Before my retirement I was responsible for national parks. One of the
issues we had to address was that of falling trees and branches. The
answer is, yes, people have been killed by falling branches and/or trees
in camping areas.
The reality is that Australia is becoming more and more litigious and,
as a society, apparently more and more risk averse. There is a systemic
connection between what is happening to street trees and personal injury
ads on TV.
From my perspective, in relation to risk, one difficulty is that there
has been no serious reform of the legal profession, or of Coroner's Acts
around the country for some time. This has had all sorts of serious
consequences - insurance costs for obstetricians, availability of
obstetricians in country areas, closure of areas where the public used
to have access, and stopping of public events of all kinds, are all
consequences of the lack of reforem. What is happening is a steady
siphoning of funds into the legal profession, and away from socially
useful goods and services. No doubt the legal profession would say that
they provide socially useful goods and services as well. I would agree
with this but my point is that the balance is wrong and too much is
going into the legal profession at the cost of other socially useful
goods and services.
So, to protect themselves, and to maximise the amount of funds that is
available to park management activities rather than to the legal
industries, managers have to
1. Assess risk. In the case of trees, this means accredited tree folk.
2. Document the assessment.
3. Develop a risk mangement framework. This has to be documented.
4. Develop an action plan. This includes all the trees that have to be
removed.
5. Document actions taken.
Despite taking all these steps, when a tree finally does fall on someone
or someone's property [as they will, short of cutting them all down] the
manager has to be prepared for:
(a) a coronial enquiry
(b) pesonal injury litigation, and
(c) a possible criminal trial under OH&S legislation (in the ACT) if the
person killed or injured happens to be an employee.
Bear in mind that it does not matter to the legal profession in general
how litigation is settled. The important thing is to get it started.
It is little known, generally, that coroners' acts give almost draconian
powers to coroners. It is one of the reasons we spend millions of
dollars on coronial enquiries after every fire that kills someone. The
legal profession are happy about this because of all the extra work
generated. You, as taxpayer might not be so happy about it. What do we
really learn from repeated bushfire enquries? The average competent land
manager can predict the recommendations before they are started, and the
recommendations are repeated endlessly after every enquiry.
I don't know about the circumstances involved in cutting down any
particular tree as discussed in earlier posts. There may be practical
issues that can lead to improvements. However, if you really want to do
something about the cutting down of perfect habitat trees, I suggest you
approach politicians with some views about risk management, including
your desire to accept more risk of being killed or injured, and the need
for law reform, including reform of coroners' acts.
I do know that the managers are driven by a need to ensure that people
are not killed or injured. I have taken part in rescuing injured people
and recovering bodies. It is an unfortunate part of working in national
parks and it is not pleasant. Managers also seek to avoid spending more
of their scarce management funds on the legal profession than they have to.
regards
Con
wrote:
Urban Parks people (everywhere) seem obsessed with the idea of people
being being injured or killed by a falling branch. Has anyone ever, in
fact, been injured or killed in this way?
(I know swagmen always refused to sleep under gum trees (despite
'Waltzing Matilda') and preferred to sleep in the shelter of wattles.
I myself wouldn't ever camp under a eucalypt, but there's a difference
between sleeping under one for 8 hours and passing under one for a few
seconds).
John Leonard
On 03/10/2009 9:12am, Robin Hide <> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The
> old/diseased tree removal program, began last week in parts of Ainslie,
> including Corroboree
> Park, as described
> in the
> page 3 story in todays Canberra Times
> (that focuses on a single Eucalyptus
> mannifera). A further note may be of interest.
>
> Five trees were in fact felled in the Corroboree Park
> plantings. Two of them were on the western, Toms Crescent, side of the
> park:
> one was a favourite perching site of the Australian Hobbies that
> frequent/nest
> in the Park (clearly visible from my back deck and a sad personal
> loss!), the other will
> be missed by numbers of galahs who were always at work on its bark (and
> who
> complained bitterly when it was being felled). When the
> felling/clearing/mulching
> was in progress, I told one of the work team about the nesting Tawny
> Frogmouths
> in a neighbouring tree, and suggested they be given as much space from
> noise/disturbance
> as possible.
>
> I don’t know about the immediate health status of the felled trees,
> however the notification sent out to (some?) immediate neighbours of
> the Park on
> 29 May by Scenic Landscape Architecture (who assessed the viability of
> the
> trees), gave the following reasons for the removal of the five trees:
> “Poor condition,
> hollows throughout tree”; “Poor condition dead on top, fungal wood
> decay”; “Serious
> Upper Trunk rot”; and “Extensive lower trunk damage”). The
> next morning walking through the Park I
> encountered Stephen Ryan, the host of the ABC Gardening Australia
> program, with
> a camera crew who were filming another tree (not a mannifera)
> in the centre of the Park (near the basketball court) that
> Ryan told me was totally hollow and thus also should be removed. I
> think ducks had
> nested in that tree last year. Look out for a future segment on the
> program on
> the problems of elderly urban trees? Ryan was pushing the issue of
> public safety,
> especially in parks used by many including children.
>
> Replantings (14 E. mannifera are promised to fill in
> the
> gaps from the 5 now cut, and earlier gaps) are planned at Corroboree
> Park. But one wonders whether
> such replacements will be as successful and longlived as the existing
> trees,
> when one sees how damaging current park management practices appear to
> be (eg grasscutting
> by large sit-on mowers/tractor mowers that bump against unprotected
> lower trunks
> of young trees; use of the park for parking heavy equipment).
>
>
>
> Robin
> Hide
>
>
> Nick Payne wrote:
> I
> noticed a few days ago that TAMS have started chopping down trees on
> the median strip of Captain Cook Crescent near Manuka. In the past
> couple of weeks, in just the three blocks of Captain Cook Crescent
> between Stuart Street and Barallier Street, I have seen Eastern and
> Crimson Rosellas entering nesting hollows in two of the trees on the
> median strip. If TAMS feel it is necessary to remove these trees, they
> should not be doing it while native birds may be using the nesting
> hollows in the trees. I've put in feedback on the ACT Government web
> site suggesting this. If they get more feedback along the same lines
> from other people as well, more notice may be taken.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
*******************************************************************************************************
This is the email announcement and discussion list of the Canberra
Ornithologists Group.
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>
List-Subscribe: <>
List archive: <http://bioacoustics.cse.unsw.edu.au/archives/html/canberrabirds>
List manager: David McDonald, email
<>
|
