Supreme court action to stop line clearance

playfordtree · 20th March 2008, 08:39 PM

I'm not sure who to side with here.

the council for making a stand on poor pruning.
or,
the tree workers just doing their job.(a difficult & dangerous one at that)

Tree row heads to court - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

what do you guys think?

Steve Tipton · 20th March 2008, 08:58 PM

And so it goes on......................
The electicity supply act seems to override AS4373. This work will continue.
It's a soul destroying job when you want to do the job properly. The guys in the field can't win, councils and the public up them for rough work, power suppliers up them for increased clearances.

This leads to a great turnover of staff in this area of the industry.

playfordtree · 20th March 2008, 09:14 PM

Not wrong Steve.

Seems like your damned if you do, and damned if you dont!

Eric Frei · 20th March 2008, 10:18 PM

As4373 2007 States:

Quote:

7.3.6 Line clearance (L)
Line clearance is pruning to maintain clearances around overhead services and is an application of reduction pruning (see Clause 7.3.2).

NOTES:
1 Reference should be made to relevant state legislation for line clearance.
2 Formative pruning should be used to establish a suitable framework (see Clause 7.2.5).
3 The amount to be removed should consider the characteristics of the species, growth rate and response to pruning. The potential impact of the pruning on the health, structure and amenity of the tree should be considered.

Fact: ETSA WEBSITE STATES THAT THEY CONFORM TO AS4373.

Source: ETSA Utilities :: Environmental Performance

Quote:

Vegetation Management

ETSA Utilities has legal obligations regarding vegetation clearance in accordance with established statutory principles. Any clearance activity is with a view to ensuring a safe and reliable electricity supply and endeavour to minimise the risks of electric shock, bushfires and power interruptions.

Our intention is always to keep vegetation clearance to a minimum. We work closely with councils and other stakeholders to protect vegetation, while still achieving legislative vegetation clearance requirements. In some instances, cleared areas will be replanted with more appropriate species ý enabling us to maintain levels of electricity supply while preserving the environment.

All staff and contractors are trained by accredited organisations to ensure any vegetation clearance is conducted in accordance with Australian Standard AS 4373 (Pruning of Amenity Trees and Environmental Requirements).

TreeSpecialist · 21st March 2008, 01:38 AM

Court orders stop to tree pruning - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Looks official now. The courts have stopped utility tree pruning until next week. Looks like the utility crews will have a holiday.

What you need now is a good storm to knock the power out at the court house when a tree takes out an electric transformer or two.

Here in the states, the Missouri legislature is looking into banning the planting of trees anywhere within the utility's right-of-way. They have had too many outages in recent years due to storms. And no one seems to be terribly opposed to the idea.

Treelore · 22nd March 2008, 03:14 AM

Fair call too. I think education and management is best in this situation. Councils were dumb enough to plant these trees under powerlines in these cases but that doesn't mean that powerline companies have the right to lose sight of arboricultural practice. ETSA maintains it has nothing to fear.. be interesting to see who patrols their work to decide if their practices are not up to scratch. Maybe let Treenet have the job?? decide once and for all

Eric Frei · 22nd March 2008, 08:16 PM

You know what could be going on here is that the pruning is correct and rather than topping the target pruning is taking a lot more tree away and also leading to those valleyed out trees we all see too often.

So in fact to the untrained eye it is likely that pruning is being done right, but then you'd have to say where's the evidence it is not and who said it is not, councils do have arborists.

I haven't seen pictures it is not done right yet.

They also have some regulatory office.

Source: Messenger Community Newspapers Local News Adelaide South Australia

Quote:

The Office of the Technical Regulator is reviewing ETSA's pruning practices in metropolitan Adelaide.

playfordtree · 27th March 2008, 12:48 PM

Here's the latest.

Tree pruning fight could go to trial - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

bigshea13 · 27th March 2008, 02:28 PM

yeah...its a never ending battle.
it all boils down to cost. usually the companies have to place a bid to do the work. the faster they get it done the more money they make. the utilities want hire the companies that bid the lowest.{i think it would improve the work if they use the middle bidder}
the higher the quality of work the higher the cost. the utilities pick up the tab at first but it eventually trickles down to the consumers{who hate the high costs and the poor trimming.}\
training a tree early is the second best way to help the problem. the first is not to plant em under or near the lines. but in some cases the home owner may not own enough land to put the tree a safe distance away{if they want a tree they should be able to have one}
its a bad deal all the way around. ive seen entire housing complexes with their feeders in duct banks. underground is much more pleasing to the eye nad far easier to maintain. its just that it would cost a fortune to change it all over. and id be out of a job in that line of work.

Eric Frei · 27th March 2008, 04:24 PM

I hope it goes to court, why?

Because it will....

Set a precedence.

It will push the Standard's limits plus it's viability.

Plus everything is solved by courts not peoples opinions, organisations ideals or corporate greed.

However it would be funny if there was a counter claim for the costs of trimming inappropriately planted vegetation by people who are responsible ... the council.

I might email ETSA that, counter sue.

playfordtree · 27th March 2008, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ekka

However it would be funny if there was a counter claim for the costs of trimming inappropriately planted vegetation by people who are responsible ... the council.

I might email ETSA that, counter sue.

.....now your starting to sound like a lawyer.

Eric Frei · 27th March 2008, 06:38 PM

I did it, I emailed them with a link to the post and encouraged a good fight and they should countersue the tree owners for the ongoing costs of maintenance due to their neglegent planting.

Furthermore they may even throw onto the slab any pruning/tree clearing injuries and deaths ... they might be able to trace that back to the lack of duty of care for the people who planted the trees in the first place.

GO FOR IT ETSA, you got more money anyway, and we all know the best lawyer wins at the end of the day, especially when the judge is on the take.

George Hayduke · 28th March 2008, 01:12 AM

Underground utilities are VERY expensive to install and VERY expensive to maintain too. In the long run it costs consumers more to have lines underground. Deciding if that is 'worth it' isn't the discussion...just costs.

TreeSpecialist · 28th March 2008, 01:47 AM

George is right.

Undergrounding utilities seems to be a good answer, but it isn't.

I sat on a tree commission studying this very topic about 1 year ago.

Undergrounding utilities :
1) Cost 300 times as much as aerial wires
2) never pays for itself over its lifetime (50 years or so)
3) would cost each homeowner $5 - 7,000 dollars to connect up to it
4) would cut most of the roots of the trees it was meant to save necessitating their ultimate removal.
5) are extremely difficult to trouble shoot when a circuit goes down.

The cost to replace the aerial electrical service in Austin Texas last year was estimated to cost $3 billion and would take the better part of 25 years (and time alone would drive up the cost to even more.)

bigshea13 · 28th March 2008, 02:39 PM

that may be a little on the wild side as far as stats for the costs and longevity of the systems but it is a little more difficult to troubleshoot due to the fact that you cant physicall look at the conductors to verify a{break, burn, or other prob you can see visually with an overhead.\
as far as hook up costs...they would be about the same as a modern underground service entrance. the only difference would be that the utility guys would now use a ladder to get into a chamber to make the splices rather than use a bucket to do it. the costs are give and take in both directions. underground would require little maintainance as far as vegetation, pole replacement, damage caused by man or nature but they would require oversized conductors to reduce the I2R {heat}loss and they would have to be copper to reduce the corrosion.
hard to say really. you make endless arguements on both sides. it all boils down to cost. somebody is going to eat the bill and i ll bet you my life savings that in the end its going to be the customers.

TreeHumper · 29th March 2008, 01:58 AM

Of course the customer will end up paying for it. Otherwise everyone pays for it through government subsidy.

There are problems on multiple levels that lead to this situation. Start with minimal intrusion on private property for ROWs. From a real estate value perspective ROWs are considered detrimental. The utilities are then located on the same ROW that the city has for planting street trees. There is no communication between them and those that actually do the job are paid to complete the work within an alotted time. No thought given to the problem.

Most public utitilities and governments have to take the lowest bidder as it is written into their mandates. If they don't it will leave them vulnerable politically. When the public hears that the lowest cost wasn't taken then it gets up in arms.

All the way down through the process the cry of, "Not my job" can be heard....

Eric Frei · 10th April 2008, 10:43 PM

Finance, Business and Company News - Yahoo!7

Quote:

No change in pruning approach, says ETSA

Friday April 4, 2008, 1:27 pm

ETSA says it will not be changing its policy on tree pruning near power lines despite a legal fight with an eastern suburbs council in Adelaide.

A temporary injunction has been lifted to allow a resumption of pruning work in the Norwood Payneham St Peters Council area.

ETSA has again been lopping and the council says it is watching the work closely.

It had been worried that pruning was too severe.

Sue Filby, of ETSA, says she is pleased the council has ended the legal fight and the company can get on with its pruning program.

"We haven't altered our pruning approach across the metropolitan area," she said.

"Certainly we believe our pruning approach is appropriate and in accordance with the requirements under the regulations and we will continue to prune in that way."

See, here lies the problem with all these media reports and stupid people involved. Look at the terminology.

"ETSA has again been lopping".

Now how the hell are we supposed to know what that means?! Lopping could be topping, or could be proper pruning as they said they are working to regulation.

TreeSpecialist · 10th April 2008, 11:08 PM

A professional "prunes" living trees, and "trims" Christmas trees.

At least they've caught on that "arborists" are not "abortionists" .

bigshea13 · 10th April 2008, 11:16 PM

do you think you could survive without power? think of it as an opportunity for you to drum up some buisness putting proper cuts in place on whats left after their specs have been met. over here the trees are in a "RIGHT OF WAY" the utility owns it. if they wanted to be pricks they could cut every friggin tree in it down and no one could stop em. be realistic. pick a battle you can actually win. the only way your gonna win this one is to jack up consumer rates and if that happens ill bet more of the people will be bitchin about than the trees. gas and oil is bad for the enviroment and it d be nice to see everything done old school with hand saws but it aint happening either. the shear volume needed to be done makes it impossible.
maybe you ekka could bid the utility work and do it correctly for the same rate. is that possible? let me know cause if ya can i know where i can get you a lifetime of work

Eric Frei · 10th April 2008, 11:46 PM

But maybe the ETSA energy company is pruning correctly ... thing is without pics we dont know, and they use terrible terminology ...

... could be that by pruning to target and valleying trees out the council thinks topping is the better method.

Nowhere in here has the appropriate terms been used or pics to support either argument.

I would say the councils are wrong though, just my gut feel. Why? Because they react like politicians not like business men, ETSA has refered to some regulations but the councils have just bluthered on without fact.

If you were going to take on some-one for not doing a job right you'd atleast know what was wrong, what the regs were and what it's supposed to be. On those counts they've just made a lot of noise. Be pretty darn black and white with pics to settle it and arborist terminolgy not some "lopping" bullshit from farmer Fred's woodlot!

Eric Frei · 13th October 2010, 08:46 PM

2 years later .... even after losing the court case.

ETSA's tree pruning plan panned - Council - News - Eastern Courier Messenger

Quote:

29 Sep 10

"RADICAL’’ pruning has "butchered’’ some of the east’s leafiest suburbs, angering locals who have renewed calls for ETSA to change its ways.

And residents and the local council feel powerless to stop the carnage because past court challenges to the pruning regime have failed.

College Park’s Gus Czechowicz said the pruning had left street trees looking as if the ``whole top’s been decapitated”.

Neighbour John Morris said ETSA’s pruning was ``radical and excessive”.

``They are pruning by making a corridor through the centre of the tree which, in effect, takes out the top of the tree and down into the centre,” he said.

``The trees are then left with a Y-shaped top and just look terrible.”

ETSA began its three-yearly tree pruning across Norwood, Payneham & St Peters in July and so far has cut back more than 1000 of a planned 2700 street trees.

The pruning, authorised under state laws, clears branches away from power lines to reduce fire risk.

ETSA has defended its pruning regime (see separate report).

Tree groups, residents and councils last lashed out at the lopping in 2008 when NP&SP lost a court case against the authority in an attempt to restrict pruning.

NP&SP Urban Services general manager Peter Perilli has ruled out a return to the courts.

``It’s too expensive . . . our hands are tied,” Mr Perilli said last week.

``We have no chance, and although the court felt sympathetic, the fact is legislation is in place.”

Mr Perilli expected the council to receive more calls from concerned residents once ETSA crews began work on ``the streets that will be drastically affected”.

He said the council had engaged a consultant to undertake ``spot audits” and monitor trees before they were pruned and return once work is completed.

``We don’t support the degree of pruning . . . and have always stood by that it’s too severe,” he said.

Residents want ETSA to explore other pruning methods, including trimming more frequently to avoid excessive cut-backs every three years.

Encasing wires in a ``sleeve” to protect them from tree branches and putting power lines underground also were suggested.

Norwood MP Steven Marshall (Liberal) has taken ``several” calls from residents and has asked for an urgent briefing with ETSA, while also calling for a review of regulations.

Safety ETSA’s priority

ETSA has defended its contentious tree pruning methods, stating ``the community’s safety must be the priority”.

The company says it is legally bound to clear around wires to reduce the fire risk.

``We are very aware of the sensitivities and issues surrounding pruning but ultimately we are required to comply with the regulations, which make no allowance for a compromise when it comes to safety,”
ETSA spokeswoman Sue Filby said.

Responding to calls for more regular trimming to replace the excessive cut-backs every three years, Ms Filby said ETSA would only consider the change if those costs were met by the council.

She said many of the issues were caused by councils planting ``unsuitable trees” too close to powerlines.

Apocalypsse · 14th October 2010, 06:39 AM

I almost had a heart attack when I read this...

Quote:

She said many of the issues were caused by councils planting ``unsuitable trees” too close to powerlines.

Garry Brockley · 14th October 2010, 07:13 AM

Yes but she is right on that fact if council didn't plant 30 meter trees under powerlines this wouldn't be an issue, but its done everywhere and it annoys everyone.
however it does keep the contractors in work.

Steve Tipton · 14th October 2010, 03:39 PM

Galbee.

Like your website Mate

Apocalypsse · 14th October 2010, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galbee

Yes but she is right on that fact if council didn't plant 30 meter trees under powerlines this wouldn't be an issue, but its done everywhere and it annoys everyone.
however it does keep the contractors in work.

Sure does keep us working.

Garry Brockley · 14th October 2010, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quintrex

Galbee.

Like your website Mate

Thank you! it's been a long time coming but the finished article is great,
thanks to all that helped

anyway back on track! I don't see how these people can stop the pruning, the only other options are total removal of all trees or move the wires, however if they put the wires underground they will destroy the roots when they trench, which is what happened in Europe they killed hundreds of trees.
it's a no win situation unfortunately.

Apocalypsse · 14th October 2010, 10:27 PM

I haven't really had anyone tell me I've taken too much off from clearing powerlines yet though, its always 'cut more' or 'cut it down and plant an olive tree'. We need some sort of standard for trees around powerlines, stuff like clearances, tree species, etc.

Eric Frei · 15th October 2010, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apocalypsse

We need some sort of standard for trees around powerlines, stuff like clearances, tree species, etc.

Be careful what you wish for .... could be making a noose and rod for your own back.

The media generally print trouble and problems.

10,000 trees pruned, couple of whiners make the paper .... media feeds on it.

Give them whiners a chainsaw and responsibility for electrical supply and fire damage, lets see what they come up with? Bonsais and topiary's!

Come on guys, talk up. I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that when you visit a tree huggers residence often (but not always) it's an overgrown dark disastrous bog hole! Nothing is cut back or pruned (you'd be hurting it) and the decaying trees which should be taken out remain as they just cant let it go. Some of the worst yards and ugliest trees I have seen belong to so called "tree huggers" who say they're so green they cannot cut anything down ... it all stays like some 70's HAIR fiasco!

Then you have the Dorrie Evans from Number 96 types who are just neighbourhood busy bodies waiting to whinge about anything that comes along.

Seriously, if power-line clearance trimming is getting to you ....SEE A SHRINK!

Garry Brockley · 15th October 2010, 06:09 PM

Very true eric i have to say there are much bigger things to get upset about.

Apocalypsse · 15th October 2010, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Frei

<snip>

I seriously can't think of anyone whining about us pruning around powerlines, well whining about taking too much off. When I think about it all I've ever heard is 'take more off', 'chop it down' in an old wog accent. Its always pruning street trees we get the haters. People should be given 2 options if they want to whine, you either have the tree or the street doesn't have power.

20th March 2008, 08:39 PM	#1
playfordtree Mature tree Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Behind Your Sister! Posts: 328	Supreme court action to stop line clearance I'm not sure who to side with here. the council for making a stand on poor pruning. or, the tree workers just doing their job.(a difficult & dangerous one at that) Tree row heads to court - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) what do you guys think? __________________ Euthanizing South Australian Trees since 2007

20th March 2008, 08:58 PM	#2
Steve Tipton Over mature heritage tree Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Sydney Posts: 821	Re: Supreme court action to stop line clearance And so it goes on...................... The electicity supply act seems to override AS4373. This work will continue. It's a soul destroying job when you want to do the job properly. The guys in the field can't win, councils and the public up them for rough work, power suppliers up them for increased clearances. This leads to a great turnover of staff in this area of the industry. __________________ Heightmaster

20th March 2008, 09:14 PM	#3
playfordtree Mature tree Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Behind Your Sister! Posts: 328	Re: Supreme court action to stop line clearance Not wrong Steve. Seems like your damned if you do, and damned if you dont! __________________ Euthanizing South Australian Trees since 2007

21st March 2008, 01:38 AM	#5
TreeSpecialist Mature tree Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 373	Re: Supreme court action to stop line clearance Court orders stop to tree pruning - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) Looks official now. The courts have stopped utility tree pruning until next week. Looks like the utility crews will have a holiday. What you need now is a good storm to knock the power out at the court house when a tree takes out an electric transformer or two. Here in the states, the Missouri legislature is looking into banning the planting of trees anywhere within the utility's right-of-way. They have had too many outages in recent years due to storms. And no one seems to be terribly opposed to the idea. Attached Thumbnails __________________ Last edited by Eric Frei; 13th October 2010 at 06:29 PM. Reason: added pic

22nd March 2008, 03:14 AM	#6
Treelore Former Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Brisbane Posts: 103	Re: Supreme court action to stop line clearance Fair call too. I think education and management is best in this situation. Councils were dumb enough to plant these trees under powerlines in these cases but that doesn't mean that powerline companies have the right to lose sight of arboricultural practice. ETSA maintains it has nothing to fear.. be interesting to see who patrols their work to decide if their practices are not up to scratch. Maybe let Treenet have the job?? decide once and for all

27th March 2008, 12:48 PM	#8
playfordtree Mature tree Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Behind Your Sister! Posts: 328	Re: Supreme court action to stop line clearance Here's the latest. Tree pruning fight could go to trial - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) __________________ Euthanizing South Australian Trees since 2007

27th March 2008, 02:28 PM	#9
bigshea13 Former Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: super 8 motels Posts: 361	Re: Supreme court action to stop line clearance yeah...its a never ending battle. it all boils down to cost. usually the companies have to place a bid to do the work. the faster they get it done the more money they make. the utilities want hire the companies that bid the lowest.{i think it would improve the work if they use the middle bidder} the higher the quality of work the higher the cost. the utilities pick up the tab at first but it eventually trickles down to the consumers{who hate the high costs and the poor trimming.}\ training a tree early is the second best way to help the problem. the first is not to plant em under or near the lines. but in some cases the home owner may not own enough land to put the tree a safe distance away{if they want a tree they should be able to have one} its a bad deal all the way around. ive seen entire housing complexes with their feeders in duct banks. underground is much more pleasing to the eye nad far easier to maintain. its just that it would cost a fortune to change it all over. and id be out of a job in that line of work.

27th March 2008, 04:24 PM	#10
Eric Frei Admin - Owner Palm & Tree Services in Brisbane Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 12,996	Re: Supreme court action to stop line clearance I hope it goes to court, why? Because it will.... Set a precedence. It will push the Standard's limits plus it's viability. Plus everything is solved by courts not peoples opinions, organisations ideals or corporate greed. However it would be funny if there was a counter claim for the costs of trimming inappropriately planted vegetation by people who are responsible ... the council. I might email ETSA that, counter sue. __________________ 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

27th March 2008, 06:38 PM	#12
Eric Frei Admin - Owner Palm & Tree Services in Brisbane Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 12,996	Re: Supreme court action to stop line clearance I did it, I emailed them with a link to the post and encouraged a good fight and they should countersue the tree owners for the ongoing costs of maintenance due to their neglegent planting. Furthermore they may even throw onto the slab any pruning/tree clearing injuries and deaths ... they might be able to trace that back to the lack of duty of care for the people who planted the trees in the first place. GO FOR IT ETSA, you got more money anyway, and we all know the best lawyer wins at the end of the day, especially when the judge is on the take. __________________ 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

28th March 2008, 01:12 AM	#13
George Hayduke Former Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Slickrock, USA Posts: 87	Re: Supreme court action to stop line clearance Underground utilities are VERY expensive to install and VERY expensive to maintain too. In the long run it costs consumers more to have lines underground. Deciding if that is 'worth it' isn't the discussion...just costs.

28th March 2008, 01:47 AM	#14
TreeSpecialist Mature tree Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 373	Re: Supreme court action to stop line clearance George is right. Undergrounding utilities seems to be a good answer, but it isn't. I sat on a tree commission studying this very topic about 1 year ago. Undergrounding utilities : 1) Cost 300 times as much as aerial wires 2) never pays for itself over its lifetime (50 years or so) 3) would cost each homeowner $5 - 7,000 dollars to connect up to it 4) would cut most of the roots of the trees it was meant to save necessitating their ultimate removal. 5) are extremely difficult to trouble shoot when a circuit goes down. The cost to replace the aerial electrical service in Austin Texas last year was estimated to cost $3 billion and would take the better part of 25 years (and time alone would drive up the cost to even more.) __________________

28th March 2008, 02:39 PM	#15
bigshea13 Former Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: super 8 motels Posts: 361	Re: Supreme court action to stop line clearance that may be a little on the wild side as far as stats for the costs and longevity of the systems but it is a little more difficult to troubleshoot due to the fact that you cant physicall look at the conductors to verify a{break, burn, or other prob you can see visually with an overhead.\ as far as hook up costs...they would be about the same as a modern underground service entrance. the only difference would be that the utility guys would now use a ladder to get into a chamber to make the splices rather than use a bucket to do it. the costs are give and take in both directions. underground would require little maintainance as far as vegetation, pole replacement, damage caused by man or nature but they would require oversized conductors to reduce the I2R {heat}loss and they would have to be copper to reduce the corrosion. hard to say really. you make endless arguements on both sides. it all boils down to cost. somebody is going to eat the bill and i ll bet you my life savings that in the end its going to be the customers.

29th March 2008, 01:58 AM	#16
TreeHumper Sappling Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Posts: 15	Re: Supreme court action to stop line clearance Of course the customer will end up paying for it. Otherwise everyone pays for it through government subsidy. There are problems on multiple levels that lead to this situation. Start with minimal intrusion on private property for ROWs. From a real estate value perspective ROWs are considered detrimental. The utilities are then located on the same ROW that the city has for planting street trees. There is no communication between them and those that actually do the job are paid to complete the work within an alotted time. No thought given to the problem. Most public utitilities and governments have to take the lowest bidder as it is written into their mandates. If they don't it will leave them vulnerable politically. When the public hears that the lowest cost wasn't taken then it gets up in arms. All the way down through the process the cry of, "Not my job" can be heard....

10th April 2008, 11:08 PM	#18
TreeSpecialist Mature tree Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 373	Re: Supreme court action to stop line clearance A professional "prunes" living trees, and "trims" Christmas trees. At least they've caught on that "arborists" are not "abortionists" . __________________

10th April 2008, 11:16 PM	#19
bigshea13 Former Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: super 8 motels Posts: 361	Re: Supreme court action to stop line clearance do you think you could survive without power? think of it as an opportunity for you to drum up some buisness putting proper cuts in place on whats left after their specs have been met. over here the trees are in a "RIGHT OF WAY" the utility owns it. if they wanted to be pricks they could cut every friggin tree in it down and no one could stop em. be realistic. pick a battle you can actually win. the only way your gonna win this one is to jack up consumer rates and if that happens ill bet more of the people will be bitchin about than the trees. gas and oil is bad for the enviroment and it d be nice to see everything done old school with hand saws but it aint happening either. the shear volume needed to be done makes it impossible. maybe you ekka could bid the utility work and do it correctly for the same rate. is that possible? let me know cause if ya can i know where i can get you a lifetime of work

10th April 2008, 11:46 PM	#20
Eric Frei Admin - Owner Palm & Tree Services in Brisbane Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 12,996	Re: Supreme court action to stop line clearance But maybe the ETSA energy company is pruning correctly ... thing is without pics we dont know, and they use terrible terminology ... ... could be that by pruning to target and valleying trees out the council thinks topping is the better method. Nowhere in here has the appropriate terms been used or pics to support either argument. I would say the councils are wrong though, just my gut feel. Why? Because they react like politicians not like business men, ETSA has refered to some regulations but the councils have just bluthered on without fact. If you were going to take on some-one for not doing a job right you'd atleast know what was wrong, what the regs were and what it's supposed to be. On those counts they've just made a lot of noise. Be pretty darn black and white with pics to settle it and arborist terminolgy not some "lopping" bullshit from farmer Fred's woodlot! __________________ 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

14th October 2010, 07:13 AM	#23
Garry Brockley Bayside Tree Care Brisbane Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Brisbane Aus Posts: 1,641	Re: Supreme court action to stop line clearance Yes but she is right on that fact if council didn't plant 30 meter trees under powerlines this wouldn't be an issue, but its done everywhere and it annoys everyone. however it does keep the contractors in work. __________________ My business:- Brisbane Bayside Tree Care

14th October 2010, 03:39 PM	#24
Steve Tipton Over mature heritage tree Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Sydney Posts: 821	Re: Supreme court action to stop line clearance Galbee. Like your website Mate __________________ Heightmaster

14th October 2010, 10:27 PM	#27
Apocalypsse Veteran Heritage Status Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Victoria, Australia Posts: 1,152	Re: Supreme court action to stop line clearance I haven't really had anyone tell me I've taken too much off from clearing powerlines yet though, its always 'cut more' or 'cut it down and plant an olive tree'. We need some sort of standard for trees around powerlines, stuff like clearances, tree species, etc.

15th October 2010, 06:09 PM	#29
Garry Brockley Bayside Tree Care Brisbane Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Brisbane Aus Posts: 1,641	Re: Supreme court action to stop line clearance Very true eric i have to say there are much bigger things to get upset about. __________________ My business:- Brisbane Bayside Tree Care

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