Super stupid seriuos risks from trees and fearburdened polys
I love trees but I don't worship them like some do.
I love trees but I respect them enough to know this ---- they like me will die and that many quite nice looking native trees already have fungi and ants eating away at them inside .
Probably half of the trees in our native forests are like that
Here is a post I made yesterday . I hope you understand the reasons why I make the accusation and why its time to change things
I don't pretend like some that we must let them die completely before we touch them . They are not sacred objects to me even though they have been treated as such by some officers of government .
So what is the government doing to make sense of tree management in the state of Victoria? - sweet nothing and fulla fear would describe the lot of them
The problem they should have dealt with 15 years ago is some careless legislation introduced into the planning schemes over 30 years ago. It implies native vegetation must be "retained " .This has been widely interpreted as "preserve it" like we do with museum specimens , Fine , retain native communities but be realistic - not shallow ; they like us die and must be replaced with new .
NVR legislation was one of the most ignorant and blinkered pieces of legislation ever introduced into the planning act in Victoria and successive governments are still 30 years later , afraid to deal with the silly myth and focus that now surround it .Clearly our politicians are too afraid of a public reaction and too stupid to investigate why this lie has become truth to be promoted by their very own statute .
Too many tragedies happen all around us , so I have to speak up - I used to approve applications under the Native Vegetation Retention legislation . The death of a toddler overnight in The Patch reminds me there are very dangerous trees which should be removed right across our suburbs , but are not . I can say this because however big the storm and however healthy the tree, there are far too many dangerous trees being left by Council officers who dare to presume they should stay. Trees have become untouchable almost sacred in their eyes and its partly because the original legislation was dreamed up by ignorant and blinkered preservationists .
Worse , the Libs have not twigged why its had such a bad effect on public risk evaluation . I have nothing against leaving trees, but the prevailing wisdom that they should be left BEFORE rot gets hold of them in them is rubbish.Some people want to live in a world where there is no surgery . oh dear - would be nice!
NVR was intended to stop mass clearing and its now just largely a relic that supports the nonsense talk about relics . I wrote recently to the Napthine government and they did nothing . I am writing again to remind my local member that "some of these deaths are on your heads" because you allow untrained officers in council to administer this legislation and its now unworkable frame ;Its an example too of legislation slotted into the wrong place - claims to be about planning but is far too determinative . The legislation should be changed so this stupid name does not continue to worry and confuse people ;so that aim of the retaining habitat is the focus - not some tree that is destined to rot and become dangerous.,.A green faith where hey avoid talk of death is common but dangerous and their careless talk has engendered ignorant myths. .
I love trees but I respect them enough to know this ---- they like me will die and that many quite nice looking native trees already have fungi and ants eating away at them inside .
Probably half of the trees in our native forests are like that
Here is a post I made yesterday . I hope you understand the reasons why I make the accusation and why its time to change things
So what is the government doing to make sense of tree management in the state of Victoria? - sweet nothing and fulla fear would describe the lot of them
The problem they should have dealt with 15 years ago is some careless legislation introduced into the planning schemes over 30 years ago. It implies native vegetation must be "retained " .This has been widely interpreted as "preserve it" like we do with museum specimens , Fine , retain native communities but be realistic - not shallow ; they like us die and must be replaced with new .
NVR legislation was one of the most ignorant and blinkered pieces of legislation ever introduced into the planning act in Victoria and successive governments are still 30 years later , afraid to deal with the silly myth and focus that now surround it .Clearly our politicians are too afraid of a public reaction and too stupid to investigate why this lie has become truth to be promoted by their very own statute .
Too many tragedies happen all around us , so I have to speak up - I used to approve applications under the Native Vegetation Retention legislation . The death of a toddler overnight in The Patch reminds me there are very dangerous trees which should be removed right across our suburbs , but are not . I can say this because however big the storm and however healthy the tree, there are far too many dangerous trees being left by Council officers who dare to presume they should stay. Trees have become untouchable almost sacred in their eyes and its partly because the original legislation was dreamed up by ignorant and blinkered preservationists .
Worse , the Libs have not twigged why its had such a bad effect on public risk evaluation . I have nothing against leaving trees, but the prevailing wisdom that they should be left BEFORE rot gets hold of them in them is rubbish.Some people want to live in a world where there is no surgery . oh dear - would be nice!
NVR was intended to stop mass clearing and its now just largely a relic that supports the nonsense talk about relics . I wrote recently to the Napthine government and they did nothing . I am writing again to remind my local member that "some of these deaths are on your heads" because you allow untrained officers in council to administer this legislation and its now unworkable frame ;Its an example too of legislation slotted into the wrong place - claims to be about planning but is far too determinative . The legislation should be changed so this stupid name does not continue to worry and confuse people ;so that aim of the retaining habitat is the focus - not some tree that is destined to rot and become dangerous.,.A green faith where hey avoid talk of death is common but dangerous and their careless talk has engendered ignorant myths. .
posted by journeymanj at 12:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home