As a former litigation lawyer, I couldn't agree with Con more. Wearing my newer hat of church youth minister I see our litigious culture as being extremely destructive of all manner of community initiatives. Very frustrating to anyone trying to do something useful for people or fauna.
AD
> Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 10:36:55 +1000
> From:
> CC:
> Subject: Re: [canberrabirds] Removal of street trees
>
> 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 <>
>
Find out how here Use Messenger in your Hotmail inbox
|
|
