Storms| cyclones| tree species suitability

TreeDimensional

LOL Sean, it never ceases to amaze me at the light changes in a yard after a tree is removed. Even smaller trees shield the yard from the sun. Our trees only have leaves on them half (more or less) the year. Even a tree without leaves help the disipate the rays.

As far as wholesales tree removal, why wouldn't they just move to the desert? Yeah I know that is NOT an option, so how do we pin-point a risk level that will keep the general public happy? Plan away, BUT when mother nature decides to send in a micro-burst, ALL bets are off.

I do not believe there is a storm proof tree, and most certainly not any urban tree policy that will prevent insurance claims. So what are we, as arborists to do to remedy the problem? With the existing urban forest, an assessment of the trees that pose the greatest risk would be in order. Just because a tree is "big" doesn't necessarily mean it is dangerous. Large trees have the potential to cause damage by sheer weight and leverage. An example of ways to mitigate the potential of failure could be as simple as crown thinning, or even planting a smaller tree in an orientation in which it would re-direct the wind from part of its neighbouring tree. The problem all lies in who and how much money are we going to spend on individual trees in a large city? Urban forestry policies address the "whole" not specific individual trees.

Do I feel sorry for the insurance companies, NO! Yes the payouts in the affected areas are huge, but how many claims have the individuals affected by this one event, ever made? Probably none, but I would bet they have carried insurance ever since they bought their home.

We have had our lives turned upside down, because of a house fire. We had insurance, and, in the end all was good. Yes the immediate shock was hard to deal with. Yes the insurance adjusters were looking at our lives under a microscope. Yes my wife got to shop until she dropped. In the end came a realization, that as bad as it was, it could have been worse. NO ONE was killed. We live in a time that what we "have" is how we analyze how we are doing in life. In the end it is just "stuff", we can live with less "stuff", but how would the other members here like to live without a family member?

I don't have a crystal ball to look into the future with, as an aborist I can only compare past observations, and experiences with relationship to the situation I am dealing with in a clients yard. Errors and omissions insurance is a bit of a joke, the way I look at it. As long as there is NO set criteria for risk, how can we expect and arborist to be responsible when a tree fails. The way I understand it, as long as the arborist tells the client the tree may be a risk, they are off the hook. I have never met an arborist that can tell me what the future has in store. I believe that E&O insurance is a ploy to divert responsibility to another company OR individual.

Sorry for the rant, but the situation in Brisbane, was simply a sever weather event. I don't think removing trees is going to accomplish much, except for the power provider who will make a killing on the extra usage of power from the air conditioner consumption.

Eric Frei

I have only lived here since around 1993 in Brisbane.

But I was a little surprised to read this. It might be the culture here to top and lop plus remove trees, sure as eggs real tree care seems far from most peoples minds and wallets. It can take more effort (cost) to prune a tree correctly than cut it down, so you quote $880 for a prune and then people ask how much to cut it down. Depending on the tree it can be cheaper to cut it down.

Some of the trees just snapped apart were Leopard trees. I have even been personally saying they're one of the strongest you'll get, very strong and seldom uproot or snap. They tend to only grow maybe 15m tall for a big one and about the same in width. The gum trees are a different story, I doubt planted, bush remnants.... now this is the debatable part. Was leaving 100' forest remnants in dotted isolation wise? Sure we know that wind forces were strong enough to bust any tree so why have avalanches instead of snowballs?

Many people might have insurance clean up some of the yard but the busted trees remain, the remedial work or removal to be paid out of peoples pockets ... will they do that? Or will they "fluff up" nicely for the next event. That's the next problem, badly damaged trees requiring works not being attended to. They'll be hard to work on, high points blown out etc.

__________________

treekiwi

I alway find it ironic how an event such as this creates a knee jerk reaction, trying to blame everything and anything to quantify damage or extreme weather..... Sure trees caused damage during the storm, sure they are big and can fail it a weather event which occured.. but why do people only think of them as a hazard?? What about the 15+ years they have been there minding there own business??? Imagine a world without trees? isnt Brisbane hot enough as it is lol. Just like everything damage control is a fact of life, weather patterns are changing and are likely to cause more damage in the future... But removing trees will most likely make it worse not better!! Green is good!!!!

Sean Freeman

What an excellent well written post TreeDimensional.

You have ably describe the issues imo. I too have had to face unpleasant personal upheaval (non tree related) and seen more than my fair share of unpleasant situations for both families and communities.....I have limitless empathy for those who have been impacted by severe weather events.

For me it has always been and will always be a question of whether the LGA really is willing and able to commit the resources to tree care and management that approaches best practice.

I agree with Eric that many decisions to retain trees in the past were not being driven by the best information...the best intentions, yes, but perhaps not the best information.

One thing I do think experience world wide has shown us if we as Arborists just sit back and wait the engineering depts in Council will remove trees from our streets wholesale, to their modelling they are externalities that do not justify the cost they impose on normal predictable construction and maintenance.

The nonesense in the media after storm events feed ignorance about tree biology and sadly rinforces knee jerk reactions that elected officials seem so addicted too...hence what for me amounts to the PR BS from BCC re tree risk assessments.

There are some important basic principles underlying the position held by any LGA in relation to its management of the environment trees included, and when it comes to determining where the limited resources go its worthwhile reminding those elected officers just what it is they are supposed to be supporting and how qualified informed and experienced Arboricultural understanding can assist them...there are a great many examples of communities where this has happened, and continues to happen.

I don't expect property developers to understand trees, nor road engineering companies to have best practice tree assessment and protection policies within their working proceedure manual......thats what I do, that is our role as Arborists.

I'm sure there were rational voices after this storm in Brisbane, willing to interpret individual tree failure for the media based on what they could see and the forces at play during the storm, such views tend not to make good headlines, it doesn't fit the 5 second sound bite. There are many good people working within BCC who know exactly what should be done re Urban Forest management, its important that we give them our support when we can.

Don Ross

Eric,

Can you see your data agrees with Grubers data but would destroy's Klaus's fraudulent selection of data?


Ciao Don Ross

Great shots of the bunya pine. I might use them on Newman & cohorts.

Attached Thumbnails

 

Attached Files

$$$ Eric you just proved Mattheck a crook. German scientific arborists know Mattheck is a scientific (53.2 KB, 51 views)

newguy18

second file didn't work.

__________________
Have your say join us today.


old schooler

Don Ross

Wind gusts to 43 km per hour.

Two trees down. One by BCC & the other by overturning.

Voodoo science must be reported by Courier Mail reporters this time Eric.

See the three photographs.

Ciao Don Ross

Attached Thumbnails

   

Attached Files

$$$ Hinchliffe assertions about children's playground area are wrong, unsafe and prove voodoo scienc (141.9 KB, 50 views)

Eric Frei

LOL!

I guess I'm going to New Farm Park tomorrow.

What a sham this place is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don for the alert, please feed in every low velocity tree failure you got, I'm very interested, I can understand severe weather like The Gap storms etc but this type of crud has to be known. VooDoo science, they spent over $100K on BS as far as I'm concerned, and yet they expect people to retain "run of the mill gum trees" in urban yards.

Seems they cant walk the talk that's for sure.

Hey Don, just today, a guy is told he has a 0.7m DBH ironbark, 28m tall tree is protected. Ex forest remnant.

Then the town planners and builders trench 2 SIDES of the tree within 2m for storm, sewer, mains and road. The tree now within 1 year of high rainfall is totally stag headed (dying).

Who mandated the tree stays? BCC

Who allowed the infrastructure works to kill it? BCC

Who now has to pay for a report on the dying tree ... poor ole new 1st home buyer, who then gets approval and has to pay for removal.

SHAME ON BCC!

__________________

Garry Brockley

thats discusting how they can continually get away with this type of thing someone needs to be brought to justice for that.

__________________

Eric Frei

Time for the citizens to reclaim their land rights and what's upon it!

Here you go, this is a picture of what some Academic Ecologist EPA wanker calls fauna management. You have no idea how the redneck, young, inexperienced planet huggers are trying to run the "new world". We're onto it, and over it. They think that this is OK.

SHAME ON THE QLD GOVERNMENT.

Source: Fraser Island dingoes &squo;starving&squo; with electrified grids, fences | The Courier-Mail

I'd personally like to electrify the chairs of the shiny assed idiots who call this management.

Attached Thumbnails

   

__________________

Sean Freeman

Yep there you go gum trees are time bombs, ban em I say...ban em all

Eric Frei

Some types are more likely than others to fail. Which would you say are the weaker ones?

__________________

Sean Freeman

The ones that have had the majority of their root system destroyed, been buried, been lopped, been poisoned....often all four.

All trees will fail, no matter what species, there is nothing inherent (that I am aware of) within the genetics of Eucalyptus sp or Corymbia sp that make them significantly weaker than other trees...its what happens to the trees as they grow that makes a significant difference.

Eric Frei

No I meant like grey gums vs say red gums etc.

I find the Euc major, propinqua (grey gums) are more likely to fail. Following closely behind are ironbarks with included forks ... many ironbarks grow with a lot of included forks (genetic disposition I suppose). Then there's large euc grandis (flooded gums) with their long over-extended branches getting broken off. But hands down the Euc major is the worst.

__________________

Eric Frei

The storms continue, one last night ... just had another tonight.

Check out this story from last nights storm.

Source:Family escapes as tree spears house during storms - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Attached Thumbnails

         

__________________

Sean Freeman

The way such events are portrayed in the media supported by uninformed comments I have heard and read from Gardening Gurus and polies in the Brisbane area is going to be a real benefit to all the loppers out there.


There are voices of sanity out there...Queensland: How to clean up your yard for cyclone season.

Eric Frei

Yes, interesting that he also singled out tall gum trees as a problem at 3.37mins.

Also interesting he went for the roof height small trees and shrub thing.

Unless you heard a different version seems he's on track with what most people are thinking down here.

__________________

Sean Freeman

Really I think what I heard was him stating that before any trees are considered for removal a qualified Arboristt should be called in to provide informed advice....NOT what I have been hearing from our Premier, nor high profile Horticuturalists...

Eric Frei

Seems to me many healthy ones failed.

Some people want reports now to get rid of them, no grounds to do that though coz there's nothing wrong with them. So no defects, no bad VTA symptoms, nothing ... just a typical gum tree. Many then ask if the report doesn't allow removal and the tree fails then will I pay for damages? Of course not, neither council, so how pissed off do you think many people get?

__________________

Sean Freeman

Eric trees as you well know are natural systems they fail given enough wind loading, even certified structures will fail under excessive loading..thats a reality that we all live with every one of us.

Many people spent enormous amounts of money to buy property in the gap precisely because of the increased amenity associated with the vegetation, that there are in extraordinary weather conditions consequences to having the vegetation there should come as no surprise.

If someone goes to a doctor do they expect the doctor to give them a piece of paper telling them they won't get ill in a week, or even tomorrow?

Clients engage qualified Arborists to assess their trees to give them professional advice based on the experience and level of knowledge and understanding of the Arborist....if they have other agendas running that is for them to resolve not the Arborist.

Eric Frei

You missed the point, think like a free man.

The trees weren't defective, healthy ones failed. You analogy is frivolous, absolutely incoherent. If you were to use the doctor anaolgy it would go like this .... man leaves surgery with 100% clean bill of health, driving home he pulls off from a green light but a huge truck coming from the right failed to stop killing the man. The man was in the right but dead anyway. Analogy is regardless of health failure can occur, absolutely unpredictable to a doctor.

Answer to this also lies with the paragraph above, I believe there's lots of fine examples in Roma Street Parklands of well cared and tendered trees smashed to bits. The trees have been cared for by one contractor for 3 years now, using cherry pickers etc, AS4373 pruning and so on. There's events beyond the arborists consult which determine the trees future. As no-one has a crystal ball, or can assure no storm event will hit their area some people want to opt out of the risk/benefit analogy ... they simply see the risk far too high for the benefit of a large gum tree.

Looking closer at gum trees, take the log and branch structure out of the equation and how much true photosynthetic leaf area do you have? Not much.

Also they are hopeless shade trees, more holes in them than lace fishnet stockings. How often we remove a gum and the entire foliage area is chipped and worth like 3m3 to 4m3 .... but then the log and branches bulk it up. How often when looking at a gum tree can you see straight through it due to it's low density canopy? Nearly 100% of the time.

I personally think there's far better choices for urban yards, better shade trees, more reliable in adverse weather.

Most of these gums aren't planted, they're remnants, forced upon people.

__________________

Sean Freeman

You seem to miss the point Eric yes the people who live with trees in their yards have the right to make decisions about their property but they have the right to get all the information not the screams of the sky is falling and its raining trees which is what the media has been full of in the aftermath of the Gap storm.

Its not about crystal ball gazing for me anyway, its about moving away from massively skwed perspectives to tree risk assessment.

Tree owners can (and do) decide to do what they want, but they should be provided with clear understandble auditable assessments of what the risk of significant harm is...and frankly to me that is not what is happening.

Its not black and white, its not keep all trees no matter what state they are in, it is never simplistic or one size fits all.....IMO there are no generically deadly gum trees, or any other species for that matter...the risk to the general public of significant harm from tree failure is blown out of all proportion when compared to the risks we accept in almost every other aspect of our lives in urban areas.

Sure it makes great headlines, generates good income for tree workers (qualified and unqualified), fits a simplistic model of the world around us but for me, I prefer to try to provide people with a rational balanced understanding of what values their trees represent and how they may manage them.

Eric Frei

I see, I MISS THE POINT whilst you support mandated (forced) retention of trees denying people their right of removal.

The whole point is there are species more prone to failure than others, even shit arborists know that.

There are people who dont want big trees regardless of health especially gum trees but are forced to keep them by some pen pusher.

Those are the points, and I dont miss them, I just see them and they are valid.

New Farm Park is a perfect witness to so called arborist expertise with $100K spent on diagnostics and trees falling like domino's (one just over a week ago) ... I miss no points.

The point you miss is one that says allow people their own choices. You want large gum trees, great, have them but who are you to force your desires upon those who do not? That's the point.

__________________

Don Ross

Eric is entirely correct.

Look at the risks from a healthy tree without defects.

This is easily done via the mandatory requirements of the legally binding document, the Australian Wind Code, which shall apply to VTA proponent arborists in Australia.

If there be a death, no Act of God nonsense or disclaimer nonsense will protect people following the proven fraudulent work of Professor Doktor Herr Klaus Mattheck. My proofs in 2006 and Professor Franz Gruber's work in two papers in the year 2007 show he has used an unscientific technique of selecting his hollow tree data to suit his elementary mathematical blunders.
Here in Australia, we mince no words by describing Mattheck's actions as the actions of a man keen to sell many books riddled with elementary engineering blunders and thus we name and shame him as a scientific fraud.

The mess in New Farm Park has happened because nobody even follows Mattheck's sensible requirement of no root blasting (twice with air and once with water) to remove bark of tree roots close to the tree stem on Tree 57, 58 and on the Cockspur Coral Tree which overturned only on 19 November 2008. Three trees overturning in a breeze and all root blasted by BCC arborists and all with asymmetric root layouts. Mattheck defines this as negligent and I define it as voodoo science running amok. A Tuckeroo tree developed an outrageous lean in a 1:2 wind storm and was cut-down at the end of November 2008. If the voodoo science BCC arborists root blasted that Tuckeroo tree then I did not know aboout it. If they had have tapped it with a timber mallet then they would have known it was unsafe from a brown root rot fubgus. The Tuckeroo I nsuspect was not root blasted nor even properly inspected.

Our Wind Code, in effect, states that thou shalt certify a tree structure as a safe resource against tree overturning to a maximum annual risk of 1:200 and if you do not believe that assertion try arguing with me in a court of law on that assertion!

Nobody has told citizens yet in all Queensland coastal cities that the level of risk on an annual basis that a VTA proponent arborist can certify a tree “safe” is 1:8 (with a disclaimer that says the tree can fall over at any time based on the USA 70 mph limit) or 1:12 based upon the German DIN 1055 Part 4 VTA limit by Mattheck of 34 metres per second.

However, under the mandatory requirements of the Australian Standards Wind Code, the maximum probability of risk from tree overturning and to which any householder and his family should be subjected by a local government protected tree structure is 1:200.

The German wind code is much different to our wind code.

Our clauses are mandatory because we use the verb "shall".

DIN 1055 Part 4 uses the verb "sein" or "to be."

As soon as somebody is killed here in Qld by a local government protected tree and indeed via an overturning tree, I will cause the politicians who have delayed the introduction of the lateral load testing tool by almost four years to be named as parties to a criminal negligence suit including our Lord Mayor, our Former Deputy Mayor and two of our recent Premiers who, on this tree safety certification reform issue have been like two quivers looking for a decent backbone.

It is about time VTA arborists exposed the scientific fraud, Mr Claus Mattheck, the way I have before in 2007 and he only made hollow legal threats to me. His lawyer wasted no time at all, Anwalt Herr Olliver Wittek of Karlsruhe University, in withdrawing Claus's hollow bluffing litigious threat when I told Premier Mr Peter Beattie that the Germans were only sabre rattling.

Sean Freeman

Yet again Eric you seem determined to be personally offensive when I have not been.

I am not forcing anything on anyone we live in communities that have common values and rules if we want them changed we have the ability to effect that change. Part of those values are the desired environmental outcomes within every LGA planning document/city plan.

We have four tiers of legislation in Australia that govern the management of the environment, the vegetation and the animals within it...based within both statute and common law.

I see no point in continuing if you are just going to sling insults.

Eric Frei

LOL, personally offensive.

Obviously you cannot debate, nor sort fact from fiction, and how you interpret that is up to you.

You say I missed the point, clearly, but when thrown back in your face what the point is that is "offensive".

Insults, what insults. Oh the shit arborists even know some species are worse than others ... is that an insult? You did say ....

Interesting, throughout the forum you'll read about certain trees globally and their plight, their failures, they're unreliability.

You also wrote this ....
And that clearly shows your position and what we are debating here, an individuals right to remove a tree they own.

I haven't even homed in on the "clearfelling" of the urban forest thing you wrote, wow, yet you continually claim the media makes mountains out of mole hills but with equal vigour drive a frenzy to the other polar of the debate.

__________________

Eric Frei

Copied this post from another thread. Tree Nazis

However there's people who dont like big trees close to their homes.

One council says any tree that is within striking distance of the home is exempt from protection and others (like Beaudesert shire) say anything within 20m of the home is exempt ... and others say everything is protected.

So you have to see all sides here, not everyone wants to live 24/7 in fear of a large tree regardless of it's health, as healthy trees do fail too.

Here in SE Queensland people have become complacent and the recent storms have woken up many ... including the greenies/councils who insist on saving/protecting large trees close to homes. Attached is a document published 2001 ... a warning or reminder I suppose.

Attached Files

Natural Hazards SE Queensland.pdf (575.1 KB, 46 views)

__________________

Sean Freeman

There is no doubt that trees in unfavourable environments are less able to produce normal cellular growth, for me that is a reflection of the changes around the tree not some genetic self destruct code.

Unfavourable environments can be as a result of the species being at the limit of its range, temp, humidity, soil chemistry and biology. It can be a result of the dramatic and rapid changes that urban development brings with it.

The trees themselves are not "weaker" except in the sense of limited ability to adapt to that a changed external environment.

To me your position is akin to suggesting that Elms or Oaks are weak trees because they fail to thrive in Queensland?

I find it particularly hard to understand what it is you are trying to say when you describe species that are native to our region and our climate and describe them as being known to be prone to failure.....to me these native trees like the grey gums and iron barks are reliable species if they are not damaged and compromised in biological function or physical structure.

Eric Frei

So now do I have to get 5000 pictures of busted native trees in their own environment? There's lots of bush around me, many large trees are fooked in there.

Even walking around Lamington National Park there's many fooked trees. Some species more likely than others to be fooked, go for a walk and have a look see how many fooked trees there is out there in the natural environment.

__________________

Sean Freeman

Thanks Eric I do that as often as I can.