Bushfires near Tolmie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ernknot

I wonder how many greenies and tree huggers are up there saving the trees?????

---

In our local brigades there's a good representation of "greenie" tree huggers, or rather tree planters. We're working with the local treeplanting group to establish green firebreak corridors of rainforest trees which will eventually choke out the guinea grass and form a series of permanent fire breaks.

Heard yesterday that there's been some North Queensland rural firefighters head down south to help with the fires. My name used to be on the list but unfortunately I can't go as I can't leave SWMBO (seriously sick and needs me as carer). Hope weahter conditions improve for all the fire affected areas, but also that perhaps lessons will be learnt and local brigades and other management groups will be able to more easily get permission to conduct hazard reduction burns. I've spoken to NSW rurals who tell me it's not uncommon to wait three years to get permission. That's a lot of fuel that has the potential to create havoc and destrot lives and property.

I'll get off my soap box now.;)

Hope you and Meg are well Rob and that the fires settle down.

Mick

smoke in Mansfield (near woodborer).

Smoke in the outer east big smoke looking at the hill between Gumby and me. Any chance you left the stove on Gumby? :D

:o oops, sorry about that

The smoke is virtually non existent tonight. I may get an early night for a change as the wind is quiet also.

Here we have been getting the blame for the smoke in Melbourne when it is all Gumby's fault.:(

Meg was in Melbourne today and said it is clearer here than down there.

Glad to see it ease up for you guys, get a good nights rest!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wood Borer

The smoke is virtually non existent tonight. I may get an early night for a change as the wind is quiet also.

Here we have been getting the blame for the smoke in Melbourne when it is all Gumby's fault.:(

Meg was in Melbourne today and said it is clearer here than down there.

---

Good to hear Rob, batching for a couple of days, mate :D

Glad things have eased a bit for you.

Sounds good Rob.

We've had a bit of rain here tonight but not enough to bury those flames unfortunately, even if it gets to you.

Get some rest while you can. I think it's going to be a long summer. At least a lot of fuel has been taken away so the chances of you being threatened again would be much less than a few weeks ago.

I can't believe that they are busy making new containment lines around our major water supplies like the Thompson dam. Why wouldn't you do it well before now ? Why wait until it's almost too late. :mad:

We've had a couple of spots of rain tonight - the smell of the rain on the dry soil is wonderful.

Tomorrow will be a testing time.

The poor people South of here in Gippsland are really copping it and a couple of the fires are suspected as being lit intentionally.

What would you do if you caught up with such people?

I'd take them for a sail across Bass Strait and discover in the morning that they must have fallen overboard during the night watch, the main boom can knock you overboard even on a calm night:eek:

Of course if the poor dears didn't fancy the water and sailing, we could go for a trip across the Simpson Desert - must have wandered off and left their water behind:rolleyes:

Mutton Birding on Chappell Island in Bass Strait is fun too - they say the variant of Tiger snakes over there are more lethal than the ones on the mainland - I tried to use my mobile to call that emergency number 999, that's the number in the movies, but the venom did it's magic before the recorded message had finished playing.

Those poor arsonists with their brains in a knot should be shown compassion and I bags being first in line to show them compassion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gumby

.................I can't believe that they are busy making new containment lines around our major water supplies like the Thompson dam. Why wouldn't you do it well before now ? Why wait until it's almost too late. :mad:

---

Gumby,
unfortunately in most states it's now not possible to conduct hazard reduction burns etc until a state of emergency exists (or you have all the neccesary forms filled out, in triplicate, of course, and signed off by all the relevant government departments:rolleyes: ) It basically comes down to the philosophy with which bush fire fighting is approached, there's two basic philosophies: fuel reduction and fire suppression.
Fire suppression says "fire is bad mmkay" and you must extinguish any fire immediately (or quicker, if possible)
Fuel reduction says "well, until we can totally prevent all sources of ignition (arsonists, broken glass in the sun, sparks from machinery, fallen power lines, lightening strikes and carelessly thrown cigarette butts etc etc) then we have to accept that fires will occur, so therefore we need to reduce the fuel load to decrease fire intensity and danger.

Fire suppression means that fire departments can get lots of money for helicopters etc and run around looking like heroes.

Fuel reduction means people have to do alot of dirty unglamourous work, strategically burning off bits of the countryside which doesn't make them look like heroes and tends to make them unpopular with lots of people who ca't understand the rationale and who don't like the smoke it produces.

Guess which approach is gaining popularity?:(

Mick

But it was the experts that almost destroyed Wilsons Prom during a fuel reduction burn with strong winds blowing the wrong (or right) way.
They are called 'Science Officers' and look at charts and computers and refuse to acknowledge that there is adverse conditions, because the charts say it shouldn't be happening.

Hi WoodBorer,

Yep, the smell of rain is beautiful!

I would be tempted to chain them up in the path of a fire ..... tempted only though:rolleyes:

Iain,
granted they do make mistakes, but it's got a lot to do with putting people in uniforms and putting gold braid on their shoulders etc, they tend to get convinced by all the hype. We had a similar case here last fire season where a permanent urban officer ordered the lighting of a backburn when the wildfire was all but extinguished and the control line was nothing more than the grass flattened down and hosed down. Middle of a hot, dry, windy day and the landholder advising against lighting it up, but the "professional" insisted. I doubt you'd find many volunteers that pig headed and convinced of their own infallibility.:rolleyes:

I still reckon that unless you can remove all sources of ignition then wild fires will continue to be a fact of life. In which case the best way of protecting lives, property and the environment is to reduce the fuel load.

Mick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by journeyman Mick

I still reckon that unless you can remove all sources of ignition then wild fires will continue to be a fact of life. In which case the best way of protecting lives, property and the environment is to reduce the fuel load.

Mick

---

agree Mick but in this Green decade, we can't. It might disturb the habitat of the frill necked spikey tailed yellow tongued beetle.

Of course, a bad fire destroys it anyway.

Biodiversity is just as important as fuel reduction but for different reasons. The planet is already heading towards mass extinctions of non- humans with a cetacean being declared extinct this week.

Even if you don't give a stuff about other creatures surely you realize that not caring for the environment will (is) result in more fires through climate change.

shaun

Shaun,
not sure where you're coming from with your biodiversity comments. (ie hazard reduction is good/bad for biodiversity?) Granted, fire is a very powerful tool and needs to be used very carefully in order not to change the flora make-up of an area, but it's well documented (and painfully obvious) that a really hot wildfire will totally destroy the entire ecosystem of an area, animals and plants, including the usually fire resistant eucalypts. I just reckon it's a real "head in the sand" approach to try to keep fire out of most of the Australian countryside. It will just result in bigger, hotter and more destructive fires.

Mick

We can debate fuel reduction all we like the biggest problem at the moment is that everything is so damn dry. The fires are burning bush that was knocked out in 2003. The problem being that those fires had such intense heat that the Euc's ended up destroyed in some areas and a dense under storey has developed free of any overhead canopy. Some of the bushies I have spoken to believe wild life in those damaged areas have all but disappeared.

We really need cool burns to reduce fuel loads and allow the animals to survive. The biggest risk to the flora and fauna is uncontrolled wild fire totally destroying habitat and everything living. I don't even pretend to have an answer, but it will lie in managed burns and wet years. Little Johnny has let us down badly on climate change and the effects of his blind ignorance on the enviromental and economic impact of a drier climate will be felt for decades, his legacy on the world stage will be ten wasted years following the U.S. lead on climate (or lack there of).

Shaun

Which Cetacean was declared extinct this week & and would it have been saved if fuel reduction in Australia had been carried out over the last two or three years as was the case 20 years ago
I would seriously Doubt if anyone on this forum didn't give a STUFF about other creatures or was not caring for the enviroment but I personally think that some of those not caring for the enviroment are those who through political or other means stop hazard ( fuel ) reduction against the advice of the local people who have in some cases managed the land for Generations . :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashore

Shaun

Which Cetacean was declared extinct this week & and would it have been saved if fuel reduction in Australia had been carried out over the last two or three years as was the case 20 years ago
I would seriously Doubt if anyone on this forum didn't give a STUFF about other creatures or was not caring for the enviroment but I personally think that some of those not caring for the enviroment are those who through political or other means stop hazard ( fuel ) reduction against the advice of the local people who have in some cases managed the land for Generations . :confused:

---

See baiji.org for more details on the The Baiji Yangtze Dolphin which is now considered functionally extinct. The dolphin's fate would not have changed by anything to do with fuel reduction, but that is out of context. I was refering to Gumby's It might disturb the habitat of the frill necked spikey tailed yellow tongued beetle quote.

As Jonc said, the main problem at the moment is just how dry everything is already. This is a direct result of the drought and climate change. Fires are not only harder to fight, they are more common, more dangerous and can't be put out. We have a situation where the fires can eventually be contained, but still burn within containment lines for weeks. All volunteers and pro firies are stuffed, completely exhausted from days and days of this. Also frustrated by ^%$#wits lighting up for fun and inconsiderate people chucking out butts, etc.

Fuel reduction, as I said, is important, but when are you going to do it? There is a fine line (and getting smaller) between having the fuel too wet to burn and too dry to burn safely. Who is going to do it? The volunteers are already over worked and really don't need to be mopping up countless hundreds of hectares all night. Who is going to pay for it?

I live in South Australia, our spring prescribed burn season this year was basically pointless as the fire danger period was bought forward to 15/10. We managed some burns, but nothing that really made a huge difference (well, a large burn of the east side of Dangahli helped during the recent lightning strikes). We had heaps being burnt in late winter on northern slopes that spotted which is just ridiculous.

Fuel reduction is a very important part of fire management, but will become less so as the burn season shrinks to nothing due to climate change. We now need to focus on new strategies to fight fires as direct attack used to be effective, but now it is just too dangerous. Our local authority, the CFS, are now doing far more backburns and using a great deal more aircraft to keep the hot stuff away from the people in yellow. Most of our fuel around here is cured already and firies will die this year. The only way to make things better for the future is to somehow sort out the environmental problems so that it rains again and lightning occurs with wet stuff, etc.

Everyone needs to do their bit to help, whether it is making sandwiches for firies, planting trees, teaching kids, influencing polies, voting, volunteering or cleaning up their gutters.

Shaun

Hey Wood Borer.... are you extinct yet?
How are the fires in your area?

Just noticed this news article which talks a little about climate change and fires.

shaun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sbranden

Fuel reduction, as I said, is important, but when are you going to do it? There is a fine line (and getting smaller) between having the fuel too wet to burn and too dry to burn safely. Who is going to do it? The volunteers are already over worked and really don't need to be mopping up countless hundreds of hectares all night. Who is going to pay for it?

---

Fuel reduction wouldn't be needed to the same extent as it is now if they let the 4WD's and cattle back in to the National Parks. They all did their bit to keep the tracks clear. But, no, the Green gods insist that we are not to enjoy the wilderness close up. Just from a distance. Perish the thought of breaking a twig.

You can't even remove debris from the roadside without being sent to Guantanamo Bay for 5 years.:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gumby

Fuel reduction wouldn't be needed to the same extent as it is now if they let the 4WD's and cattle back in to the National Parks. They all did their bit to keep the tracks clear. But, no, the Green gods insist that we are not to enjoy the wilderness close up. Just from a distance. Perish the thought of breaking a twig.

You can't even remove debris from the roadside without being sent to Guantanamo Bay for 5 years.:rolleyes:

---

Gumby, the issue we have is a result of stuffing around with he environment. Cattle do not belong in national parks, and people can visit delicate areas on foot. We have to take care of what is left or risk further damaging the environment/ climate. We have caused huge damage to the planet and the creatures/ plants that we proclaim mastership over deserve our help.

shaun

I claim mastership over no creature.

It seems only bureaucrat's are naive enough for that.

Fire has an unpredictability that only my wife can match. I dont know which one is more destructive though.

Pete

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sbranden

We have caused huge damage to the planet and the creatures/ plants that we proclaim mastership over deserve our help.

shaun

---

All creatures have rights, especially rats according to one local council when a ratepayer complained about a rats problem where they where coming out of a councils drain and they refused to bait the drain.:mad:

IMO the rights of people surpasses all right of other creatures and plants. In fact certain animals should be hunted down and destroyed, eg. sharks, crocodiles, possums and cats.


Peter.

Geez Peter

I reckon you are being a bit harsh. Crocodiles are good for thinning out pesky tourists!

Pete

Quote:

---

Fuel reduction, as I said, is important, but when are you going to do it? There is a fine line (and getting smaller) between having the fuel too wet to burn and too dry to burn safely. Who is going to do it? The volunteers are already over worked and really don't need to be mopping up countless hundreds of hectares all night. Who is going to pay for it?

---

There is a lot of 'correct things" in the above quote... but the incorrect things is with respect to the volunteers, and 'pay for it'.... not having a go at Shaun... but at the system and its masters, instead.

I think it is ridiculous that we are relying on a large amount of volunteers to control these 'wildfires'.... thank God for the volunteers, and they are all champions in my view, but.... I think its time to put some of these people in full time employment, doing both fuel reduction and fire season fighting.
I'm not proposing that the volunteers are 'done away with' - frankly I think they should get a medal and a ticker tape parade, but they should be strengthened with more resources.

A large and committed labour force has been removed from forests with the removal of logging - bringing in a lot of paid, full time (or better yet - job share), positions to the CFA would go some way to redressing this.


As to "pay for it" - if the landowners (Fed and State Govt entities) don't get serious and sort their management out, then frankly they should be taken to court and made to be personally responsible.
I've heard a lot of excuses as to why fuel reduction burns were not done in Vic over the last 5 years... most are to do with lack of $ and lack of staff. I also think that the "foxes are running the chicken coop" and the lack of burns are due to moronic politics.

Perhaps its time that they stump up the $ to correctly manage the land, and if they can't then it will probably take political action to fix the problem. Trouble is.... if it doesn't involve a tax cut, most people don't give a stuff about it. As far as I'm concerned irresponsible fire management is worse for the environment than a 75 - 100 year forestry rotation.

As usual, most of the crud is caused by idiot humans allowing the pendulum to swing too wildly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sbranden

Cattle do not belong in national parks, and people can visit delicate areas on foot.

---

In Victoria's Alpine National Park we had cattle prior to it being declared a National Park, the suddenly it was PI (politically incorrect) and the poor buggers running these animals on Government leaseholds had to find a new home for several thousand head of cattle.
So it was instant loss of income for the farmers, loss of income for the government and total chaos for everyone else.
Bloody greenie crap, it really gets up my nose watching the Kombi driving cretins protesting for rights for blowflies or whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iain

In Victoria's Alpine National Park we had cattle prior to it being declared a National Park, the suddenly it was PI (politically incorrect) and the poor buggers running these animals on Government leaseholds had to find a new home for several thousand head of cattle.
So it was instant loss of income for the farmers, loss of income for the government and total chaos for everyone else.
Bloody greenie crap, it really gets up my nose watching the Kombi driving cretins protesting for rights for blowflies or whatever.

---

I guess you would prefer it all either running cattle for your burgers or concreted to stop those pesky critters and fires. I personally want my kids to know what a bird is, not just see them in pictures. Climate change is a direct result of people acting for short term goals and profit over long term sustainability. As a Gippsland resident you are seeing the result of that first hand, but still can't associate the two.

shaun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sbranden

. I personally want my kids to know what a bird is,

---

That is typical Green hyper-rubbish and over the top scare mongering.

Sorry Shaun, but it's you and the Green bunch which just don't get it !

Now I'm outa here because I think we've all made our points and it's getting off the topic and a bit heated.

Actually Gumby, it's you that isn't getting it - my kids don't know the wealth of birds I knew as a kid (it's all sparrows and minors now) and my youngest will never see the butterfly invasions that were an annual part of my childhood (haven't had one here in ten years - literally, the last one was the year I moved to this area).

This is a fragile land we live in and stuffing it around with imported animals and imported management ideas hasn't helped in the slightest. I'm guessing you're one of those who complains about people who have undergrowth right up to their houses and then wonder why it gets burnt in a bush fire (if you aren't, you should be). The use of the land, running hard footed beasts or leaving it to run without clearing, are all part of the problem. BOTH sides are at fault here and if we're ever going to get it right, all sides have to accept that the other's ideas have merit and that many of our past practices, and probably quite of few recent 'fixes', aren't good for this land and need modifying.

Richard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daddles

I'm guessing you're one of those who complains about people who have undergrowth right up to their houses and then wonder why it gets burnt in a bush fire (if you aren't, you should be).

---

Guess again. :rolleyes:

I spent a number of years in the high country with the conservation department as it was then and never saw a decline in bird or wildlife numbers, the cattle and the wildlife seemed to cohabitate without conflict, as did native flora.
Unfortunately the department seemed to be overcome by wildlife wankers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iain

I spent a number of years in the high country with the conservation department as it was then and never saw a decline in bird or wildlife numbers, the cattle and the wildlife seemed to cohabitate without conflict, as did native flora.
Unfortunately the department seemed to be overcome by wildlife wankers.

---

Well I guess we need to agree to disagree. You obviously can't believe that the Conservation Department could have an interest in conserving wildlife and I can't understand why a native of Gippsland would not correlate fire behavior with environmental damage.

All the best to you and yours

shaun (proud to be a wildlife wanker)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iain

I spent a number of years in the high country with the conservation department as it was then and never saw a decline in bird or wildlife numbers, the cattle and the wildlife seemed to cohabitate without conflict, as did native flora.

---

What crap. Ever since white man has come to Australia, native wildlife has become extinct. Nearly a 3rd of the species that were here when white man came have become extinct or are extremely threatened.

I'm a wildlife wanker too, and loving it.

Humans are doomed if we continue to think that we are above nature. It's a pity that we'll drag the rest of the worlds species with us.

Lets not get personal in this thread please.

Iain, if you have something to say, perhaps you might get a better hearing if you were less derogatory to anyone who might have an opinion you dislike.

Wildlife wankers and climate change wankers, "greenies" have copped a lot of flak for many years, but now some of their predictions are coming horribly true right in front of our noses.

We can argue the small points, but what is becoming increasingly obvious is that they have been pretty right about the big picture, and unless something is done for the big picture, and soon, our kids' kids are going to be living in a very different world.

Many of us are still in denial, are we going to wait until it's too late?

woodbe.

Quote:

---

Many of us are still in denial, are we going to wait until it's too late?

---

Yes. No doubt about it.