Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Here are some dramatic shots of the fires. How you saw the bushfires
Wildfires in Australia
- Thread starter A.J.
- Start date
(and Keith too)
Quite right, I could have put that more appropriately.
It's an indication of the scale of the events that the murder of 21 people is not the full picture.
A current need in the affected areas is for temporary accomodation.
Anybody with a Caravan, cabin or similar that can be made available for up to 12 months, call 1800 006 468.
Howard Jones
Supporter
Oh God! My heart is in my mouth. Please let it rain! I jsut sent in a 100 bucks. Australian Red Cross Please help! I haven't anythink else to say except again please help.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Opinion Miranda Devine.
One of the biggest furphies in the supercharged debate in the wake of Victoria's bushfires is the claim by green groups that they are great supporters of hazard reduction burning.
Also known as prescribed burning, this scientific regime creates a mosaic of lightly burned land at regular intervals of five to seven years, thus reducing surface fuel loads by varying amounts within the mosaic.
This reduction of fuel loads is expensive, but Australia's pre-eminent bushfire researchers, such as the CSIRO's Phil Cheney and Monash University's David Packam, say it has been proven to reduce the power and intensity of fire. Every bushfire inquiry since the 1939 Stretton royal commission has recommended increased prescribed burning to mitigate the effects of inevitable wildfire.
It is a matter of public record that green groups have long opposed such systematic prescribed burning, as is evident in their submissions to bushfire inquiries from as far back as 1992. They complain of a threat to biodiversity, including to fungi, from "frequent burning" regimes and urge resources be spent on water bombers and early detection, as well as on stopping climate change - good luck with that.
Yet last week, Jonathan La Nauze of Friends of the Earth, Melbourne, in a letter to this newspaper claimed: "…not one Australian environmental organisation is opposed to prescribed burning … Environment groups are engaged in a sophisticated debate about where and how prescribed burning can be most effective."
Yes, it's sophisticated, all right. It just depends how you define "prescribed burning".
On the other side of the country, one Peter Robertson, the West Australian co-ordinator of the Wilderness Society, was singing from a different song sheet. His letter last week to The West Australian stated: "Experience and risk analysis show that repeatedly burning tens of thousands of hectares of remote bushland and forest will do little to address the threat of bushfires to human communities … It would be a huge mistake if the community was led to believe that a massive, expensive and environmentally destructive prescribed burning program was going to protect them when it could make matters worse." Robertson is no lone ranger among greens in opposition to prescribed burning.
The WA Forest Alliance, for instance, lodged a submission to the NSW parliamentary inquiry into the 2001-02 bushfires, claiming: "Frequent fires have a disastrous effect on many species of flora and fauna and their habitat structure." WWF Australia's submission claimed: "Inappropriate fire hazard regimes can damage biodiversity leading to the loss of native species, communities and ecosystems."
The NSW Greens state on their website as part of their bushfire risk management policy: "There is an urgent need to correct the common misconception that responsible fire management always involves burning or clearing to reduce moderate and high fuel loads…"
In 2003, lightning strikes in fuel-rich national parks in NSW and the ACT sparked bushfires which swept into Canberra, killing four people.
Days later, the NSW Nature Conservation Council's then chairman, Rob Pallin, described calls for increased prescribed burning as "futile" and a "knee-jerk reaction". "People who claim that hazard reduction burning is a cure-all for bushfire risk are either fooling themselves or deliberately trying to fool the public." It is another clever tactic of those who oppose broadscale prescribed burning to claim that it is not a "cure-all" for bushfire risk. No one has ever claimed it is.
As Cheney repeatedly has said, wildfires will occur, but prescribed burning reduces the intensity of a fire burning "under any set of meteorological conditions", and it reduces the spread of the fire, allowing firefighters to construct effective control lines.
And yet there have been recent moves to have controlled burning listed as a "key threatening process" under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Such a submission has reportedly been received by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee.
In NSW, already, the Department of Environment and Conservation has listed "too frequent fire" as a "key threatening process to biodiversity".
But the real threatening process is the holocaust we have just seen in Victoria.
Last week angry fire survivors in Victoria pointed the finger at local authorities who prevented clearing of vegetation. At a public meeting in Arthurs Creek, Warwick Spooner, who lost his mother and brother in the Strathewen fire, stood up criticise the Nillumbik council.
"We've lost two people in my family because you dickheads won't cut trees down." Then of course, there is Liam Sheahan, the Reedy Creek home owner whose house is the only one in a two-kilometre area which survived the fires. In 2004 he was fined $50,000 for removing 247 trees around his hilltop house to protect it from fire. His two-year court battle against the Mitchell Shire Council cost him $50,000 in legal fees.
It is a rich irony that Slidders Lawyers last week launched a class action on behalf of fire victims at Kinglake, against the Singapore-owned electricity company SP AusNet, alleging the fire was caused by a fallen power line.
After all, it was only in 2001 that Transgrid bulldozed a 60-metre wide firebreak under its high-voltage lines in the Snowy Mountains. For that it was prosecuted by four government agencies, blasted for "environmental vandalism" by the then NSW premier Bob Carr, and fined $500,000.
Two years later, during the disastrous firestorm that engulfed the mountains, the offending firebreak became the only safe haven for kangaroos and workers constructing a fire trail. The sad truth of such holocausts is that the environmental toll ends up worse than the most vigorous prescribed burning regime ever could be.
Victoria's bushfires have spewed millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere - more than a third of Australia's entire output for a year, according to Sydney University's Professor Mark Adams.
No doubt the royal commission will recommend, like previous inquiries, that prescribed burning should be increased. After so many deaths will anyone listen this time?
[email protected]
</BOD>
One of the biggest furphies in the supercharged debate in the wake of Victoria's bushfires is the claim by green groups that they are great supporters of hazard reduction burning.
Also known as prescribed burning, this scientific regime creates a mosaic of lightly burned land at regular intervals of five to seven years, thus reducing surface fuel loads by varying amounts within the mosaic.
This reduction of fuel loads is expensive, but Australia's pre-eminent bushfire researchers, such as the CSIRO's Phil Cheney and Monash University's David Packam, say it has been proven to reduce the power and intensity of fire. Every bushfire inquiry since the 1939 Stretton royal commission has recommended increased prescribed burning to mitigate the effects of inevitable wildfire.
It is a matter of public record that green groups have long opposed such systematic prescribed burning, as is evident in their submissions to bushfire inquiries from as far back as 1992. They complain of a threat to biodiversity, including to fungi, from "frequent burning" regimes and urge resources be spent on water bombers and early detection, as well as on stopping climate change - good luck with that.
Yet last week, Jonathan La Nauze of Friends of the Earth, Melbourne, in a letter to this newspaper claimed: "…not one Australian environmental organisation is opposed to prescribed burning … Environment groups are engaged in a sophisticated debate about where and how prescribed burning can be most effective."
Yes, it's sophisticated, all right. It just depends how you define "prescribed burning".
On the other side of the country, one Peter Robertson, the West Australian co-ordinator of the Wilderness Society, was singing from a different song sheet. His letter last week to The West Australian stated: "Experience and risk analysis show that repeatedly burning tens of thousands of hectares of remote bushland and forest will do little to address the threat of bushfires to human communities … It would be a huge mistake if the community was led to believe that a massive, expensive and environmentally destructive prescribed burning program was going to protect them when it could make matters worse." Robertson is no lone ranger among greens in opposition to prescribed burning.
The WA Forest Alliance, for instance, lodged a submission to the NSW parliamentary inquiry into the 2001-02 bushfires, claiming: "Frequent fires have a disastrous effect on many species of flora and fauna and their habitat structure." WWF Australia's submission claimed: "Inappropriate fire hazard regimes can damage biodiversity leading to the loss of native species, communities and ecosystems."
The NSW Greens state on their website as part of their bushfire risk management policy: "There is an urgent need to correct the common misconception that responsible fire management always involves burning or clearing to reduce moderate and high fuel loads…"
In 2003, lightning strikes in fuel-rich national parks in NSW and the ACT sparked bushfires which swept into Canberra, killing four people.
Days later, the NSW Nature Conservation Council's then chairman, Rob Pallin, described calls for increased prescribed burning as "futile" and a "knee-jerk reaction". "People who claim that hazard reduction burning is a cure-all for bushfire risk are either fooling themselves or deliberately trying to fool the public." It is another clever tactic of those who oppose broadscale prescribed burning to claim that it is not a "cure-all" for bushfire risk. No one has ever claimed it is.
As Cheney repeatedly has said, wildfires will occur, but prescribed burning reduces the intensity of a fire burning "under any set of meteorological conditions", and it reduces the spread of the fire, allowing firefighters to construct effective control lines.
And yet there have been recent moves to have controlled burning listed as a "key threatening process" under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Such a submission has reportedly been received by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee.
In NSW, already, the Department of Environment and Conservation has listed "too frequent fire" as a "key threatening process to biodiversity".
But the real threatening process is the holocaust we have just seen in Victoria.
Last week angry fire survivors in Victoria pointed the finger at local authorities who prevented clearing of vegetation. At a public meeting in Arthurs Creek, Warwick Spooner, who lost his mother and brother in the Strathewen fire, stood up criticise the Nillumbik council.
"We've lost two people in my family because you dickheads won't cut trees down." Then of course, there is Liam Sheahan, the Reedy Creek home owner whose house is the only one in a two-kilometre area which survived the fires. In 2004 he was fined $50,000 for removing 247 trees around his hilltop house to protect it from fire. His two-year court battle against the Mitchell Shire Council cost him $50,000 in legal fees.
It is a rich irony that Slidders Lawyers last week launched a class action on behalf of fire victims at Kinglake, against the Singapore-owned electricity company SP AusNet, alleging the fire was caused by a fallen power line.
After all, it was only in 2001 that Transgrid bulldozed a 60-metre wide firebreak under its high-voltage lines in the Snowy Mountains. For that it was prosecuted by four government agencies, blasted for "environmental vandalism" by the then NSW premier Bob Carr, and fined $500,000.
Two years later, during the disastrous firestorm that engulfed the mountains, the offending firebreak became the only safe haven for kangaroos and workers constructing a fire trail. The sad truth of such holocausts is that the environmental toll ends up worse than the most vigorous prescribed burning regime ever could be.
Victoria's bushfires have spewed millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere - more than a third of Australia's entire output for a year, according to Sydney University's Professor Mark Adams.
No doubt the royal commission will recommend, like previous inquiries, that prescribed burning should be increased. After so many deaths will anyone listen this time?
[email protected]
</BOD>
Pete, I believe that every reasonable care should be taken to protect our environment but the message here seems to indicate that some groups are saying frequent(every few years is 'frequent'?) burn-off's will affect biodiversity. But in reality,where are we if,after such a calamitous disaster, there's nothing left alive to diversify?
Additionally, I have sent a donation to both the Australian Red Cross and,recently,to the animal rescue and care effort. If you just ask,the Red Cross will provide an e-mail list of those animal aid organizations that are the most needy at the current time. I have the list as well and will send it (PM me) if you would like to help.
A.J.
Additionally, I have sent a donation to both the Australian Red Cross and,recently,to the animal rescue and care effort. If you just ask,the Red Cross will provide an e-mail list of those animal aid organizations that are the most needy at the current time. I have the list as well and will send it (PM me) if you would like to help.
A.J.
Last edited:
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Al I have already donated, as have many around the world. Thanks.
Our politicians, from local councils right up to the Federal level only care about staying in power and getting votes and therefore pander to the green movement to get their preferences.
Most of the tree huggers are well meaning,(it is noble to look after the Fauna and flora) but most live in the cities and have N.F.I. about the country and what is required to keep all safe from fire, including the Koalas and Kangaroos. So they impose bans on clearing and burning off the underbrush, with the result we have just seen.
A much worse result for the trees and fauna they are trying to protect.
Let alone the human loss of life.
Our politicians, from local councils right up to the Federal level only care about staying in power and getting votes and therefore pander to the green movement to get their preferences.
Most of the tree huggers are well meaning,(it is noble to look after the Fauna and flora) but most live in the cities and have N.F.I. about the country and what is required to keep all safe from fire, including the Koalas and Kangaroos. So they impose bans on clearing and burning off the underbrush, with the result we have just seen.
A much worse result for the trees and fauna they are trying to protect.
Let alone the human loss of life.
I can see how it can be all too easy to fall into the trap of playing the blame game for the sake of blowing off some steam, but it really isn't a time for that. There will be an investigation and we will see if there is anything more that can be done to avoid this happening again in the future. I live in one of these fire prone areas and have been listening very closely to what has been said and what is being said now... purely from a self preservation point of view so political alignments are irrelevant to me.
From the little that has come out so far though the problem is not and has never been the lack of desire by authorities to conduct burn-offs. The two main hindrances have been (a) budget and (b) opportunity. I suspect that after the recent fires, the budget may be increased but that still leaves us with a problem of opportunity. Burn-offs can not be performed willy-nilly. Conditions have to be favorable otherwise you risk turning a controlled burn-off into an uncontrolled bushfire.
Unfortunately we have had 10 years of drought in this state that has progressively become worse with every year. This means that, not only do we get less favourable conditions during the year to conduct burnoffs, but we also get a bigger buildup of fuel which in turn means that the conditions must be even more favourable before burnoffs can begin.
As it stands at the moment, burnoffs are happening at about a third of the rate per year than has been targetted, purely for the reasons of opportunity. It has nothing to do with people standing in the way of doing what needs to be done.
And far as conservationism is concerned, the Australian bush MUST burn to regenerate. It has evolved to do exactly that, so even though you might get some misguided people saying that fires are bad for bio-diversity, it is unlikely that you will get any conservationists of note suggesting that fires are anything but necessary (but preferably controlled).
As someone who lives in these areas, we concede that a bush fire will at some stage come through our property but if we follow the advice handed down by such investigations, in all likelyhood the fires will pass over with minimal impact.
For what it's worth, to date, some of the early stories have been that many people perrished in their cars while trying to escape the fires only to find burning branches blocking the roadways. Early suggestions have been to prune overhanging branches from roadways in future, but of coarse that will have a major visual impact and possibly reduce the amount of tuorism in the area and so effect the local buisinesses. Hopefully this will all come out in the wash.
From the little that has come out so far though the problem is not and has never been the lack of desire by authorities to conduct burn-offs. The two main hindrances have been (a) budget and (b) opportunity. I suspect that after the recent fires, the budget may be increased but that still leaves us with a problem of opportunity. Burn-offs can not be performed willy-nilly. Conditions have to be favorable otherwise you risk turning a controlled burn-off into an uncontrolled bushfire.
Unfortunately we have had 10 years of drought in this state that has progressively become worse with every year. This means that, not only do we get less favourable conditions during the year to conduct burnoffs, but we also get a bigger buildup of fuel which in turn means that the conditions must be even more favourable before burnoffs can begin.
As it stands at the moment, burnoffs are happening at about a third of the rate per year than has been targetted, purely for the reasons of opportunity. It has nothing to do with people standing in the way of doing what needs to be done.
And far as conservationism is concerned, the Australian bush MUST burn to regenerate. It has evolved to do exactly that, so even though you might get some misguided people saying that fires are bad for bio-diversity, it is unlikely that you will get any conservationists of note suggesting that fires are anything but necessary (but preferably controlled).
As someone who lives in these areas, we concede that a bush fire will at some stage come through our property but if we follow the advice handed down by such investigations, in all likelyhood the fires will pass over with minimal impact.
For what it's worth, to date, some of the early stories have been that many people perrished in their cars while trying to escape the fires only to find burning branches blocking the roadways. Early suggestions have been to prune overhanging branches from roadways in future, but of coarse that will have a major visual impact and possibly reduce the amount of tuorism in the area and so effect the local buisinesses. Hopefully this will all come out in the wash.
