There is a man who lives a few kilometres from here who feels so strongly about the tall tree growing opposite his house that when the council came to chop it down he climbed it and refused to come down. This was on about December 7.
We passed by yesterday to see if the tree was gone but no it wasn't and Mr Pennicuik was still up there.
We signed his petition as have many other people.
Personally I admire his passion and commitment very much.
Other richer leafy suburbs have far bigger trees growing close to houses.
What do you think?

http://www.perthnow.com.au/lifestyle/th ... 5813636058

A. Passion and committment don't interest me much. The bombers who wear exploding underwear have passion and committment.

B. December 7? There must be an impressive pile of poop under the tree by now. The article implies he's been in the tree for 18 days. I don't think so.

C. It's a tree. Trees have a normal lifespan and as the reach the end they tend to fall apart. Where I live, in Mexico, when they want to cut down an old and dangerous tree the old gringos turn out in protest. I suppose some old people, nearing the end of their lifespan, feel empathy for the trees. I don't know about this part of Australia but in much of the U.S. the dead limbs come down when they're covered with snow and/or ice but the chances of someone being under the tree are remote. In some places, the limbs or entire trees to fall on people and kill them.

D. I like trees. I don't really get my knickers in a twist over native versus others. It's a shame those who feel only native trees are worthy don't feel that way about native people.

Patrick

First let me say here in the west of Australia it can get very hot, and trees provide welcome shade that's one reason for Mr Pennuik's protest. He simply wants that tree to shade his house and he likes looking at it. He is not on a mission to save other trees and is not a greeny and is insulted when people suggest that he is.

"December 7. There must be an impressive pile of poop under the tree by now. The article implies he's been in the tree for 18 days. I don't think so".
Yes, he has been up the tree that long. Thats why I chose to write about him.
His family oblige with a bucket when he requires. Other times he uses a bottle.
He has tarpaulins and cushions and has garnered lots of supporters to talk to.

"Its a shame those who feel only native trees are worthy don't feel that way about native people."
Its pretty insulting to compare native people to flora and fauna, and anyway I don't don't know how Mr Pennuik feels about Aboriginals, however he would have his own individualy considered opinion as he is clearly not one to jump on any one else's band wagon.

good on him

He is still up his tree despite the hottest driest summer on record and vandalism by thugs. Yesterday the council's lawyers stepped up their threats a notch. They're going to fine him $500 per day for obstruction now. He has his own lawyer so we will have to wait and see what happens next.


http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western ... 5837689124

Christine O wrote:

There is a man who lives a few kilometres from here who feels so strongly about the tall tree growing opposite his house that when the council came to chop it down he climbed it and refused to come down. ... What do you think?

I admire his passion and actions but I do not believe it is the best option for all concerned.

Mr RP places a low value on the possibility of a branch falling and harming a person and great value on the value of the tree in terms of the environment, shade etc. The council places more value on the safety of people passing by than the cutting down of the tree. The council and Mr RP have different values. I can't help being a little cynical about Mr RP's position because whatever happens he is not responsible for any damage the tree may cause.

An extract from the more recent news report: “There have been 20 catastrophic failures of this type of tree, of similar age, in the past five years,” Mr Figg said. “Even an independent arborist’s report (paid for by the tree man or his supporters) contains a series of disclaimers, warns there is no guarantee the specific tree will not shed limbs and makes several recommendations if it were to remain, including the installation of a box bracing system, annual inspections and extensive pruning.”

They both are acting ethically from their own point of view, based upon their values system.

My feeling is that I prefer the council perspective, but then, a large tree branch fell on some campers a few kilometres from here some years ago which resulted in two fatalities.

Perhaps a better solution to this conflict would be for Mr RP to plant more trees in his own backyard? I suspect the council would donate a few trees in order to settle the dispute. His approach seems unnecessarily confrontationalist, but maybe the council is also intractable?

River Red gums are known to shed branches and unfortunately people have been victims .
Happily no one has yet legislated to exterminate these graceful trees.
As for Mr P ..good on you I admire your perseverence may you succeed ! As for Council it could place a sign on the tree if it is that dangerous .
Our parks and gardens have had trees fall down as a result of extended periods of drought followed by flooding rains .. it is difficult to predict which trees will fall .
Trees need all the protection they can get.

Get real. It's a tree. When a tree is old or diseased and is in a location where there is frequent pedestrian traffic, it has to be removed. Plant another one and you still have a tree. I know a lot of people who seem terrified at confronting the idea that everything that lives, dies. Disease, accident, and age all take us, and trees, eventually.

Ethical question. If a tree falls and kills someone, should the person who planted the tree, or fought to prevent the tree from beind cut down, be responsible?

Deleted by Hunter

Clearly the tree is dangerous by its very nature. Trees, in a public place or that overhang a public place, that shed limbs should never be allowed to grow to a size where their limbs become heavy enough to pose a danger.
The Council could compromise and let the tree remain so long as the gentleman who wants it to remain foots the bill for public protection. The Council is not being inovative enough, they could divert pedestrian traffic around the tree by closing part of the carriage way and reduce motor traffic to one lane with automatic portable traffic control lights to handle the resultant one way bottleneck; then await public reaction.

The idea of transfering liability insurance is a good idea but Gosnells Council is not flexible at all.
The tree has been checked out by a tree doctor and given a clean bill of health.

I can't help thinking that this is happening because Thornlie is a fairly modest suburb.
There are streets in leafy suburbs such as McLeod Street Applecross where there are mature Jacaranda trees on the verge plus huge assorted gum trees intermingled. The houses cost in excess of one million and the street is cool, and looks stunning.
In contrast The new shorn look that has been deemed appropriate for Hume Road Thornlie is a hot and desolate one.

The tree man's wife Rose, said yesterday when I called by, that I might like to share these thoughts with the CEO:
Ian Cowie, c/o Gosnells City Council PO Box 662 GOSNELLS 6990
There is an email adress for general use: council@gosnells.wa.gov.au

Christine O wrote:

...The tree has been checked out by a tree doctor and given a clean bill of health. ...

Yes, but the tree has not been guaranteed safe by the tree doctor. See my earlier post which quoted the council. Healthy does not mean safe - a crocodile can be very healthy, but safe?

Well the treeman came down from his tree today.
He said his tree's survival of the severe storm we had on Monday night when masses of other trees were uprooted proves his point that his tree is not a safety risk.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/

Ho
Hooray for treeman ! He has made his point . Hope the council reviews the matter in his favour.
Thanks for update Christine

Christine O wrote:

...He said his tree's survival of the severe storm we had on Monday night when masses of other trees were uprooted proves his point that his tree is not a safety risk. ...

Sorry, that is not proof the tree will not fall on someone in the future.