Council removing Acacia sp.

[Quelho]

So yeah my local council (suburban Sydney) has been removing wattle's from council land over the past week. Mainly Acacia longifolia... half of them had only been there for 6 months - year... can't say for sure there's a link to the AG departments proposal but... would make sense.

Has anyone else noticed anything similar to this happening?

Makes about as much sense as planting salt-intolerant plants at the beach... which they also do... *sigh*

[shortly]

Why not ring their parks department and ask?

[Quelho]

Didn't think of ringing them, thanks for the advice. But TBH I might be better off waiting until business hours because then someone might answer.

[paradox]

yeah ring for sure.. & if it turns out that there is a connection, don't hesitate to get up in arms about it & make your displeasure as a concerned citizen well known!

[ThunderIdeal]

were they actually planted there? my guess is they are simply removing unwanted trees before they get too big, or something of that nature.

[obtuse]

were they actually planted there? my guess is they are simply removing unwanted trees before they get too big, or something of that nature.

 

yeah, longifolia is a pretty weedy species in my experience. I have seen them go crazy so i would assume they are just removing them before they become really problematic.

Cheers, Obtuse.

[Moses]

who cares why they are removing them, a letter to your local paper insinuating they are being removed because of the new rules comming into force soon will def stir up some interest.

a little mis-information works for both sides in a war.

[mescalito]

[occidentalis]

who cares why they are removing them, a letter to your local paper insinuating they are being removed because of the new rules comming into force soon will def stir up some interest.

a little mis-information works for both sides in a war.

 

No it doesn't, all it does is paint all of us as loonies in the eyes of the authorities (ie, the people making the decisions), making it much easier to brush off those of us with legitimate rational concerns.

The Acacias were not being removed for any reason to do with the proposed legislation. The people doing it probably have never even heard of the proposed legislation. Acacia longifolia is a weedy species and in many areas is an environmental weed. I've removed plenty of it from bushlands myself back when I was doing bush regen work.

[Quelho]

I didn't get onto them today (check myco thread for why) but will update when I find out.

The odd thing was that a number of these A. longifolia's were planted there recently. Tbh the reason I noticed is the day the removed them I was going to grab some cuttings.

[Quelho]

Alright got onto them and they said that the A. longifolia was removed as it was deemed a better area for grasses than trees. Not related to any proposed legislation. They did say that they are well aware of the proposed legislation and will act appropriately when it goes through, whatever that means.

I did make mention to them that using taxpayer money to plant, then remove, trees is bit wasteful.

[Moses]

No it doesn't, all it does is paint all of us as loonies in the eyes of the authorities (ie, the people making the decisions), making it much easier to brush off those of us with legitimate rational concerns.

only if you have no creative writing skills

Letter to the Editor,

I have recently noticed coucil removing large areas of wattle and after trying to get infromation from them as to why to no avail i put forth this question to you.

There has been a lot of talk of late of a "list" of approx 10,000 plants the gov has now deemed dangerous/illegal to own(wattles,native grasses,house plants just to name a few) I was wondering were theses plants removed because of this new legislation and what the ramifications would be for all councils and public plantings when/if the law is indeed introduced.

there, rough but in no way does it make "us" look like loonies and if the local runs the story we now have more people informed.

[santiago]

Nice letter and well written but if i was in the council and such of brain there would be no reply or comment from the letter and i would prolly decipher it as-

hi..........your taking away the plants i used to get high off, now i want to implicate the shire in some dodgy attempt to justify why a small minority needs these plants, once you have got the information you need out of us you will then dob us into today tonight, our bosses the government will get angrier and order us to eradicate any plant of suspicion and destroy all and any evidence that us the council in any way approve or condone these plants by specifically eradicating them from any potential legal equation.

this is not how i feel but how i could possibly interpret it as.

this is a catch 22 situation now, if this law had come in and nobody blinked an eyelid it would have sunk to the bottom of any importance and peoples minds including those who enforce, now its becoming a ''topic" via such mediums as newspapers and co, its gonna be hard to forget and any effort to make our rulers look like fools is generally historically doomed to fail.

in this situation i believe less to be more.

[Sola]

I think the more letters to the editor the better, most people would not be in favour of destroying native habitat.

Also many gardeners wouldn't like the idea of their gardens being destroyed, increase public awareness and

allow discontent to grow amongst all facets of the community.

If the council knew about the proposed legislation and destroyed A. longifolia it is likely they are linked, regardless or their said reasons.

Their response of: "acting appropriately" sounds over zealous, if you live in that council area don't expect to find any Acacia's, people

with little botanical knowledge spraying and physically removing plants tend to get 'off target' species frequently.

If this proposed legislation does go through the already seriously degraded environment will be further decimated by ignorant people.

[Foo]

I think any media attension on this issue would be great! Most "mums and dads" of Australia would be outraged if they thought their backyard were to suddenly become the host of a variety of illeagle plants. I doubt the government cares about entheogen enthusiasts opinions, i assume thats who the legislation is targetin, along with "the ileagle drug trade associated with such plants" ... blah

[ThunderIdeal]

you guys realise that councils will not appreciate any of these bans right?

fuck, what is in it for the councils? being required to spend money ripping out plants that they have spent money to install and maintain, being required to rethink their weed programs, gardening programs, habitat programs.

IMHO it's ridiculous to think that a council will have enough spare resources to reduce weedy acacias any more than what they already are doing. acacias are just a fact of life, fucking lol.

[ThunderIdeal]

and councils just won't give a fuck, my humble opinion, they've got enough on their plate. there would have to be some real pressure to make them redirect funding. if you guys are worried about being prosecuted for things growing in your back yard, maybe it's worth considering sneaking them into the ground on council land. no, i am not talking about planting them in the bush, but you might get away with an infrequently maintained roadside garden or something. these barely maintained areas consist of whatever survives that does not present itself as necessary to control in the eyes of the council bum who takes care of the area.

whatever survives

so, don't plant it where it will send limbs over roads and footpaths or if it does, keep it pruned back yourself (the kinds of areas i'm talking about are not expertly pruned, they are just hacked back away from traffic). keep grasses away from the base or they will whippersnip some of the bark off, and raise it a bit so the lower branches don't cop any spray. talk to the council bum if you get a chance, tell them you put it there cuz the flowers are pretty, so long as it doesn't harm the council's agenda they will probably leave it be, even if it does harm their agenda remember they are a business and you are their customer, they should and probably will take you into consideration.

Edited April 5, 2011 by ThunderIdeal

[shortly]

I dunno about the logic behind it but my council had a crew out today chipping wattles in a park near me, they didnt touch the brazilian pepper or rain trees because apparently they had been told to take out the wattles.

Oh well i scored a coupla bails of chip & some nice logs for turning & growing mushies on so i shouldn't complain:)

[ThunderIdeal]

did you ask why? did they know?

acacias are a prick. brazilian cherry, broad leaf pepper, golden rain (lol i never noticed how suss it is calling them golden rain trees until just now), probably with the exception of the rain tree they are slower growing than acacias. we should all keep an eye and a question pointed at council activity but i re-iterate my above couple of posts, for south east queensland at least.

[shortly]

I did ask, but either they weren't saying or more likely i think they didn't know.

I havta admit i was more concerned about smoozing for more nice pieces of wood & possibly some shrooms than i was pushing them for info on the drug laws.