

Eric Frei · 7th February 2011, 08:45 PM

I hope that guy was insured with Fitzpatrick & Co .... it might be covered under the statutory liability.

I know Philip Hwy Elizabeth, I used to work at GMH there.

derwoodii · 20th February 2011, 11:43 AM

Hmm not happy about a fine to contractor and not to owner. While not happy about contractor and others claims of danger gum trees.

The risk adverse line of a trees perceived danger so therefore it must go is just bulltish, pushed by smoking drinkin over weight drivin fast on the phone high heeled shoe wearin solarium user of un attended children with danger dog owners all with more chance of winning tatts 1st div than being hit by a limb these Darwin award dumb smuk types with own small narrow mind agendas never cease to amaze me

Shark bites 1pa so kill all sharks, Tree falls on hmm about 3pa chop all trees vs Cars kill 1000pa make faster cars. Achohol kills 10000pa make it cheaper.

Risk and responsibility adverse people are getting worst
Need to vent last few days seems more whiners moaning "its not my fault" or "somthin gotta be done about",, Media luvs this so they get traction while we get to suffer. Why canna people accept shit may happen and not try to fix blame upon nature or third party's.
Just in this week the its not my fault files

1. Kids car hit by a fallin twig, sure some small damage but the tree was from a forest. Still he wants some one to pay. Son, its a forest tree not owned by no one so get over it. The tish artist called 000 crapin on hes trapped in car etc. Bull twas nuthin close he just wanted asap attention.

2. Old lady suffering age related illness but wants all others to fix her world while accepting no natural acts of nature. Lady leaves will fall off trees I canna change that.

3. Women at 12 weeks mis-carriages in hospital toilet, sure sad but she goes on to smear blame on all around saying she was mistreated. Crap she was yellin abusing staff in an emotional state so they just let alone for nature do it thing. Flip she was carrying the poor fetus soul not the hospital but she says twas all others who lost it not her???.

Grrrrr sigh Thanks feel better now

becmate · 20th February 2011, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by derwoodii

The risk adverse line of a trees perceived danger so therefore it must go is just bulltish, pushed by smoking drinkin over weight drivin fast on the phone high heeled shoe wearin solarium user of un attended children with danger dog owners all with more chance of winning tatts 1st div than being hit by a limb these Darwin award dumb smuk types with own small narrow mind agendas never cease to amaze me

Shark bites 1pa so kill all sharks, Tree falls on hmm about 3pa chop all trees vs Cars kill 1000pa make faster cars. Achohol kills 10000pa make it cheaper.

so damn true. people are too precious with human life and want to blame everyone else for everything bad that happens to them. sure, its sad, but shit happens so get over it. the world holds over 7 billion people, so why is your life so precious? that tree's existance is probably more valuable and important than yours so maybe you should go instead..? Humans are dangerous too, lets get rid of some of them!

Live and let live... that means all living things.

KevinE · 20th February 2011, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by derwoodii

Hmm not happy about a fine to contractor and not to owner. While not happy about contractor and others claims of danger gum trees.

The risk adverse line of a trees perceived danger so therefore it must go is just bulltish, pushed by smoking drinkin over weight drivin fast on the phone high heeled shoe wearin solarium user of un attended children with danger dog owners all with more chance of winning tatts 1st div than being hit by a limb these Darwin award dumb smuk types with own small narrow mind agendas never cease to amaze me

Shark bites 1pa so kill all sharks, Tree falls on hmm about 3pa chop all trees vs Cars kill 1000pa make faster cars. Achohol kills 10000pa make it cheaper.

Risk and responsibility adverse people are getting worst
Need to vent last few days seems more whiners moaning "its not my fault" or "somthin gotta be done about",, Media luvs this so they get traction while we get to suffer. Why canna people accept shit may happen and not try to fix blame upon nature or third party's.
Just in this week the its not my fault files

1. Kids car hit by a fallin twig, sure some small damage but the tree was from a forest. Still he wants some one to pay. Son, its a forest tree not owned by no one so get over it. The tish artist called 000 crapin on hes trapped in car etc. Bull twas nuthin close he just wanted asap attention.

2. Old lady suffering age related illness but wants all others to fix her world while accepting no natural acts of nature. Lady leaves will fall off trees I canna change that.

3. Women at 12 weeks mis-carriages in hospital toilet, sure sad but she goes on to smear blame on all around saying she was mistreated. Crap she was yellin abusing staff in an emotional state so they just let alone for nature do it thing. Flip she was carrying the poor fetus soul not the hospital but she says twas all others who lost it not her???.

Grrrrr sigh Thanks feel better now

My vent is about the media coverage that the shark attack is getting!

I know it's tragic, but the news media need to get a grip! 1 guy gets eaten by sharks & the media coverage is almost like cyclone Yasi!

by the way, if anyone is into that sort of thing, I've done the shark cage diving from Port Lincoln & thoroughly recommend it as an adrenaline rush. Especially if, like me, you're shit scared of sharks!

derwoodii · 20th February 2011, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinE

My vent is about the media coverage that the shark attack is getting!

I know it's tragic, but the news media need to get a grip! 1 guy gets eaten by sharks & the media coverage is almost like cyclone Yasi!

by the way, if anyone is into that sort of thing, I've done the shark cage diving from Port Lincoln & thoroughly recommend it as an adrenaline rush. Especially if, like me, you're shit scared of sharks!

Very scared of em wrecks ma surfin hate been out the back all alone.
Poor sod was a pro knew the odds kinda like a car racin driver knows the risks. In cage I reckon no issue with me noahs but no way outside nooo fnen way.
Back to the thread I canna get LG they want to be savin a few trees ain't that nice, but r happy to allow urban sprawl to eat up fields and don't see their hypocrisy. Allow developer to destroy a forest but tell new owner they must protect a few old trees left as tokin.

6th February 2011, 10:31 AM	#1
KevinE Mature tree Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Adelaide SA Posts: 292	SA tree lopper gets fined $22,500 fine but tree lopper says they're dangerous \| Adelaide Now

6th February 2011, 11:06 AM	#2
Apocalypsse Veteran Heritage Status Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Victoria, Australia Posts: 1,152	Re: SA tree lopper gets fined Interesting. I do agree with parts of that article, but for the most part no. I don't particularly like his reasoning there, it comes off to me as a 1 sided view that all gum trees should be cut down, no pruning done to reduce the risk (dead wooding, weight reduction, property clearance, etc). Some trees don't belong next to houses, but the owner has to take the responsibility as well for buying the land and building the house next to or under a 100+ year old tree.

6th February 2011, 11:40 AM	#3
KevinE Mature tree Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Adelaide SA Posts: 292	Re: SA tree lopper gets fined I may be wrong, but I think I may have met this guy last week outside Subway at Modbury. If it's the same guy, I asked him for a card & he gave me some pens instead. I'm looking for a good climber ATM, as I don't have anyone to pass my big trees onto ATM. Some councils chase the property owner for the damage, others the lopper, others again chase both. I won't be putting any of my customers at risk, that's for sure!

6th February 2011, 12:50 PM	#5
Apocalypsse Veteran Heritage Status Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Victoria, Australia Posts: 1,152	Re: SA tree lopper gets fined The area I work in has over 1000 "Significant Trees", every time a new estate goes up you see houses being built directly under or nearby Red Gums that are well over 200 years old. Yes the trees can be dangerous and we've already seen a LOT of stuff come off from the side about trees but we also need to bring to light the council approving construction under such trees and home owners taking responsibility for where they build/buy.

6th February 2011, 01:15 PM	#6
Eric Frei Admin - Owner Palm & Tree Services in Brisbane Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 12,995	Re: SA tree lopper gets fined What I do not get is that Viola was the principal contractor, what did they get fined? What did the land owner get fined? There's a lot of debate about aging/large eucs dropping limbs. Do Gums just drop branches? Sudden Limb Failure __________________ Protect your rights to work - Join Australian Tree Association My businesses:- Qualified Brisbane Palm and Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane \| Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist

6th February 2011, 01:27 PM	#7
TrevMcRev Mature Tree Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Posts: 1,594	Re: SA tree lopper gets fined I just added my comment and a link to that thread, dont know if they'll approve a post with a link..... So is he a tree lopper or an arborist??? Article refers to him as both.

6th February 2011, 01:46 PM	#8
Eric Frei Admin - Owner Palm & Tree Services in Brisbane Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 12,995	Re: SA tree lopper gets fined Well, post ya comment here so we know what you wrote. __________________ Protect your rights to work - Join Australian Tree Association My businesses:- Qualified Brisbane Palm and Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane \| Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist

6th February 2011, 02:25 PM	#9
Apocalypsse Veteran Heritage Status Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Victoria, Australia Posts: 1,152	Re: SA tree lopper gets fined Soooooooooooo many uneducated posters on there, soo hard to try and get them to see what is right, whether it be to cut the tree down, keep it or legal issues surrounding the tree, its basically tunnel vision to their opinion. At least those comments are a step up from the residents in my work area.

7th February 2011, 08:45 PM	#12
Eric Frei Admin - Owner Palm & Tree Services in Brisbane Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 12,995	Re: SA tree lopper gets fined I hope that guy was insured with Fitzpatrick & Co .... it might be covered under the statutory liability. I know Philip Hwy Elizabeth, I used to work at GMH there. __________________ Protect your rights to work - Join Australian Tree Association My businesses:- Qualified Brisbane Palm and Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane \| Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist

20th February 2011, 11:43 AM	#13
derwoodii Mature tree Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Melbourne Posts: 406	Re: SA tree lopper gets fined Hmm not happy about a fine to contractor and not to owner. While not happy about contractor and others claims of danger gum trees. The risk adverse line of a trees perceived danger so therefore it must go is just bulltish, pushed by smoking drinkin over weight drivin fast on the phone high heeled shoe wearin solarium user of un attended children with danger dog owners all with more chance of winning tatts 1st div than being hit by a limb these Darwin award dumb smuk types with own small narrow mind agendas never cease to amaze me Shark bites 1pa so kill all sharks, Tree falls on hmm about 3pa chop all trees vs Cars kill 1000pa make faster cars. Achohol kills 10000pa make it cheaper. Risk and responsibility adverse people are getting worst Need to vent last few days seems more whiners moaning "its not my fault" or "somthin gotta be done about",, Media luvs this so they get traction while we get to suffer. Why canna people accept shit may happen and not try to fix blame upon nature or third party's. Just in this week the its not my fault files 1. Kids car hit by a fallin twig, sure some small damage but the tree was from a forest. Still he wants some one to pay. Son, its a forest tree not owned by no one so get over it. The tish artist called 000 crapin on hes trapped in car etc. Bull twas nuthin close he just wanted asap attention. 2. Old lady suffering age related illness but wants all others to fix her world while accepting no natural acts of nature. Lady leaves will fall off trees I canna change that. 3. Women at 12 weeks mis-carriages in hospital toilet, sure sad but she goes on to smear blame on all around saying she was mistreated. Crap she was yellin abusing staff in an emotional state so they just let alone for nature do it thing. Flip she was carrying the poor fetus soul not the hospital but she says twas all others who lost it not her???. Grrrrr sigh Thanks feel better now

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Cairns Tree\| Chainsaw Death OHS fined Assessor	Eric Frei	Tree Industry injuries, accidents and fatalities	1	30th September 2009 12:43 PM
Tree lopper fined.	Done it	General Tree Chat	5	9th November 2008 09:28 AM
About Time: Company fined for illegal tree works.	rangitata	General Tree Chat	12	19th June 2008 02:26 PM
Tree Loppers Fined - Vaucluse, Sydney	JohN Dee	General Tree Chat	2	17th January 2008 10:17 PM