Council responds to uproar after ominous detail spotted on famous tree: 'Such a shame'
A beachside community in an affluent city suburb is concerned for the fate of a "beloved" native tree, likely many decades old, after it was found marked with two ominous "yellow Xs".
Manly locals living in the North Steyne area on Sydney's Northern Beaches unleashed by the hundreds on social media over the weekend, after they suspected the gumtree, located on Pittwater Road, had been marked for imminent removal.
"Woke up this morning to find two yellow Xs sprayed onto the gumtree outside our place. Called the council—apparently, it's being removed after a 'safety complaint.' Sure, it leans a bit, but how it poses a risk to the community is beyond me," a resident said.
"For some it might just be another tree. But for those of us who live here, it is the quirky tree on the way to the shops, the tree kids carved their names into and the tree someone once stuck a bandaid on when it was leaking sap."
What started as a single post quickly turned into a heated discussion about tree removals around the Northern Beaches, with the general sentiment summed up by one remark: "The richer this place gets, the more pedestrian and soulless it becomes."
Speaking to Yahoo News, a Northern Beaches Council spokeswoman eventually clarified the reasoning for the Xs, but not before hundreds hit out.
In a rare level of interest for a post about a single tree, the discussion attracted almost 600 responses. Many argued that native trees, particularly older ones, deserve protection and respect.
"Nooo, I love this tree! It brings beauty to the street, keeps the area cool in the hot summer days, and should not be chopped down due to some people not happy with having to walk around it," a woman argued. "It does not cut off access, there's still a clear pathway with plenty of space near the fence."
Aussies erupt over council's plan to axe 80-year-old tree
Council's 'fantastic' transformation of dead tree
Detail in beach photo stuns tourist as major change looms
"More people ... buying into the area and chopping down their backyard trees everywhere," a second said.
"Very frustrating as it is clearly a relatively old tree. So important for birds and wildlife to have older trees that are more likely to have hollows. Just removing an older, established tree and replacing it with a new sapling just doesn't cut it," a third chimed in.
"Oh no! Is that the quirky tree on Pittwater Road that makes me smile every time I walk past it? I just want to touch it because it just looks happy".
"I love that tree. Such a shame," echoed another.
While the future looked bleak for the "quirky" gum, the council spokeswoman confirmed it'll be staying put for now. Council confirmed to Yahoo that while a large branch had fallen from the tree, it's not currently dangerous and won't be removed.
Steps will be taken to ensure its health and prevent further issues, she said, and the crosses that were placed on the tree will be erased to avoid any confusion. The Northern Beaches has one of the greatest tree canopies in metropolitan in Sydney — an estimated 12 million in fact — and council said it continues to take action to protect, retain and maintain them.
While this local issue clearly generated a lot of buzz from within the community, it's a topic many Australians feel strongly about. Across the country, the removal of trees often sparks heated debates, despite the issue sometimes seeming trivial to those not directly involved.
Trees, particularly mature ones, hold significant cultural, environmental, and aesthetic value to many Australians. They are seen as symbols of the country's natural heritage, often serving as habitats for wildlife and contributing to local ecosystems. For others, trees can be a source of community pride, providing shade and beauty.
When it comes to tree removal, people often express strong opinions, especially when trees are removed for development, land clearing or due to safety concerns.
Love Australia's weird and wonderful environment? 🐊🦘😳 Get our new newsletter showcasing the week's best stories.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Secret hidden beneath Australia's 'most important' parcel of land
The last place in the world where a rare lizard lives is a tightly guarded secret because the tiny creature is highly prized by collectors. But even more valuable is the land where the Victorian grassland earless dragons live — a single farm west of Melbourne that sits right in the middle of a landscape earmarked for development 20 years ago. While a captive breeding program has been established at Melbourne Zoo, less than two per cent of viable dragon habitat remains intact in Victoria, and there are growing concerns government isn't doing enough to protect what remains. On Thursday, the experts who know the species best sounded the alarm in a new report published by the Biodiversity Council, saying 'urgent action' is needed to protect the dragon from extinction in the wild. Peter Robertson is a reptile ecologist and a member of the Victorian Grassland Earless Dragon Recovery Team, who has been studying the species since it was rediscovered living inside tiny burrows in 2023. In his opinion, the property where the dragons live is the "most important" parcel of land in Australia that's not yet in public hands. 'It's only three paddocks that the whole world population is now known from, and there's every chance that it will never be found anywhere else,' he told Yahoo News. 'It may persist in little populations elsewhere, but we don't know.' When it comes to new developments in native grasslands where the dragons could still persist, the land first needs to be assessed by ecologists. But there's plenty of development in potential habitat that's underway right now, because it was green-lit before its rediscovery and its listing as a critically endangered species. The earth has been broken at the property next door to the rediscovery site, and soon, there will be dozens of houses occupying the land. And while that's great news for developers and people who need somewhere to live, the increased traffic on roads, the dogs and cats, and the fragmentation of habitat will likely be bad news for the dragon. Prior to its rediscovery, Victoria's distinct dragon species hadn't been seen since the 1960s, and many thought it was extinct. But scientists never gave up hope, and in 2019 a Museums Victoria dragon expert said she was confident they could survive, while Zoos Victoria began mapping the state for potential habitat. The dragon's rediscovery was ultimately accidental. It was found during a routine survey of animals and plants, because the broader region was set to be rezoned for development. 🔍 Is the Bathurst grassland earless dragon extinct? 😳 Grim reason three new dragon species were added to the threatened species list 🚨 Fears for future of tiny dragon stalling construction of 310,000 new homes That farm where it was found is potentially worth tens of millions of dollars. Those working to protect the dragons are concerned the government has yet to put in an offer to buy the property, putting its owners and the future of the dragons in limbo. Robertson thinks conserving this 'one known population' needs to be the 'number one' priority of the government if it wants to stop its extinction. And he warns its future is far from being secure. 'When we can see what's clearly required, and nothing's happening, and nothing's happened for more than two years since the rediscovery. It is really frustrating,' he said. 'This might be the one chance we have to save this species. If we don't secure that habitat it may go back to apparent extinction, just like we assumed for decades.' Dragons are often described as a 'Goldilocks species' because they require habitat to be 'just right' — a mosaic of short to moderate grass tussocks as well as areas that support basking in the sun. At the rediscovery site, it's 60 years of sheep grazing that's kept the grass low, creating a perfect environment perfect for dragons. But other viable habitat on private land has been left for decades to degrade, and it will need significant rehabilitation if it's ever to be home to dragons again. Biodiversity Council spokesperson and report contributing author, Janna Dielenberg, thinks it's unlikely that the dragon could be rediscovered due to the region being developed. 'The chances of another discovery are exceedingly slim,' she told Yahoo News. In 2010, the Victorian government committed to buying 15,000 hectares of private land over a decade to protect rare native grasslands and create the Western Grassland Reserve (WGR). But 15 years on, the plan has not been completed and just 4,000 hectares have been protected. It was conceived as part of a deal with the Commonwealth called the Melbourne Strategic Assessment (MSA) that allowed the state to take charge of development in sensitive areas. One major concern is that the MSA has not been updated to include the rediscovery site. And the Biodiversity Council says it's 'disappointed' that over the last 15 years, other land that might have once been a great asset to dragons has been allowed to degrade because it's yet to be purchased by the Victorian government. Dielenberg said land that was in 'great healthy condition' is now overrun with weeds, used for dumping soil, or transformed from sheep grazing to crops, making it no longer suitable for dragons. 'Sheep farming has become less profitable over that time. And when they plough it all up for crops it rips up their burrows, and destroys the grasslands forever,' she said. In a statement Victoria's department of environment (DEECA) said it is "protecting" native grassland habitats by continuing to acquire and rehabilitate land. 'This is funded by the MSA levy which is paid by developers and therefore proceeds in line with the rate of development in the area,' it said. 'We are working with the private landholder and other stakeholders on ways to protect the dragon rediscovery site, as well as delivering a successful conservation breeding program for the Victorian grassland earless dragon with the Commonwealth Government.' Love Australia's weird and wonderful environment? 🐊🦘😳 Get our new newsletter showcasing the week's best stories.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Are dads doing enough? What the data tells us about the state of modern fatherhood.
As Father's Day approaches, American dads insist they're doing a lot more parenting than the men who raised them, according to a new Yahoo News/YouGov poll. Some dads even claim they're doing more than the women they're parenting with. Yet the survey of 1,560 U.S. adults also taps into the complexities and contradictions of contemporary fatherhood, revealing that even the most egalitarian dads might see themselves in ways that don't quite match up with how others see them. Their partners included. I know a little something about this. One of my duties as national correspondent for Yahoo News is to collaborate on our monthly polls with YouGov, a leading public-opinion firm. I write the questions, then analyze and report on the results. At the same time, my wife and I are trying our best to help our two kids — a 9-year-old girl and an 8-year-old boy — grow up to be good people. Like many other millennial parents — I just turned 43 — we aspire to contribute equally to that effort. And so I figured Father's Day would be as good a time as any to ask my fellow dads some of the questions I'm always asking myself. How much are we really doing these days? And is it enough? Gender roles are a perennial topic in the parenting world, and the general consensus is that even though more opposite-sex couples than ever believe in 50/50 parenting — and even though dads have become more involved over the years — moms still do most of the domestic labor. According to a 2023 study by the Pew Research Center, for example, wives in so-called egalitarian marriages — that is, couples where each partner earns about the same amount of money — still spend more than twice as much time on housework than their husbands, and almost two hours more per week on caregiving, including tending to children. 'Egalitarian' husbands, meanwhile, spend three-and-a-half more hours per week on 'leisure activities' than their wives. Yet there may be more to the data than meets the eye, at least based on the results of the new Yahoo News/YouGov poll. For one thing, nearly two-thirds of American dads (63%) now say they spend more time with their kids than their fathers spent with them — and a full 37% describe that generational difference as 'significant.' Dads feel like they're putting in the hours and making progress. What's more surprising, however, is that a third of fathers (34%) also say they carry more than half of their family's "mental load," while another four in 10 (39%) say they shoulder about half. Combined, that's roughly three-quarters of dads who believe the balance is either 50/50 or skewed in their direction. In contrast, just 28% of dads admit to bearing less than half (14%) or none (4%) of their family's mental load. It's fair to say those numbers contradict what researchers have found — and what most moms would tell us if we asked them the same questions about the fathers in their lives. When I shared the poll with my wife and asked how she would answer for me, we agreed on everything — except mental load. And when I told her how many dads seem to believe they shoulder at least half the mental load, she scoffed. My sense is that this disparity reveals a lot about the state of dads today. For the record, I don't really think I take on more of the mental load than my wife — not as the term is typically defined. But I also think the tasks we typically define as 'mental load' fail to fully capture what dads tend to contribute. Here's how the poll put it: 'Mental load refers to the cognitive and emotional effort involved in managing and coordinating household tasks, responsibilities and relationships. As a father, how much of your family's mental load do you believe you carry?' Again, nearly three out of four dads say they do half or more of this invisible labor — these hidden forms of care. Yet when asked which specific parenting responsibilities they 'regularly take on,' relatively few fathers with children aged 18 or younger pick things like 'make the kids' doctor appointments' (36%), 'sign up the kids for camps/school activities/lessons' (26%), 'schedule playdates with the kids' friends' (18%), 'volunteer for school activities' (15%) or 'book babysitters/child care' (10%) — i.e., the classic mental load stuff. Instead, these dads are much more inclined to say they "play with the kids" (72%), "help with homework" (54%), "take the kids on outings" (52%), 'put the kids to bed' (44%) and 'make dinner' (42%). So it's not like dads are deluded. When asked point-blank about their role — Who are your kids closer to? Who spends more time parenting? Who would your kids' school call first? — a majority of fathers answer either 'me' or 'it's about equal.' But an even larger majority answer either 'it's about equal' or 'their mother.' In other words, dads understand that the parenting scales still aren't perfectly balanced. Why, then, do so many dads seem to think that we're carrying more of the mental load than we get credit for? My guess is that we consider that category to be a little more capacious than our partners do. For the initial draft of the Yahoo News/YouGov Father Day's poll, my editors — both moms — floated a fairly narrow set of options for the 'parenting responsibilities' question: booking babysitters, volunteering at school, making doctor appointments and so on. I responded with some additional choices that 'might capture more of what most dads do': playing with the kids, going on outings, cleaning up after dinner, etc. I also told my editors that 'in general, I think mental load conversations miss things like this (even if they are more about household management than parenting, per se): take care of the house, take care of the yard, take care of the car, take care of the garbage, take care of the finances. We didn't end up asking dads about those duties. But looking back, I can't help but wonder if they would have polled even higher than, say, playing with the kids — and if they were the kinds of responsibilities our dad respondents had in mind when assessing their own share of the mental load. For me, I think the answer is yes. In 2010, I wrote an essay for Newsweek explaining why marriage mattered so much to me; it was a direct rebuttal to a piece by two of my female colleagues about why the institution is 'quite simply, no longer necessary." I agreed with my coworkers that all of marriage's 'antiquated ancillary benefits — its grubby socioeconomic justifications' — no longer really applied. But that, I argued, was 'the point.' 'Dustin and I are not 'getting anything' out of this deal,' I explained. 'Or at least we're not getting what previous generations of men and women were conditioned to expect. I'm not getting a cooking, cleaning, child-rearing machine. She's not getting a bringer-home of the bacon. I clean. Both of us cook. Sometimes, Dustin earns more money than I do. Sometimes she doesn't. We both go to work every day. We both have careers. And when we have children, we'll both take turns staying home to raise them. 'In other words,' I continued, 'our roles within the relationship are not defined by gender. They're defined by who we are as people. … In a world where the practical reasons for marriage no longer apply, the only reason left is love.' Fifteen years and two kids later, nearly every word of that essay still rings true to me. I do all of the laundry — and almost all of the cleaning. She packs lunches; I make dinner. She works longer hours. I drop off the kids at school in the morning, then pick them up in the afternoon. I coach their soccer teams. She plays with them more. We both read books at bedtime. But if I'm being honest with myself, our 'roles within the relationship' are still somewhat 'defined by gender.' As my wife was quick to point out when I shared the mental load results with her, she's the one who makes the doctor appointments, schedules the playdates, books the babysitters and signs up for summer camps. 'OK,' I said. 'But what about all the 'invisible labor' I do?' I mentioned the finances, the house, the yard, the car, the garbage. 'That doesn't have anything to do with parenting,' she responded. 'It's household management,' I responded. 'Someone has to do it.' 'But someone would have to do it even if we didn't have kids,' she said. I think we both have a point here. I feel like I'm doing about half of the hands-on parenting, plus a bunch of hidden work that keeps our lives running smoothly. She feels like she's doing about half of the hands-on parenting, plus a bunch of hidden work that keeps our kids' lives running smoothly. We've gravitated toward these roles — mine indirectly related to parenting, hers directly — because of gender. Or, more specifically, because of gender expectations. The truth is, I don't feel judged for not volunteering at school, or not packing a particularly healthy lunch, or not hosting a playdate. My wife does. She even judges herself. As a dad, I tend to feel OK about how much I do. As a mom, she tends to feel guilty for not doing more. We've inherited and internalized different standards of what it means to be a parent — and hers are higher. That's hard to shake. Egalitarian dads might think they're shouldering half of the mental load, or more. But as hard as we're lifting, most of us still don't know what that feels like. __________________ The Yahoo News survey was conducted by YouGov using a nationally representative sample of 1,560 U.S. adults interviewed online from May 22-27, 2025. The sample was weighted according to gender, age, race, education, 2024 election turnout and presidential vote, party identification and current voter registration status. Demographic weighting targets come from the 2019 American Community Survey. Party identification is weighted to the estimated distribution at the time of the election (31% Democratic, 32% Republican). Respondents were selected from YouGov's opt-in panel to be representative of all U.S. adults. The margin of error is approximately 2.9%.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
'Damp forced us to live in bedroom for four years'
A woman has said she and her husband were forced to live upstairs in their home in Leeds for four years after the council failed to solve an issue with damp. Melanie Town said the damp, from a flood under her council-owned home, caused appliances to break down, destroyed furniture and led to further health concerns for her husband, who was recovering from a serious illness. Mrs Town said: "It destroys you, knowing the council knew the condition we were living in and that we lost everything downstairs, and did nothing to address it." A council spokesperson apologised for not fully resolving the issue, but said multiple repairs had been carried out and the house had remained "habitable". Mrs Town said the repairs to the property in Thorpe on the Hill, where she had lived for 12 years before moving to East Yorkshire at the end of last year, had included replastering the living room five times after it kept becoming damp. "We lived in the bedroom for four years. The mental health [impact] from doing that in your late 40s and 50s – it's no good at all," Mrs Town said. "I'm not upset, I'm angry. They wouldn't live like that, so why did they expect me to?" Mrs Town said it had become a "running joke" with builders, plasterers and plumbers when they repeatedly visited the property to fix the same issues. "The council was sending plasterer after plasterer to rip off the walls and re-do them, without getting to the root cause of the damp and the mould," she said. She explained that the damp had caused the oven and fridge-freezer to break down and work surfaces to come away from the wall in the kitchen. Meanwhile, the carpet had begun to smell and it eventually had to be removed, leaving bare floorboards, she said. Mrs Town said she and her husband had to take their clothes to the laundrette and they had lived on takeaways and air fryer food - even having Christmas dinner in their bedroom. "It's enough to take a toll on anybody," she said. Mrs Town said that despite being in the top priority band for council housing and bidding for a new property every week, trying to downsize from their three-bedroom home, they were never able to secure one. She said they had taken things into their own hands in December and had moved to Hornsea in East Yorkshire, which she said was "not ideal" and had been an "upheaval". "I was suffering with chest infection after chest infection, and I just said I couldn't do it anymore. Anchor Homes offered us this one, so I took it," Mrs Town said. "We have lovely neighbours, but it is quiet, and I feel out of place at times. "Without a car here, you are cut off. Both our families [are in Leeds], and my friends are there." Mrs Town said the move had also meant the couple had to pay for further travel and accommodation when Mr Town had hospital appointments in Sheffield which he still needed to attend following a bleed on the brain eight years ago. She said Leeds City Council had been aware of Mr Town's health issues, which included a small stroke, loss of hearing and chest infections since the brain haemorrhage. "Any council should not get away with making people live like that. I am really angry with them. I want them to acknowledge what they've done," she said. Responding, a spokesperson for Leeds City Council said repairs were carried out on several occasions in an attempt to resolve the issue at Mr and Mrs Town's home. "Unfortunately, the root cause was not addressed, and the issue returned when there was heavy rainfall," they said. "The property remained habitable during the tenancy, although Leeds City Council apologise for not being able to resolve the matter fully." Listen to highlights from West Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North Leeds City Council
