Bushfires near Tolmie

I think we are seeing the pendulum swing here....
so much bitter politics has been played that commonsense has left.
The bitter replies above illustrate the divide.

In the meantime, catastrophic fires belt through 500, 000 hectares, cleaning up everything in its path.
Not too many birds and butterflies and other animals will survive, and its 500, 000 hectars that will be in a sorry state for quite a few years.

Regardless of the politics, it doesn't excuse the shocking levels of fuel load that have been allowed to accumulate.

Clinton, it's not about politics, it's about the planet...

Do me a favour, take the politics, environmental & otherwise, to Nothing To Do With Woodwork, or Open Slather if you want no holds barred.

This thread was a good source to keep up with the impact of the bushfires on friends of many of us on these forums, I'd ask that it return to same, start another thread elsewhere if you want to discuss other issues.


Cheers..................Sean

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scooter

Do me a favour, take the politics, environmental & otherwise, to Nothing To Do With Woodwork, or Open Slather if you want no holds barred.

This thread was a good source to keep up with the impact of the bushfires on friends of many of us on these forums, I'd ask that it return to same, start another thread elsewhere if you want to discuss other issues.


Cheers..................Sean

---

ummm, http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com...bits_start.gif Woodwork Forums > NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH WOODWORK > NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH WOODWORK > Bushfires near Tolmie

I guess you are right about this not being about the impact of fire on friends, but it is certainly about why the fires are impacting on people so badly.

shaun

Shaun, take the hint.


Regards.............Sean, moderator

so start a new thread

We are letting this one run its course. Be warned that if it gets personal, infractions will be handed out.

Just so long as infarctions aren't handed out. :eek: :eek:

woodbe, it is about politics.
Without politics being involved, nothing gets done.... global warming isn't buying enough votes at the moment - so nothing gets done at a political level.
Cattle were removed from Nat Parks because is was politically expedient.
Logging is closed down - politically expedient.
CFA is the only real level of bushfire protection - funding of the CFA is done by politicians.



Anyway, think I'll respect Sean's wishes, although I'll be happy to participate in any other thread on the subject. Seeya elsewhere ;)

Settle down children, cattle in the high country, or not as the case may be have no bearing on this fire. If we want to get serious lets look at imported plants, and animals, especially cats, birds such as the Indian Miner and the fox. It would be great to see a dedicated force let loose to destroy blackberries, thistles and everything else you come across in the bush. We can't return our native forests to what they were before settlement but we can manage them better.

Our enviroment is constantly changing with or without human intervention, its just that some of the human part of it is so destructive. It's time we took a bigger look than just bitching about who is or is not a greenie and just which side boasts the larger amount of wankers on their team.

We could start to give some thought about the energy effeciency of our homes, the amount of power consumed by appliances on standby. Our insatiable need for consumer goods, and most of us toy (tool) collectors are part of that. Ever larger homes it goes on and on, but we do need to think about the next couple of decades. Recycling of household water, less thirsty motor vehicles there is a lot that can be acheived if we all just gave it a bit of thought, without some of the emotion and bile that have appeared on this thread which does no one here much credit. The governments claim that we can't sacrifice our cheap power is just Howard speak for sod off we can't be bothered thinking about it. If anyone has noticed industry is starting to think about the enviroment and is ready to engage with the government to move towards some common approach, generally more efficient production involves initial investment then cheaper costs. Our tax system favours the speculators with tax discounts on capital gains from their plays. At the same time investoring in productive capacity get fully tax and a pathetic write down rate on capital investment. It is the later that provides employment for us all.

If you want to see enviromental improvement it will require a different view to taxation, Governmental leadership, and someone with the ability to absorb the populations views and needs and steer them in a positive direction. We don't have that leadership at the moment.

Perhaps the next posts can take us back to the fires which last Thursday saw Sale have nightfall at 4.00.p.m. in the afternoon, followed by black rain and dawn around 8.00.p.m. which really confused the birds. The town has not seen such a line ups at the car wash in years.


John.

Contentious isue, isn't it? :D
Okay, just to clarify things somewhat:
I'm commited to sustainable paractices and biodiversity, hell my family was into all that stuff 35 years ago, well before it was trendy. Bought a large parcel of played out farmland and gave it back to the wildlife. We shot the local dogs that were hunting down the sweet faced wallabies and pademelons (didn't that make us popular :D ) and let the rainforest take over the paddocks. Because this is a high rainfall area that was origianlly covered by rainforest species we kept fire out and eventually all the grass was shaded out and the fire risk today is negligible. Warning! Don't try this in a low rainfall area (ie most of the rest of Australia;) )

The point I, and others have been trying to make is that it's no point putting aside an area for conservation and then letting a huge hot fire run through it because a high fuel load has been allowed to build up. A fire like this will kill pretty much everything thereby doing more damage than all the cattle grazing, motorbikes and 4wds combined.

This approach is often taken by what some people would term as "wildlife wankers" :eek: . Now I try to avoid labels and putting all people of a certain "category" in the same basket, so to speak. Yes, some "greenies" are total idiots and some from the other end of the spectrum are just as one eyed. To illustrate a point though consider the following:

Our local group of brigades organised a large combined exercise which would involve burning the main roads reserve along quite a few kms of highway. Main roads agreed to fund the cost of constructing breaks (2 blade widths of a 'dozer) along their reserve. The rationale was that by burning the road reserve we would prevent fire spreading from the road side to surrounding farms and reserve areas. This is a common occurence with fires being either deliberately or accidently lit along the highway every fire season.

Everything was going well until an environmental officer from Main roads got involved. :rolleyes: There is a large environmental reserve adjoining the road reserve at one point. The environmental officer ordered the road crew not to construct the fire break next to the environmental reserve. The fire warden tried to explain that the break was being made on the road reserve side of the fence and for the express purpose of keeping fire OUT of the environmental reserve.
Environmental officer said she didn't want any fire near the reserve.
Warden explained again that without the break any fires lit next to the road would run through the reserve.
Environmental officer said she didn't want any fire near the reserve.
Warden explained that without the break the fire we would be lighting would burn the reserve.
Environmental officer said she didn't want any fire near the reserve.
Warden got sick of arguing the point and said that as covered by relevant legislation which over rode that which the environmental officer was working under he would order the construction of a fire break and send the bill to main roads.

We eventually burnt the highway reserve, a nice slow, low intensity fire and for the last two and a half years we haven't had any fires succesfully lit along that stretch of highway.

To those people who say that we shouldn't conduct fuel reduction burns I ask:

"Do you advocate that any fires that are started by lightning strikes should be allowed to burn unchecked until they self extinguish?"

See, that's the (il)logical conclusion of the hands off approach. Before man came to Australia lightening strikes would have started fires which would have burnt unchecked until rain, lack of fuel or possibly large rivers stopped them. This would have reduced the fuel load.

When the Aboriginal came with the fire stick they changed the make up of the environment.

When European settlement came it changed the environment even more.

We can't turn back the clock and make it the paradise it once was. Not unless we embark on a huge reforestation scheme, knock down all the buildings and dams and try to find new offshore homes for about 20 million people.:rolleyes: We can try to find the best way to manage what we have, to ensure minimal environmental impact, to avoid habitat loss etc etc etc. In other words to manage what we have and try to accomodate the needs of all the humans, animals and plants that live here. (well most of them, we could probably do without most of the politicians:D ) In other words we need to manage the environment. And fire, wisely used, is an excellent management tool.

The day they take that tool away from volunteer fire fighters will be the day I hang up my yellow overalls.

So to all those who say that we shouldn't conduct fuel reduction burns I say, put your money where your mouth is (and your life on the line) and join a rural fire brigade to combat the monster fires we will have when fuel reduction is stopped.

Mick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sbranden

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sbranden

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

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)

---

A lot of rhetoric, but little substance in these quotes.

I fail to see how we can categorically state that we have completely ruined the environment with 200 years of habitation. Furthermore the ones blamed for the ruination are those with a vested interest in seeing its sustainability. These people are being blamed by feelgooders with no ideas of their own or worse, those with another agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by journeyman Mick

So to all those who say that we shouldn't conduct fuel reduction burns I say, put your money where your mouth is (and your life on the line) and join a rural fire brigade to combat the monster fires we will have when fuel reduction is stopped.

Mick

---

Mick, good post. I am just trying to work out who said we shouldn't have fuel reduction burns.

shaun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by outback

I fail to see how we can categorically state that we have completely ruined the environment with 200 years of habitation.

---

Outback, happy to discuss this, as I'm sure others are, but not in this thread. The Mods have said please leave this thread for the Tolmie fires and friends there...

woodbe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sbranden

Mick, good post. I am just trying to work out who said we shouldn't have fuel reduction burns.

shaun

---

Shaun,
there's a very vocal green faction that says so, plus lots of rural residential dwellers who don't like their washing getting smoky.:rolleyes: As recounted above there's at least one government employed environmental officer up here who sees all fire as bad and is blinded to commonsense by this.

So if we've established that fuel reduction is neccesary then we need to look at the different methods. So cattle have been closed out of the alpine areas - this may or may not be a good thing for that environment. I don't know the area or the needs of alpine environments. Up here though, in rainforest regeneration areas, cattle grazing can be a good management tool for fuel reduction. Occasional introduction of cattle at appropriate times will reduce the fuel load (grasses) and prevent/minimize fire damage to the fire sensitive rainforest species. In many cases they will have less impact than fire as a fuel reduction tool.

So there"s not a one size fits all solution for environmental management. Unfortunately lots of people get really one eyed about it all. However, there's one barrow I'll continue to push, and that is that unless the managers of our environment learn from these fires and implement a strategy of fuel reduction rather than fire supression we will continue to have fires and they will get more intense and more wide spread even without the added drying effects of climate change.

Mick