Thread: Bushfires near Tolmie

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

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.

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

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:

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

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.

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.

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