Tree Troopy Again

Repairing the strap.....lol



Cheers

Stephen

He will probably be stacking up the firewood for the cold winter ahead.

Yes it is a D-Shackle joining the Orange and Green straps, and NO it is NOT a Snatch Strap, I didn't need the shackle or any part of the tree heading my way, what I did and how I did it was quite safe.

.

I dont see that as being the safest way to drop a dead tree either.

And those accellerations are still tearing away at the clutch lining.
At that rope angle you can almost see the arse of the Cruiser lifting off the ground, good for the chassis too.

Have pulled plenty of trees using a triple block and the front winch where you can get to one side away from any missiles if the system lets go.
mike

Certainly a lot safer than dropping a tree that size with a tree spear.

Doug, are you thinking of bedding down in Orange for the winter?

I was just asking questions that may help people understand how to be safe and to understand what jobs should be done with a 4WD and recovery equipment, and what jobs shouldn't. I think I did that without criticising.


When we teach the use of recovery equipment, one of the first things we ask our trainees to do is to determine if the equipment is
1. suitable for the task and rated for the load
2. in serviceable condition
3. that every person using the equipment has appropriate knowledge and training
4. that the equipment is maintained and stored as required.

May I ask some more questions?
For instance-
What was the rating of the equipment?
How did you determine that the load represented by the tree was within the capabilities of the equipment?

Mike
The strap was connected to a chain that was on the bull bar... that way one can see what is going on.


Olsens.

The shackle is a 4t, the straps are 2000kg , with the length of 2 30m non stretch straps and 5m of chain I was far enough back from the tree, the straps being non stretch would not fly fly back like a cable or snatch strap.
I determined the capabilities of the vehicle and equipment from my 30 years of truck driving , using straps and chains, using chains to un bog trucks, and 4x4 ownership since 1995, Actually those same 2 straps had far more stress applied to them when the troopy was bogged for 4 days back in 2010 with the old Mt Bundy Bull Catcher ripping at them. Never once have I had any near dangerous situations. I do not own a snatch strap for that reason. Another aspect was that there were no other persons in the vicinity.

.

Lyn
Yes I will be here at least until August. I arrived here last July and should have been on my way back to NT but as I am flying out of Sydney to Germany in July I decided to stay , much to my Daughters delight as I am doing a lot of work she can't.

.

Ah Ha...........

The plot thickens with your trip to Germany!!!

Sorry to have missed you too, no I am not back in NT , see post further up.

.

Not sure about them being "more important" than live trees, but your point is very well made!

Every state/territory has some form of native vegetation protection legislation for that very reason. Simply put, removing it in that location (ie: not near a dwelling) was very possibly illegal.

Putting evidence of that on a public forum is, well...............

The fines are horrendous ;)

KevinE,

I hope you realise that is a working cattle station so I don't think there will be any problem knocking over a dead tree.

They would have had a reason to do it and that may well have been for public safety, as they also have guests on the property.

Of course I realize that this is on a property. Unfortunately working cattle stations DO have problems with losing trees like this. A 'reason' may not be reasonable.

Old dead trees support lots of life. For firewood on my cattle property I cut living trees, split and stack for next season, making sure that they will coppice up with new growth.

Royce,
if you look at my answer it was addressed to Kevin E and not yourself.

Yup... I see that I wasn't spoken to.... I hereby pull my head in! :]

Hi RA,

Respectfully mate, I make my living dropping trees. I deal with this stuff day in, day out. It doesn't matter where the tree was, nor what the reason for dropping it was.

The native vegetation legislation doesn't give a fat rats!

Every state/territory gives us all some leeway in metres from a dwelling where we can all decimate every bush/tree in sight as a bushfire protection measure.

But that tree was not anywhere near a dwelling ;)

A farmer in the south east of SA did something similar a few years back to clear some unused land he owned. Off memory, I think they fined him $15K per tree ;)

I'm not defending the legislation, I'm just telling you that it's there.

Cheers,

Kevin.

Kevin,
NT tree protection.

Northern Territory
Neither the Northern Territory parliament nor any councils offer protection to trees which are on private land (except for any which may be listed as part of a heritage item under the Heritage Conservation Act). Councils do have bylaws protecting trees on public land. The National Trust has attempted to bring the plight of significant trees on private land to the community’s attention.

I don't think I would call that a tree significant unless it already had an axe blase on it from the 18 hundreds.

I am not going to speculate why Doug pulled that dead tree over but I guarantee he didn't do it to see if the Troopy could. I don't believe there would be any law in Australia that would prohibit you knocking over a dead tree.

RA,

You're confusing significant tree legislation with native vegetation protection legislation. They are chalk & cheese mate.

The significant tree legislation differs massively from one state to another & is pretty much confined to cities & towns. It generally does not take into account if the tree is native, or even a locally naturally occurring plant. The object of this legislation is to curtail developers from stripping suburbia of large trees & it usually does not apply to rural land.

Here in SA significant trees are protected by the Development regulations:

http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/R/DEVELOPMENT%20REGULATIONS%202008/CURRENT/2008.233.UN.PD

Go to para 6a.

Here, they base the definition of whether a tree is significant, or regulated (2 different things) by its location, species & its circumference around 1 metre off natural ground level. If its within 10 metres of a house or in ground pool, only Eucalypt's & Willow Myrtles are protected. You may remove dead wood. The other states are more strict than SA in most aspects of significant tree legislation.



Native vegetation legislation is totally different & is usually applicable in rural or semi rural areas. It is put in place to stop the destruction of tree & shrub species native to any given area & to protect the environment including things such as soil erosion. It applies to both live vegetation & DEAD TREES, which are often habitat for native birds/mammals/reptiles etc. Here in SA it's covered by the Native Vegetation Regulations, the other states have similar laws.

This is my bread & butter, I deal with it daily ;)

Kev,
we are talking about the Northern Territory not South Australia.

The Territory doesn't have tree protection laws except for aboriginal scarred trees and the above.

Here it is in full.Tree protection in Australa

I tried your link but it wouldn't allow me to view it.

I know the south has some pretty stringent rules but it all changes north of the Brisbane line.

I earn't my living pulling scrub in the early days and I can still do that as we are allowed to clear any regrowth, no matter how well it is established or how big it is.

Yes there are land clearing laws but they don't worry about the odd tree at all.

I have had some close calls from dead trees. When you rattle them with a spear they have a bad habit of snapping the top off, Then dropping like a spear. when they hit the scrub canopy bits go everywhere.

Hi RA,

Mate, I just posted that link to the SA legislation, as an example (sorry it didn't work), as I had it at my fingertips. Here's a link to the NT legislation that you seem unaware of:

http://lrm.nt.gov.au/natveg/controls#.UUq-lDeMWSp

That link you posted was by SA Liberal pollie Michelle Lensink, its not an official government document mate.

Bugger pulling them over! Too dangerous! Ampho was far better IMO lol! Turned them into matchwood real quick! - KABOOM!!!

(You might want to read the above post where Doug says he's not in the NT mate!)

Kev,
I think you are right about Doug being elsewhere.

As for the Anfo. I had a boss that worked on the principle that anfo came in a bag so that is how you use. Talk about matches it was more like garden mulch.

I still hate dead trees, to many memories. Them and hollow box.

Doug's at Orange in NSW,

Here is an extract from NSW NVM Act:

3. Firewood
The collection of ?rewood other than for commercial
purposes, does not require approval.
4. Imminent risk
Clearing to the minimum extent reasonably considered
necessary to remove or reduce an imminent risk of
serious personal injury or damage to property does not
require approval.

RA... Where is the ball?

Lyn,
don't tell anyone but I got the sluks and took my ball home.

Yes thanks Doug for posting that.

By the looks of the tree is was dead and had substantial burns at the bottom from perhaps a bush fire many years ago.

You determined that the tree was unsafe probably considering that your daughter, your grandkids and their horses would be in danger if it remained standing.

The fact that it was so easily felled supported that theory.

Just wonder how many tree huggers would camp under it in their shiny new Toyotas with the white lettering on their tyres reflecting in the moon shine.