Weeping Willow on Blind Canal Corner

[system 4-50]

Obviously no more than necessary to provide visibility. I'm scared of aiming into the tree to avoid an oncoming boat and finding canoeists on the other side.

Most of the canoeists I've seen have been very careful to remain obvious but there must be some under-informed ones out there.

I'm thinking of a particular case but it would be nice to know the general position.

[magpie patrick]

Obviously no more than necessary to provide visibility. I'm scared of aiming into the tree to avoid an oncoming boat and finding canoeists on the other side.

Most of the canoeists I've seen have been very careful to remain obvious but there must be some under-informed ones out there.

I'm thinking of a particular case but it would be nice to know the general position.

 

 

erm, big grey area. Technically it is the navigation authorities job to do this, and they may have been put off by eco-terrorists threatening the extinction of our species if we don't stop meddling. However, if you are discreet in your actions, I suspect (a) no one will notice no one will care and © even if they do notice and care they won't know who did it.

[Machpoint005]

If the lack of visibility worries you, I'd trim it. It's a tree, so it will grow back!

[blodger]

I do not know whether there is a clear legal position but I have always considered doing a bit of pruning for a good reason to be helpful to BW who do not have the ground staff to keep pace with excess/undesireable growth.

 

On a stretch of canal where I was mooring I did a fair bit of cutting back of saplings which would be in the way of horse boating and restricting the width of the canal from the non-towpath side. I always endeavour to make sure the prunings end up stacked ashore for other wildlife rather than ending up in the canal. Nevertheless, I have had the odd complaint from fisherman that assume you are trying to snag their lines with debris or other towpath users who think you are destroying the naturalness. It's sod's law that BW then come along and and eradicte all including the bits you thought could safely be left!

 

I feel that many who have houses/gardens along the canal deliberately have out of control growth to force boats further from their properties. I usually cruise with pruning shears at the tiller to try to snip and catch the odd branch that swipes at the chimney or my face. If everyone did BW would have an easier job IMHO

[Athy]

If it's a danger to navigation then of course trim it, that's being considerate to other boaters as well as improving one's own view and thus improving the safety of one's own and other boats. There's one just down from the lock at Cropredy which we have a snip at when we remember to take shears with us. Otherwise it's a blind passage through a very narrow bit.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Athy

[sebrof]

Property owners have a duty NOT to permit their trees to become a nuisance or a danger to others going about their lawful business on towpath or canal.

 

You are therefore doing them a favour if you trim any plants that should not be where they are.

 

I certainly can't see you being taken to court over it. "Land-owner sues walker for trimming tree that posed a danger to life". No, definitely not.

Edited July 29, 2010 by sebrof

[Chertsey]

I've always understood (although it could be an urban myth) that if someone else's tree is overhanging your land, then you are entitled to trim it back to the boundary but you're not allowed to keep the bits you cut off - you have to give them back.

 

Thus though it has been said on another thread that it is the landowner/tree-owner's responsibility to cut the trees back, BW would be perfectly entitled to do so if it was overhanging their land (water) - maybe even charge the landowner for doing it?

 

It is certainly BW's responsibility to keep the canal navigable, and though it is laudable to want to help others (and you won't find me making a fuss about safety, insurance etc), I would be more inclined to report the obstruction to BW (even if subsequently taking action myself). After all, if they don't know about it they can't be expected to sort it out, and it is their duty.

[tree monkey]

I've always understood (although it could be an urban myth) that if someone else's tree is overhanging your land, then you are entitled to trim it back to the boundary but you're not allowed to keep the bits you cut off - you have to give them back.

 

funny one this, you have to offer them back and anything of value is the landowners propety if they want it, but just chucking the bits over the fence is littering or something like

 

you are entiltled to prune back to your property boundary, but if in so doing you cause the tree to become unsafe, you could be liable for any damage.[/i]

Thus though it has been said on another thread that it is the landowner/tree-owner's responsibility to cut the trees back, BW would be perfectly entitled to do so if it was overhanging their land (water) - maybe even charge the landowner for doing it?

 

Yup as far as i understand it tree owner responsable for obstruction but rarely enforced, normaly highways,railways and utilitys dont want you messing around their roads,rails, lines etc and will do it themselves

not sure about BW though

 

It is certainly BW's responsibility to keep the canal navigable, and though it is laudable to want to help others (and you won't find me making a fuss about safety, insurance etc), I would be more inclined to report the obstruction to BW (even if subsequently taking action myself). After all, if they don't know about it they can't be expected to sort it out, and it is their duty.

 

As long as you don't cause serious damage a bit of light secatur pruning isnt going to upset anyone surley?

[Chertsey]

I wasn't thinking it would upset them - they'd probably be only too pleased to have the job done for them - but it is their responsibility and really they should be doing it.

[tree monkey]

I wasn't thinking it would upset them - they'd probably be only too pleased to have the job done for them - but it is their responsibility and really they should be doing it.

sorry thst was badly phrased and spelt in fact

 

I can almost guarantee BW will not want the landowner/tree owner pruning trees that overhang their waterways, unless you show public liability insurance, method statements, risk assesments and the rest; most landowners carn't be arsed or afford the whole shebang so don't bother

 

The problem is BW can not afford to employ the specialist contractors required to do the job, so the job don't get done, I know i am one of those contractors

 

Which is why i don't see much of an issue with a bit of light pruning whilst passing

 

It's a mad world

Edited July 29, 2010 by tree monkey

[Chertsey]

sorry thst was badly phrased and spelt in fact

 

I can almost guarantee BW will not want the landowner/tree owner pruning trees that overhang their waterways, unless you show public liability insurance, method statements, risk assesments and the rest; most landowners carn't be arsed or afford the whole shebang so don't bother

 

The problem is BW can not afford to employ the specialist contractors required to do the job, so the job don't get done, I know i am one of those contractors

 

Which is why i don't see much of an issue with a bit of light pruning whilst passing

 

It's a mad world

Why would a private landowner need any of that to prune their own trees?

 

(Although I can see why we/BW might not like it as much of the tree would be likely to end up in the cut)

[churchward]

I'd say trim it. It if it aids safe navigation then all is fine and it won't kill the tree so no harm done.

 

I suppose it takes the old tradition of "boatman's pruning" (i.e. snapping of a low hanging branch as you pass under on your boat) to an extreme by taking a set of shears to it but what the heck.

 

Why would a private landowner need any of that to prune their own trees?

 

(Although I can see why we/BW might not like it as much of the tree would be likely to end up in the cut)

 

If you do trim the cuttings should really be cleared our of the water.

[tree monkey]

Why would a private landowner need any of that to prune their own trees?

 

(Although I can see why we/BW might not like it as much of the tree would be likely to end up in the cut)

 

public liability, the cut is in effect a open area with public access, any damage caused by your works to property/infrastructure will be your responsability, plus of course death or injury caused by falling timber and so on.

 

In fact stupid as it sounds a private landowner should have public liability and so on even when working on private property just in case some one enters the work site, even if it is private.

 

not saying i agree with all this we live in a mad risk obsesed world

[Duchess Omnium]

Weeping Willows grow like weeds (in fact in some countries they are regarded as invasive weedes). You won't do the tree any harm by cutting it back (though if you cut a lot I agree that it probably should be cleared from the canal) and you will be doing some boaters good. I drove blind through a willow at Thrupp some weeks ago (I heard it has since been cut) and just had to pray there was nothing on the other side.

[tree monkey]

Weeping Willows grow like weeds (in fact in some countries they are regarded as invasive weedes). You won't do the tree any harm by cutting it back (though if you cut a lot I agree that it probably should be cleared from the canal) and you will be doing some boaters good. I drove blind through a willow at Thrupp some weeks ago (I heard it has since been cut) and just had to pray there was nothing on the other side.

but willows are not weeds in this country and you can do the tree harm by cutting it back too hard, I know you did not say that but i am a tree geek/bore/nerd and get twitchy when sweeping statements are made.

 

Landowners should be made aware of their responsability to remove obstructions and act on it, but if short term poor quality pruning causes decay and failure of the tree could that not cause more and even greater problems?

 

just my thoughts aided by a large glass of scotch and proberly regreted in the morning

[Radiomariner]

but willows are not weeds in this country and you can do the tree harm by cutting it back too hard, I know you did not say that but i am a tree geek/bore/nerd and get twitchy when sweeping statements are made.

 

Landowners should be made aware of their responsability to remove obstructions and act on it, but if short term poor quality pruning causes decay and failure of the tree could that not cause more and even greater problems?

 

just my thoughts aided by a large glass of scotch and proberly regreted in the morning

 

My thoughts? How often have I had a large glass os scotch swept away by a bluddy willow!!!

[Natalie Graham]

but willows are not weeds in this country

They are if they are obstructing the navigation. Weeds, as they say, are merely plants in the wrong place. My pruning book tells me that weeping willows should be pruned back to about 6" from the ground. That sounds like it would do the trick

Edited July 29, 2010 by Natalie Graham

[Strads]

minor point willows are not trees but large reeds.....

 

if there is believed to be a risk of one causing a potential or actual accident then reportig to nw or landowner is best =

 

if the worst happends and you have an email then they could be in the deep end if they ignore and some one gets hurt

 

the nig grey area is the assessment of actual danger -

 

boat v boat is probably equal risk and a clanging noise,,

 

most canoes boune off ok or are pushed aside by the now wave... only issue is if you T bone one against the bank

 

otherwose sound your horn and slow down to reduce the risks.

[valrene9600]

Why not organise a tree cutting banter at the site.

[seaandland]

Cut away,, any decent op/landowner would shake you by the hand

[Wiltshire Moonraker]

Weeping Willows grow like weeds (in fact in some countries they are regarded as invasive weedes). You won't do the tree any harm by cutting it back (though if you cut a lot I agree that it probably should be cleared from the canal) and you will be doing some boaters good. I drove blind through a willow at Thrupp some weeks ago (I heard it has since been cut) and just had to pray there was nothing on the other side.

 

Several emails from local boaters (one in particular claiming for a stiff gin after the experience, not me ) had the desired effect on BW, it really was bad!

 

 

The workers in action!

[mayalld]

Weeping Willows grow like weeds (in fact in some countries they are regarded as invasive weedes). You won't do the tree any harm by cutting it back (though if you cut a lot I agree that it probably should be cleared from the canal) and you will be doing some boaters good. I drove blind through a willow at Thrupp some weeks ago (I heard it has since been cut) and just had to pray there was nothing on the other side.

 

Alternatively, you could have used the prescribed sound signal.

[Pete of Ebor]

Obviously no more than necessary to provide visibility. I'm scared of aiming into the tree to avoid an oncoming boat and finding canoeists on the other side.

Most of the canoeists I've seen have been very careful to remain obvious but there must be some under-informed ones out there.

I'm thinking of a particular case but it would be nice to know the general position.

 

Wouldn't be near Blisworth Tunnel (Northern portal) would it ?

[Terence]

First of all I'm a landowner with a beautiful weeping willow. I also have a boat with a bottom of the garden mooring. If anyone decides that my tree poses a danger to the waterways then it should be reported to the waterways authorities. The Authorities will contact me and the matter would be dealt with. It does not give anyone the right to cut away at it. That would be criminal damage. So stop chopping away and start reporting, it is our responsibility as users of the canals to report matters not to take private action (the only exception I would say is obviously life or death).

 

Terence