Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » AGW and climate change » Throw another Greenie on the Barbie…

Throw another Greenie on the Barbie…

Ah those loveable Greenies have blood upon the hands once again as the stories of how they made hazard reduction burns for all intents and purposes impossible to  get at the time when they could have been carried out safely:

Mr Arnold applied in August 2011 for a permit to spring burn some of the build-up of weeds and scrub undergrowth beneath blue gums covering Steele’s Hill that runs the length of his now-blackened 1000ha property.

He said it would have been a nice and steady little fire after winter that slowly crept through the bush, destroying the high fuel load.

He was knocked back because Steele’s Hill and its blue gums contained a wedgetail eagle’s nest and was classed as foraging habitat for the endangered swift parrot.

“I took that to mean that the bird might call in for lunch occasionally,” a frustrated Mr Arnold said yesterday.

“But I look at the devastation there today and ask where the Greens are? But they are more concerned about the pattern on their cappuccino in Salamanca than what has happened here on our farms this week.”

Mr Arnold said he could not say for sure that if he had been allowed to burn off Steele’s Hill in the springs of 2011 and 2012, that the bushfire could have been stopped on his farm before it roared down into the small Connelly’s Marsh beach community destroying more than 15 homes.

click for source

Its a story that we have heard before in relation to the terrible fires in Victoria a couple of years ago and I expect the very same lily livered  counter arguments  this time as we that were so unconvincingly mouthed then . We live in a nation that is covered with very flammable eucalyptus trees and we very clearly have a price to pay if we don’t have a fire  management regime that acknowledges that the only way to keep our homes  and our lives safe in the burning time is to reduce the fuel loads when it is safe to do so.

Maybe the only way we can do this is to throw another Greenie on the barbecue so that they will know what the people on the fire-fronts  have experienced…. Hmm  what is the best barbecue  sauce for long pig again?

Cheers Comrades

1519360_o

Advertisements

20 Comments

  1. I wonder how that wedgetail eagle is doing now! Like all loony left policies, it’s all about being seen to do something – and consequences be buggered. Kill hundreds of asylum seekers at sea in the guise of compassion? Destroy the environment in the name of environmentalism? Great! These watermelons really must be rank if they even fail at their own misguided aims!

  2. Ray Dixon says:

    These arguments are rolled out every time there’s a major bushfire. The reality is no amount of fuel reduction burning will reduce the intensity and ferocioty of a firestorm like they had in Tasmania. And like we had in Victoria on Black Saturday. There is no evidence to support them whatsoever. There is no evidence of any properties or lives being saved by fuel reduction burns. Zero. Zip. It’s all finger-pointing and wise-in-hindsight stuff. If you live in area like I do you know the truth of this. Eg. We had the entire Mt Buffalo State Park burned out in 2003 by the DSE who deliberately allowed several small bushfires to join up and become one massive 7 week long burn off. They devestated the whole mountain and surrounding areas. Then in 2006 (just 3 years later) it all burnt again. Same goes for Mt Hotham. Fuel reduction burns are just feel good actions for the fire-obsessed. They just give the DSE something to do and a justification for their existence.

  3. Brian says:

    As a friend of mine rather crudely put it, fuel reduction stops the risk of bushfires like waxing your bikini line stops the risk of crabs.

    I am only in favour of fuel reduction and backburning if it helps to keep roads and thoroughfares accessible. Otherwise it’s fairly pointless. Australia is a country that is periodically destroyed and renewed by bushfires, something the Greens seem to have forgotten.

  4. Iain Hall says:

    Ray
    The thing about hazard reduction burning is that you have to keep it up and try to ensure that the fuel load is at its lowest when the weather is at its worst, how you can claim that “it makes no difference” totally eludes me.\

    Brian
    If one wished to avoid pubic lice then the only trimming that will work would have to be a Brazilian wax, rather like hazard reduction burns, when you think about it do a good job and the lice or the fire have nowhere to go 😉

  5. Ray Dixon says:

    It makes no difference, Iain, because, firstly, the bush grows back very quickly and even thicker after a burnoff. Secondly, the odds of a fire starting, or going through, any fuel reduction area (within a few years of the fuel reduction burn) are about the same chances you have of winning the lotto. It’s a bloody big country and you can’t possibly burn off all the likely firespots within a reasonable time frame. And thirdly, the fuel reductions are only effective against slow-moving (ie non-threatening) fires. If it’s a firestorm then it just doesn’t matter how little fuel is on the floor.

  6. Treeman says:

    Ray Dixon
    JANUARY 11, 2013 AT 1:19 PM

    “It makes no difference, Iain, because, firstly, the bush grows back very quickly and even thicker after a burnoff. Secondly, the odds of a fire starting, or going through, any fuel reduction area (within a few years of the fuel reduction burn) are about the same chances you have of winning the lotto. It’s a bloody big country and you can’t possibly burn off all the likely firespots within a reasonable time frame. And thirdly, the fuel reductions are only effective against slow-moving (ie non-threatening) fires. If it’s a firestorm then it just doesn’t matter how little fuel is on the floor”

    You clearly have no idea about land management. There is no evidence that the bush grows back very quickly and even thicker after a burnoff and I’ll be delighted if you can provide some.

    Secondly, your statement that ” the odds of a fire starting, or going through, any fuel reduction area (within a few years of the fuel reduction burn) are about the same chances you have of winning the lotto” suggests that fuel load reduction works. Own goal Ray!

    Thirdly, fuel load reductions in critical urban encroachments and rehabilitated corridors (wicks in fire management language) will help to prevent firestorms starting in the first place.

    Lastly, your simplified analysis misses the point that fuel reduction burns are traditionally carried out in the cooler weather but the impacts of them are felt in the tree canopy which negatively impacts on how a crown fire carries in the following summer.

    I’m with Iain Here, there needs to be a reversal of the lock up and protect policies and Australians need to take a long hard look at rural lifestyle choices.

  7. I think it depends on the amount of rainfall with regard to understorey regeneration and how rapid that may or may not be. I’m of two minds about regular (yearly) fuel reduction cold burns. The areas in which I do my botany work have not seen fire for decades – if ever, so I really am in no position to say whether there is a long-term affect on some flora species. I suspect fire reduction burns would impact on various insect species, many of which may be reproducing when the burns are undertaken. I know some orchids thrive on a burn, yet it may impede upon the growth of others. Too little is known, in my opinion. Having said that, I appreciate much more damage is inflicted on flora and fauna during an intense fire.

    Treeman, I believe it’s the semi-rural tree-huggers choosing to escape an urban environment – and others (Greens) who have managed to shape stupid policies, establishment of stupid semi-rural sub-divisions and formation of stupid council regulations to cater to their whims, rather than those living the true rural lifestyle.

  8. Just for Ray’s amusement: DSE (Department Sustainability & Environment) = Department of Sparks & Embers. Their record with regard to fire management is not what one would call sterling! Whenever the Department lights up within 50 km from my home, I enact my bushfire plan!

  9. Iain Hall says:

    rain-at-myplace.jpg
    This is my place among the gum trees Fiona and we have lived here for thirteen years and in this area our local fire brigade do as much hazard reduction burning as they can manage and as a result our risks of a big fire are somewhat lower than other areas. When I was fitter I was a member and I have seen first hand what a difference there is between a fire where there has been none for years and one in an area that is burnt regularity. The former can be really scary and the later is much milder.

  10. Gorgeous outlook, Iain. I’d be interested to know what studies have been undertaken on regrowth frequency of common and rare botany species known to be in the area and over what time frame. I still think not enough research has been undertaken with regard to impact on all known species regrowth after repeated fuel reduction burns. I do know there is some concern some orchid species have a hard time getting a leg up when understorey regrowth is dense because of hazard reduction fires. They can be starved of light.

    So much to learn – and so little time!

    By the way, I compliment you on your header nature photos on this site. They are lovely.

  11. Iain Hall says:

    They are all taken by yours truly except for the girl on a surf board The tawny frog mouths are a big favourite of mine bird wise, The beach is at Hat Head in NSW and the Flowers are from my Garden.

  12. I love landing on the Tawny. I have them here. Somewhere, I have a photo of a juvenile sitting on the top rail of my horse enclosure in broad daylight. I think it missed its cue when the sun came up! I have not been able to find the shot. I also suspect it could be on a floppy and thus, now probably lost to technology advancement – without involvement of considerable pain – and faffing about!

  13. Iain Hall says:

    You are right about them being nocturnal but during the day they rely on staying still and their camouflage to stay safe

  14. I hear the oom, oom, oom’s a lot when I’m out and about. I find it quite relaxing and comforting, believe it or not. Usually, I am busy staring at the ground rather than following the sound to the relevant tree! I’ll try to lift my game this year!

  15. Craig says:

    I use to live in temperate forest in WA, back in the day when we had fire reduction, or back burning as we use to call it, occurred every 12 months, every property, residential, farms, and commonwealth lands, every time there was a wild fire the local fire brigade were able to put it out. Then 7 years ago the greenie type infested the local councils of this area, permits to burn on your property and no back burning the forrest. Well houses were lost after 6 years of fuel build up.

    It’s pretty simple mathematics really even when it comes to ecology, it seems the progs won’t take notice, even when the reality of lost homes or human death takes place.

    Another point Aboriginals have been burning the land for thousands of years to the point it has moulded the evolution of the flora, and I suspect fauna. The smoke and heat is needed in many plants reproduction life cycles, due to Australia’s poor soil the nutrients from the burn off is needed for many plants to complete a life cycle.

  16. GD says:

    Great comment, Craig, but will the Green/Lefties listen to it? How many more lives, animals and homes must be lost before we wake up to the insanity of Greens policy?

  17. Treeman says:

    GD, the worm always turns! Even though anti back burning, climate change and “wick building” rehabilitation policies are entrenched at council level, the WWF infiltrates farming groups and agenda 21 pops up in council policy documents, the dismantling has begun. Case in Question is Newman’s insistence that Anna Bligh’s husband begin dismantling green energy programs he helped create. Withers eventually resigned and I’m looking forward to similar initiatives from Tony Abbott when Gillard goes.

  18. Ray Dixon says:

    At least Fiona takes a pragmatic approach to the ‘benefits’ of fuel reduction burns. I agree that there is not enough known about the detrimental effects the burns have on the ecology and the drying out of the forest floor – hint: the undergrowth and leaf mulch actually keeps moisture in the ground and helps keep the trees from drying out and becoming so prone to bursting into flames. Anyway, “Treeman” (and Iain), the onus is on you to provide proof that fuel reduction burns save properties and lives, not on me to prove they don’t. As I said earlier there is no suchproof. Fuel reduction burns are an over-simplistic, feel-good fire prevention method that can never stop bushfires from doing what they do … additionally, it’s impossible to effectively implement a burn program that covers anything but a tiny fraction of our forests. It’s all just part of the bureaucratic DSE fire-industry expansion program. It’s a con.

  19. Treeman says:

    “It’s all just part of the bureaucratic DSE fire-industry expansion program. It’s a con.”
    Too bad burning off has been going on long before DSE were even thought of…

    Agree on the difficulty of covering more than a tiny fraction of our forests, but that’s not the point. It’s the fringe areas inhabited by folk who choose to live there and the “wicks” around and intruding into the urban interface that need to be managed.

    People who farm marginally in the bush and on the plains have the choice to manage fire hazard or not. Those who choose not to do so at their peril.

  20. Tel says:

    Yeah, if only those land owners would step up and take responsibility for their private property and “manage the hazard”… oh wait, some of them tried to take responsibility.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/01/in-australia-if-you-try-to-clear-a-firebreak-on-your-land-you-could-go-to-gaol/

    Choice… yeah, that’s it, choice.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: