The job Iam on right now seems to me every fifth tree has some kind of danger to it, top broke out laying in another tree at a 90 degree angle. Or a dead tree fell over into the one thats marked. I try to buy most of my timber from land owners rather then bid on jobs that a forester has marked. But I have always marked the dangerous trees with arrows painted on the tree. Faceing up or what ever direction the danger was coming. Feeling that if I didn't get the job the next guy would have a heads up. Ive always wondered why service foresters never did something simular. As a cutter I know its built into use to always look up and see what may be going on up stairs ;) Sometimes I get somewhat ticked off because I feel we are cutting liability trees for the landowner eather that or the service forester dosen't have a clue about logging ! Guess I got off track there, just venting thanks for reading :D
The way our court system seems to work, you may be putting yourself in jeopardy by marking trees.
As if someone makes the assumption all the dangers are marked, but then gets killed by an unmarked one... you could be held liable for only marking some of them.
Convinced our forester to put an arrow on the ones he sees in the trees he is marking.
I have seen foresters mark every banana tree and hazard in the woods. Some I will cut, some I walk away. A young book smart forester got onto me once for leaving a tree with a hanging top. Needless to say I educated him some, then when I was done I said there take my saw and drop it ,Suddenly it became a good idea to leave it for the Brown Bats.
If nothing else it got the forester to start looking up. I was with him on a windy day and said, "I wouldn't walk over there if I were you", he stopped and walked over to me and I pointed up and within a few seconds a big widow maker came out of the tree. He thanked me and started looking up more often.
We look at the tops of most all the trees we mark as we cruise the topwood volume in our tree measurements. We paint mark the trees with arrows pointing up to any hazards or when fence wire, hunter tree steps etc. may be found in the stump or at breast height, etc. We also advise the cutters that if they feel that they cannot fall a tree that we have marked to let us know and we will will work the situation out with them first. Safety comes first and we try not to put any of our loggers or ourselves in hazardous situations and they appreciate it.
Also some trees may be questionable in their merchantability and we will mark them with a "X" and they are not placed in the tally, but the purchaser may cut and remove them at their option.
Quote from: beenthere on December 12, 2015, 08:29:53 PM
The way our court system seems to work, you may be putting yourself in jeopardy by marking trees.
As if someone makes the assumption all the dangers are marked, but then gets killed by an unmarked one... you could be held liable for only marking some of them.
I think that's exactly reason. Liability.
"well, you marked a bunch of hazard trees, I wasn't expecting a widow maker in the top of that one, it didn't have an arrow"
Can you really be sure to mark every single one? Plus a timber harvest site is an ever changing area, new hazards can be created during the harvest and may not be seen,and couldn't be marked by the forester.
Could also get cutters into bad habits, looking for the paint marked hazards, instead of actually looking as they should be.
@SLawyer Dave (https://forestryforum.com/board/index.php?action=profile;u=21481) may be able to give a heads-up (no pun intended ;D ) on any implied liability here.
Generally under OSH guidelines it's the responsibility of ANY personnel that spots a hazard to identify it and take whatever practical measures are necessary. If the policy / practical action is for you to mark the hazard for special care / treatment / heavy machinery etc then that's what needs to be done.
Good luck explaining to an OSH investigator that "Workplace safety? It's not in my job description"
And just from a moral standpoint, would you let your workmates walk into a trap that YOU knew was there?
Now our legal and insurance system is somewhat different, but I know which scenario would have you in deeper doodoo, and I know the fines would be LOT less for having a hazard ID procedure, and accidentally missing one. Compared to having a "hazard ignorance" system.
Well said! As I learned in some attorney sessions in "Tree Law", one has a "duty" to recognize, identify, and make awareness to any hazard that they have observed until it can be removed by the responsible party so as to prevent injury to others. The liability is greater if you were aware of the hazard and ignored it.
Quote from: beenthere on December 12, 2015, 08:29:53 pm
Quote from: beenthereThe way our court system seems to work, you may be putting yourself in jeopardy by marking trees.
As if someone makes the assumption all the dangers are marked, but then gets killed by an unmarked one... you could be held liable for only marking some of them.
Quote from: celliotI think that's exactly reason. Liability.
"well, you marked a bunch of hazard trees, I wasn't expecting a widow maker in the top of that one, it didn't have an arrow"
Can you really be sure to mark every single one? Plus a timber harvest site is an ever changing area, new hazards can be created during the harvest and may not be seen,and couldn't be marked by the forester.
Could also get cutters into bad habits, looking for the paint marked hazards, instead of actually looking as they should be.
Most likely not. For that to be the case, one would have to assume that a worker entering the site was 'safe' after the sale had been marked, and that's a foolish assumption given the nature of the work.
Generally speaking, if one is exercising reasonable care in the execution of their professional duties, it's hard to find that person 'negligent'.
On the other hand, some court systems might be 'special'.
Couldn't agree more with Ian and Ron. Anytime "safety" is involved, you better do as much as you reasonably can under the circumstances to warn and protect everyone who might be injured by such a condition. Thinking that you are protecting yourself from liability by choosing to not "mark" or otherwise try to identify hazards that you have or should be able to identify, will only increase your liability.
Negligence is defined as a Duty, you have some responsibility imposed by law, tradition, common sense, or other condition to do something. Breach, meaning you failed to do what you should have. Causation, your breach of duty caused or fairly directly led to: Damage/Injury.
So if a forester is marking trees to take down, and he sees a widow maker suspended in the canopy, then he better do something to highlight that danger. If he doesn't see it, then the question becomes, "Should he have seen it based on what a reasonably prudent forester, with the same general training and experience, would have seen?" This removes the defense of "Intentional Blindness", ie, I don't want to see it so "I don't".
Great advice all of you. I've gotten away with some big mistakes over the years. Safety is always job #1.
I would say to warn someone with the arrow, even if you don't mark "all" the hazards. That's a good point though about the liability. In other industries, I've warned people even when the advice wasn't welcome. You can't be too safe.
We have so much ice damaged and dead wood on some of these lots I either walk right by it or wait till I can push it with the yellow wedge or Timbco. I got a nice letter from the forester and landowner for removal of all hazard trees, even if they weren't marked on this last lot, his grandkids ride ATV pretty heavy and the last logger girdled a few hundred trees marked for TSI and never took them. 12 yrs later his woods looked like a bomb went off with dead beech and hemlock falling down everywhere.
For me there are a lot of variables such as, what depicts a "hazard" tree, who am I cutting for and am I mandated to take down the hazard or leave them for wildlife.
I consider a hazard tree to be a ridiculous leaner, dead snags, goose necked pine, structurally compromised trees, shells, damaged timber with bad tops.
If cutting for USFS, AG&F and COE, hazards can be marked by an "X" and are not mandated to be cut unless I want to. Most of the time they are jut not in the sale. If I cut snags with blown out tops, I am mandated to leave (4) per acre for wood peckers. For USFS, if a tree presents itself as a hazard directly to me or my crew, I am allowed to cut it whether it is a marked tree in the sale or not. I generally make sure the project manager knows I am going to do this and he will paint my stump.
If on private ground, depending on what the hazard is, such as, dead standing pine that is non marketable but yet in my lead...I drive them over with another tree or have the skidder knock it down. If not in my way...I leave it. If a large shell presents itself, I just walk away unless the LO has instructed otherwise. Danger trees or something that really isn't worth messing with and has no value and present no danger to me or my crew get left alone.
I worked for a mech crew several year ago and on a large COE sale, I went through and ribboned timber for ease of the cutting machine. I would ribbon fence, (3) ribbon for a hard lean, (2) staggered on codoms that were seperating at the seam and so on.
The one person responsible for their safety is you. A person in this business counting on someone else to look out for them needs to go find another line of work. My Dad was killed in a logging accident in 1986. His death taught me a valuable lesson. Just because a tree has paint on it don't mean it HAS to be cut...Make your own calls guys.