Tree Nazis

Knotahippie

Tree Nazis

I feel sorry for this guy.

Seems like a good idea to make these trees more safe instead of removal?

pcarborist

__________________
parkcityarborist

newguy18

A competent arborist would determine if they trees were unsafe,i can't say i feel sorry for the guy as alot of people will say the tree is dangerous and there is no changing there minds,likewise theres people who think thier tree is healthy even though it can be ready to fall over at anytime and they are hell bent on keeping it.

__________________
Have your say join us today.


old schooler

Eric Frei

Soemthing is misprinted I'd say, the trees perhaps 9" in dia not circumference as that would only be 3" dia.

What is apparent, to me and many is that little regard is made for the other trees he has. I have been on properties where a person wants to take down 1 tree on acre-age and there's 50 others but beaurocrat says no because the "rules say" ... rules made by people that vary to suit their own agendas.

Here's another typical example Hornsby Council Refuses Tree Removal Request

Where I live I have 6 councils around me, all with different rules, some very lax and some strict. You can literally be across the road (of a dividing line between councils) and one guy removes what ever he likes and the the guy across the road is forbidden ... so of course people get the shits.

__________________

Eric Frei

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, 66 views)

__________________

Sean Freeman

It is interesting have had some dealings with the new Scenic Rim Regional Council, they seem to be struggling to bring uniformity to their previous seperate parts...it may be that they adopt the GoldCoast planning scheme model along with its local laws.

Some people understand that more healthy trees survive extreme weather than fail, all the data I have read published about storms here in Oz and overseas reflects that.....some people also understand and that large healthy trees provide large benefits to everyone including the people who own the property they grow in.

Eric Frei

And some people would like to do as they please and not be dictated to.

The intensity and frequency of storms in this region will only increase, and no-one can offer absolutes or guarantees, so people feel they are are denied their own piece of mind.

Some people also make absurd statements like people are going to clearcut suburban yards of trees if they're not protected.

__________________

Sean Freeman

Its your forum Eric so you can misquote me as much as you like...

..never let the actual words get in the way of a cheap shot eh?

Did not say trees would be clear felled if not protected...but seems you'll read what ever you like into positions you choose to misunderstand.

Eric Frei

Jeez, from "personally offensive" to "sling insults" to "cheap shots".

You have no problem with Shwartz's comments about Mattheck's paper though.

Read your posts mate, what are you saying in black and white, dont sit on the fence just come out and say it.

I read it as you are supporting that trees not be felled for the sake of people's own piece of mind and risk perception, and that the rights to do so go beyond the tree owner.

Mind you, at no stage have I said all large trees within striking distances of houses should be gone, clear felled. All I've been saying is people have lost the right in many cases and you dont appear to support that they should be entitled to cut down what they bloody well want to cut down.

If Mary Smith has a 90' gum tree 12' foot from her house and wants to cut it down she isn't allowed to due to VPO's, and as an arborist who assess trees I tell her I cant make that recommendation as the tree doesn't have sufficient problems/defects/issues etc.

I'll ask you clearly, do you think Mary should be allowed to cut it down? That's a yes or no answer.

__________________

Sean Freeman

I write reports on trees every single day, I peform risk assessments every week....its my job.

I try my best to provide the people who pay me with the best information available and alay their fears when such fears are based on perceptions of risk that have so basis in what is evident in the trees they own....I have no idea what it is you think you are doing.

If Mary has a tree that is protected by any piece of legislation then should I advise her to breach a law to cut it down when there is no justification to do so? No.

If you have a problem with any law in Australia local or federal then you have the means to effect change in regard to that law...thankfully it is one of the benefits of living in a democracy. Not certain what you think would be a better system.

People can read what I wrote and how you interpreted it and make up their own minds.

I have not sat on the fence, I try to be as honest as I can be in presenting my thoughts on any issue.

I have repeatedly stated here and elsewhere that trees can provide enormous benefits to all aspects of our lives and there is ample evidence of that here and overseas, legislation was developed here in Australia as it was overseas in an effort to enshrine some basic level of protection to the environment and critical values within it.

I happen to think that is a good thing, again nothing that I have not written here and elsewhere.

It does mean that in certain circumstances an owner of a property will not be able to remove trees "as of right" and no I don't have a problem with that, I have never indicated otherwise. In such instances I don't see it being different to any other restriction on our activities in living in communities that come out of the need to have shared values within the community...if you want to paint that in some melodramatic way then you can, and you have (from my perspective).

As for Schwarze's book I humbly suggest you get it out of the library and read it yourself...then make a judgement.

Don Ross

Hello Eric,

Soon in Brisbane, people will learn that BCC arborists cannot comply with their own laws and rules.

The following assertions show how BCC has set itself impossible goals unless BCC has arborists who can call upon and then utilise the lateral load testing of trees tool for problem trees:

BCC arborists shall certify trees safe to a 1:200 annual risk limit based upon the standard BCC set on 11 April 2005.

Refer to the two pictures as attachments to see how BCC arborists and engineers will be hoisted by their own petard if any person is killed by a BCC protected tree which overturns and kills.

For 60 problem trees out of the 60,000 protected trees in Brisbane, there is no way of assessing the tipping safety of trees unless you conduct a lateral load test.

There have been at least 8,000 of these tests done around the world but no test has been undertaken in Brisbane to my knowledge.

Brisbane City Coiuncil cannot undertake any lateral load tests at all on trees because the Lord Mayor, a civil engineer, has refused even to respond to my numerous attempts to have this type of testing introduced since May 2005.

Ciao Don Ross

Attached Thumbnails

   

Eric Frei

It's not his book ... it was that quote you put up ... where's the source?

About Mary's situation, imagine you were now the officer and were empowered to lax the regs and make your own mind up, no questions asked ... would you let her cut it down?

Sean, you know the model of tree preservation is usually saving the bigger ones, you see in the landscape everything cleared but the odd tree here and there "saved". The trees then are fringe trees, isolated sentinels in a new urban battlefield without their supply line or allies. Those trees are what is often left, those trees are everywhere in suburbia worrying some people.

The preferred model we all know is "save" a whole parcel of remnant forest, trees do better together, but that's not what happens.

The Gap is littered with large remnant eucs, now lots of busted eucs. Sure smaller trees busted but not much happens from that.

The intensity and frequency of storms will increase, people with isolated gum trees are worried and some want to remove them. 100' plus isolated remnant gum trees in urban yards for this region is RAISING THE RISK over not having one, people know that and now where there are VPO's on properties in such situations the council better think long and hard about forcing retention.

You mentioned democracy to change it, utter bullshit. Who got to vote on it? Not me, didn't have a say. Dont know of any residents either, I assure you it was a little hard core group of ecologists and tree huggers.

In fact some do gooders from the QAA pounded their chests so loud you'd here it from China about how they helped bring in some new regs for tree protection, didn't even survey their members.

Seems to me more a fascist style of governance than democratic. True democracy allows everyone to vote, even the QAA didn't take a vote before jumping into bed with their BCC mates to make VPO's.

The best form of democracy means allowing individuals to decide for themselves.

__________________

Sean Freeman

Sorry Eric but thought it was clear the quote is referenced clearly at the end it is from the book

treeseer

Sean, It WAS clear, for all who read it with an open mind not clouded by

Eric, Mary's fears are not a sound basis for public policy. If she feared tripping on the sidewalk, would you tear the sidewalk out?

Don Ross

Hello Eric,

Some more evidence for determining the safety factor for fig trees like those in Davies Park and in New Farm Park by a scientific process and not by seat of the pants methods which consider putting a pool fence around a tree as a safety measure which will convince people that the tree is safe.

This can be done by lateral load testing.

Trees can certified safe at a factor of safety of 1.5.

Mattheck's sums on any tree's factor safety without defect are hopelessly wrong because he does not understand the kern area of a tree's foundation base.

Ciao Don

See the pictures.

Attached Thumbnails

     

chadd

many good points made, but 9" in diameter the city of vancouver doesn't need a permit for anything less than 8" at waist height. unless it is a replacement tree for a previously removed larger tree.

and how much of a threat can a 9" tree cause to a house? a hurricane will do plenty of damage with or without such a small tree.

i agree with replanting rules as long as you can move the tree and have options of trees that stay small

ArborealTerror

I would have thought that a better qualified arb would (should) write the better report. I do concede this is not always the case.

As far as your irrational fear of trees is concerned, I am not sure what this qualifies you to comment on. I have an irrational fear of spiders however this does not make me an arachnologist.

Eric Frei

LOL, the tree huggers at it again.

Public policy excludes Mary's both fears and rights. Hows that for some brain thought.

As long as you keep hugging trees you'll never see clearly both sides of the fence.

I want a pool with no tree bits encroaching from the neighbours, that's my rights, yet some fool could plant a big azz tree right on the fenceline and start invading my property ... you think that's alright too coz you're a tree hugger unable to see violation of others rights to do as they choose on their land.

Round and round the story goes, no right, no wrong but one thing that stands out like a BIG SORE THUMB is the tree huggers commandeering other peoples rights, unelected, not voted upon and mandated with some prima facie agenda for the common good.

I haven't seen any side walks crushing a house or killing the occupants whilst they were sleeping ... another frivolous analogy by a tree hugger.

__________________

treeseer

Property rights are excluded by public policy? Sounds Soviet to me, you lesbian communist wanker!

Sean Freeman

Yep trees crushing people left right and centre......wow should be banned for sure.....

Jeff Darby

Treeseer,
Why did you attack on a personal level, or is this the American way? If someone does not think like you attack, crush, destroy, what your still standing? then comes the kitchen sink...that'll fook him.
You be little yourself swooping to name calling!


There will allways be two sides to the correct method of management of our tree,public trees,one side wants to retain regardless of reason and the other wants to remove.
Both sides have a purpose supposably to equal this all out to a level playing field.
Me personally, I feel if they have a justifiable reason and intend to replace with suitable replacements let them remove the tree,consideration should be taken to the location of the new tree in relation to it's size at maturity.

This information should be made available to the person making the new selection, eg: what type of tree's make the best privacy screens...etc..etc.
I have no large tree's overhanging my house, and when l think about it l would not like large limbs over my roof. And l think l would be proactive in the cure than reactive.

__________________

Member: Australian Tree Association

Join the Australian Tree Association...Have your voice heard !

Arboriculture, A life long study for some, a passing phase for others

© Jeffrey J Darby 2011

treeseer

Pssst Jay, that was kidding and Eric is far from crushed I'm sure.

I like trees overhanging my house, gives it a cozy feel plus shade etc. but would not impose that view on others. In terms of vpo's to keep some canopy that policy is here in the US and I support it. Yes there are tough calls; that's what makes this work interesting!

Don Ross

Eric,

Why VTA proponent arborists or their reports will have no lawful standing in a court of law in Australia is shown in the attachment.

Ciao

Don Ross

Attached Thumbnails

 

treeseer

Why does Sappling have 2 p's in ozspeak? o never mind.

Don, cute graphic.

I'm no geochemophysicist but doesn't soil hold against tension to some degree depending on the clay content and other sticky stuff down there?

And whether a safety factor is 4 or 3 what does that matter?

Don Ross

Here in Queensland, it is likely that citizens will be rightly concerned by not being properly informed by our local newspaper's, the Courier Mail's, journalists when they learn these three simple facts:

1. VTA proponent arborists can only certify trees safe to a 1:12 annual risk standard in Brisbane.

2. The VTA proponents founding father's theory on trees has been found to be based on fraudulent data manipulation. Professor Gruber proved this in his two papers in the Year 2007. Accordingly, VTA proponent arborists' reports have no validity in any Australian Courts of Law and Anwalt Herr Oliver Wittek, the solicitor for Professor Claus Mattheck, has been informed of my assertions by email today.

3. The Brisbane City Council arborisrs set a standard for BCC protected trees based upon the Australian Standards Wind Code. Trees certified safe to a 1:200 annual risk standard shall be provided by BCC to comply with its safe resources mandatory requirement for trees.

Stiff clay 200 kPa, iron bark tree 50,000 kPa, wet sand nil.

These soil stresses are low when compared to tree strength and cannot be relied upon when certifying trees safe. Clays when wet slip easily and often clays have cracks which destroys the effectiveness of the clay's strength.

Professional engineers and arborists test trees to have a factor of safety of 1.5 in Germany and 1.4 in the Netherlands.

Professional scientific arborists find that the factor of safety of trees vary enormously and the results of testing are as would be expected.

The results of data plots form into a Bell curve. This plotting of results has been done based upon 4,500 lateral load tests by Professor Doctor Ingenieur Lothar Wessolly.

For example, I concede that factors of safety >10 occur often with ancient trees.

However, in New Farm Park for the three trees that have overturned this year because VTA proponent arborists had air and water root blasted the roots of the tree close to the tree stems, the factor of safety of all three overturned trees was very, very low at less than 0.1. That is, the three trees overturned in a breeze essentially because of the blasting and their asymmetric root layout.

This is why it is important people realise that Professor Doctor Herr Claus Mattheck should do a major re-write of his book, The BLOT, if he wants to re-gain some scientific credibility.

Ciao Don Ross

Eric Frei

Source: Lightning spears tree through house - Local News - Gold Coast, QLD, Australia
Hello, note the date, the first storm was 16 November 2008 and we have nearly copped it every day since. We got hammered yesterday, I couldn't finish a job and had to return this morning to finish off then fit in the rest of the day. And hello, this was known and warned against as usual back 2001. Just a wake up call, 3 years of drought and beautiful one day perfect the next had to end like those American AAA Mortgage Loans

Graphic, yet another ...


So far the score is ..... trees 1000's of failures and dollars damage (insurance estimates $75million Storm damage 'to outdo Larry' - Queensland - BrisbaneTimes) side walks nil

Charge tree huggers more for insurance.

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________

Sean Freeman

I think it is fair to say that there have been storm events that have generated official warnings from the bureau of meteorology more than once a week since the 16th Nov 2008, but not every day.

I would also think we could all agree that even stroms with reduced wind speeds can have a dramatic impact on compromised trees (Don Ross has been posting much about that re New Farm)

Finding figures for the worst case scenario-tree related deaths in Australia is somewhat more difficult than in other countries...however for those really interested in the facts (as much as we can get them) try contacting Martin Norris in Victoria he is an Arborist who has been undertaking very detailed study (as part of a Thesis I think) of the way in which as a profession we approach tree risk analysis, the range of different systems Arborists use, how the Arborists percieve the effectiveness of those systems, what the historical data can tell us, comparisons between Arborists and so on.

The figures for Oz (based on my reading) are no greater than the UK or the USA annually less than 7 people die from the result of being hit by falling trees/or parts of trees.

I think engaging the insurance industry in discussions about just how they are assessing tree assets owned by their policy holders is an avenue worth following. Some insurance companies in NSW actually have best practice manuals that relate to topics such as trees and roots, and place the ownus on their policy holders to follow those manuals in order to remain covered by the insurance policy. I just don't know if that is being reflected by the actions of any insurers here in Qld.

It is very hard to seperate out the tree related damage from cyclone Larry from other identifiable factors...the news papers are never (in my experience) a reliable source of information.
The JCU report compiled on the storms(Larry was actually produced a number of smaller storms impacting the ground in a number of locations over a very broad area during its landfall) points not to tree failures as the primary causal agent in house damage but rather the structural weaknesses created in the buildings through renovations/improvements and reairs over the preceeding years to the arrival of Larry.
The report makes mention of the filtering action of larger trees adjacent to buildings catching flying debris in the early stages of the storm event, of course such beneficial roles have limits when the wind speeds climb and the captured debris imparts increasing windloading in ways the branches were never grown to sustain.
A similar filtering action is described in the CDU reporting for cyclone Tracy in 1974, and was the focus of Frank Van der Sommen's presentation at ISAAC earlier this year..."Interaction between trees, houses and cyclone Tracy in Darwin urban landscape ecosystem"

There are also the papers written by Dr Greg Moore tracking the tree failures through major strom events (late 90's to mid 2000's) through the greater Melbourne area...all available at the Treenet website.

So there is data available, and what it provides is a picture very different from the one holding the front page.



BTW......there is also an absolute mountain of data providing evidence of the critical role (all trees but particularly large and older) trees play in maintaining the essential cycles within the environment around us.....carbon, water, UV light, temp, humidity, nitrogen, air quality and habitat....trees even have a significant detectable role in the way we feel about our own lives, even how much money we will spend at the stores that open out onto the street.

Sean Freeman

This is just an example of how other states (NSW) deals with similar (not identical) issues of trees overhanging fences and concerns about impacts on swimmingpools and pool users...
Jones v Stergakis [2008] NSWLEC 1486

Eric Frei

Source: Jones v Stergakis [2008] NSWLEC 1486

Good to see the tree owner pay for it, pity it had to end up in court to do so, tree owners should take full responsibility of their trees including what's trespassing fence lines into other peoples properties.

I also note that the Jones can prune more in accordance with part g (g. These orders do not prohibit additional pruning permitted by Lake Macquarie City Council of the trees by either party at their own cost).

Here's the details of that ... source: http://www.lakemac.com.au/page.aspx?pid=607&vid=14

In this case it wasn't the fact of it being the pool but also the garden area between the pool and the trees.

Attached is a Google pic, I have circled the two trees and the pool in red, the yellow is a garden area between the pool and the fence, also do note the number of other pools in the area ... all with no shade sails or covers as has been suggested by some-one as a measure to prevent leaves falling in.

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________

chadd

i love when people install pools then realize that trees suck next to them. goes from an easy removal to an expensive one. so annoying, but so funny