In my post on this topic I was trying to provide a general background
for why managers arrange for (so many, or too many) trees to be cut down.
I reiterate my main point: the legal situation is now so fraught for
managers that they are under intense pressure to do more than is
reasonably required to manage risks.
For the record, I am against:
1. cutting down trees during the bird breeding season
2. cutting down trees when cutting off a branch will do the safety job
3. replacing reliable tree species with brittle tree species
4. interpreting insect damage to foliage as a sign that a tree needs to
be cut down
5. any conflict of interest, or perceived conflict of interest, where a
person or organisation condemning trees belongs to the same organisation
that earns income from cutting down the trees.
Con
Milburns wrote:
Tree felling occurred in Miller Street, O'Connor this week as well.
The original street planting was /E. blakeleyi, /which is indigenous
to this location, and some had grown into fine specimens. To the
uninitiated this looks like a rather untidy tree and the results of
insect attack are often seen as a sign that the trees are sickly
should be removed. Fifteen trees were felled between David Street and
Macarthur Avenue, including the magnificent specimens on the
David/Miller Street intersection. All of these were significant trees
on a landscape scale.
I was rude enough to examine some of the felled timber that had been
stacked up and all were perfectly healthy trees. The literature we
received informed us that the trees were unsafe for the sort of
reasons that Robin Hide has already alluded to but significantly also
included 'poor condition due to insect attack'. In my opinion this is
not a valid reason to fell a mature /E. blakeleyi /that has endured
this as part of its annual cycle for over 50 years! Ironically, some
of the smaller trees that are in poorer condition have been left
standing. There was a clear pattern of felling the largest trees and
those that overhung bus stops.
It is proposed that these /E. blakeleyi/ will be replaced with /E.
mannifera/. There is considerable irony in this because the 'sickly'
/E. blakeleyi/ have never dropped so much as a branch while healthy/
E. mannifera /are renowned for dropping dangerously large limbs
without any warning on windless days. Of the local eucalypt street
plantings, the probability of branch fall/ / is as follows: /E.
cinerea/ > /E. mannifera/ > /E. polyanthemos/ > /E. blakeleyi/. So
the question arises "why replace large-growing branch-dropping trees
with even worse large-growing branch-dropping trees?"
It concerns me that there is money to be made from this nonsensical
felling and replanting process. How much distance is there between
the those that decide where to chop and those that receive income from
the process? The ultra cynical might suggest that the choice of
planting /E. mannifera /provides an on-going income stream for the
tree loppers because they are so prone to dropping large limbs in an
unpredictable fashion!!
If we are so concerned with public safety why do we persist in
allowing cars driven by people on our streets?
Milburn
*******************************************************************************************************
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
<>
|
