The Forum > Article Comments > The politics of bushfires > Comments
The politics of bushfires : Comments
By Mark Poynter, published 18/3/2009Black Saturday Royal Commission must examine the influence of the ‘green’ culture on forest fire management.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- Page 2
- 3
-
- All
Posted by examinator, Wednesday, 18 March 2009 3:09:48 PM
| |
The green's are in denial by refusing to entertain that government policies which prescribed no clearing of vegetation, which built up to dangerous levels were primarily responsible for the bush fires.
Posted by Dallas, Wednesday, 18 March 2009 6:33:27 PM
| |
It appears the author has taken a hatchet job to the greenies in this article but the more we punters read about bushfires, the less we seem to know.
Amateur historians have even blamed the greenies for the devastating bushfires during 1961 around Dwellingup in Western Australia. One irate poster elsewhere claims he’s been saving for fifteen years to transport all “greenie retards” to Cuba and so far he’s raised the grand sum of $26.93 – not much but maybe if we pool our resources……? Ironically, I’d never heard of a “greenie” in the sixties. It’s difficult to separate myth, fallacy and fact I’m afraid when the 1961 Royal Commission report says: “Statements that the Forests Department does not carry out controlled burning in the Dwellingup forests are entirely without justification. The Department has control burnt extensive areas each year for the last 40 years and more than ever at the present day.” Others purport that logging operations were responsible by opening up the forest canopy and creating vast amounts of logging debris which were a major cause. And so it continues: “The greenies are stopping CALM burning” A WAFA submission in October 2003 stated: “Contrary to claims that conservationists are stopping CALM from burning, CALM Annual Reports state that less prescribed burning has been done because of: continuing reductions in burn size; the increasing complexity of burns; the need to protect increasing areas of fire sensitive forest regeneration; efforts to minimise smoke haze over Perth; and the risk of severe fire behaviour and possible escapes.” More recent pre-emptive burning extent in south west WA: • 1992-93: 120,000 ha • 1995-96: 200,000 ha • 1997-98: 125,000 ha • 2000-01: 80,000 ha • 2002-03: 120,000 ha [CALM Annual Reports; Hansard] Which ever way one perceives the causes of bushfires in Australia there’s no denying that the forest landscapes have been forever altered when one learns that by 2004, in the Strzelecki Ranges of Victoria, plantations occupied 17.543 square kilometres, when in 1954 they occupied just 0.430 Km2. So how should Joe Citizen interpret the contents of the following reports?: http://www.fsc-watch.org/archives/2008/05/27/Hancock_rips_off_rainforest_deal http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=146&ContentID=130746 Posted by Protagoras, Friday, 20 March 2009 10:58:01 AM
| |
Uhhhhmmmm.
You make some interesting points Mark. Yes, we as a society have/are going thru a very materialistic, selfish, nihilistic era. I don't think loving one's neighbour has been on the agenda. Any society that rejects or ignores the wisdom of its elders does so at its own peril. We have certainly not listened to the wisdom of the indigenous elders. Unfortunately a lot of the old Foresters that were trained with the ramifications and royal commission findings of the 1939 fires are now in nursing homes with alzheimer's. Some are not there yet. Maybe we should get the ones that are able to; to share their experience and wisdom before it is lost forever. In the words of Eric Bogle and Billy McBride.......... "It’s all happening again and again". Some say that it was only a matter of time before the fire menace arrived. It was creeping up on us very slowly, steadily and stealthily. Oblivious to it when it was on our back door. To all those directly and indirectly affected by our circumstances we now find ourselves in.....my prayers. Posted by miss_allaneous, Saturday, 21 March 2009 10:44:58 AM
| |
Aime: many fruit and nut trees are far less combustible than eucalypts and can assist in providing a low fuel buffer around your home.
Examinator: in an ideal world, we should apply Aboriginal burning regimes to our forests and bushland: frequent, low intensity, small mosaic burns that leave sensitive areas such as wetlands and the edges of rock outcrops unburnt. If this goal is impractical (and politically, it seems to be so), then larger scale, higher intensity fires may be unavoidable if we are to keep fuel loads at reasonable levels. Protagoras: no credible historians that I've heard of have accused 'green thinking' as being responsible for the Dwellingup fires of 1961. As an 11 year old member of the WA Naturalists Club, there simply weren't any greenies in Australia at the time and 'strange' people like me who were interested in the environment were treated politely and humoured but otherwise ignored. More importantly, the green movement in WA has generally been against prescribed burning for the past 20 or 30 years and the current levels of forest burning are between half and three quarters of what the foresters want because of political constraints (Gallop had to be begged by Manjimup MP Paul Omodei to provide more funding to CALM so that fuel loads could be reduced in the early 2000s) and because of public concern (about smoke and other impacts) exacerbated by criticism from the green movement. By the way, I'd urge caution about believing anything that WAFA said in their campaign in the late 1990s to protect old growth forests. Their dishonesty and deliberate misuse of science was shameful. Posted by Bernie Masters, Monday, 23 March 2009 10:43:28 AM
| |
"Protagoras: no credible historians that I've heard of have accused 'green thinking' as being responsible for the Dwellingup fires of 1961."
Precisely Bernie Masters which is why I stated: "*Amateur* historians have *even* blamed the greenies for the devastating bushfires during 1961," which indicates how fallacies are peddled. "By the way, I'd urge caution about believing anything that WAFA said in their campaign in the late 1990s to protect old growth forests." What do you mean Bernie Masters? I have not quoted any claims made directly by the WAFA. An excerpt from CALM's 2001-2002 Annual Report advised: "The dryness of the ground litter and vegetation fuels meant that approximately 60 per cent of the prescribed burning programs in southwest Western Australia that were planned for the Spring/early Summer and Autumn months were cancelled or postponed because of the risk of severe fire behaviour and possible burn escapes. "As a result, the prescribed burning program achieved within the southwest forest ecosystems was only 74,739 ha, which is the lowest in 41 years. "This was the third year since 1998–1999 that the annual burning program has fallen below 100,000 ha primarily because of extended drought conditions. "Smoke management constraints that aim to avoid smoke accumulations in Perth, and minimise smoke affecting major regional centres, have severely restricted the number of days that are suitable for undertaking safe and effective planned burns in 2001–2002 fire season. "The impact of the drought conditions and other burning constraints has been such that the Department has been unable to achieve more than 50 per cent of its annual burn programs since 1998–99. "This decline in the burn program in the southwest has resulted in a situation where about 70 per cent of the southwest forest regions are carrying natural fuel accumulations that will sustain intense wildfires under summer conditions. "Throughout the State the Department attended 604 wildfires." Smoke is a seriously damaging health hazard Bernie Masters. What has that to do with the "exacerbations" of the "green movement" you allude to? http://www.dec.wa.gov.au/pollution-prevention/air-quality/wood-heater-rebate-program.html Posted by Protagoras, Monday, 23 March 2009 2:39:56 PM
|
What he doesn’t acknowledge is that not all things green are necessarily scientifically wrong.
The myths he is propagating are best dealt with in this link
http://www.slideshare.net/dougoh/forest-carbon-climate-myths-presentation/
Cut it which way you like given that the CSIRO have said in several forums that the diminishing tree cover is a major contributor not only to the loss of species and cuddly and not so cuddly fauna but to the drying of the local climate.
He also bags ecological burns simply because they don’t achieve HIS criteria.
Is current national park management deficit? You bet your sweet bippy! But is mark’s idea any better? Hmmm I doubt it. See slides on regen argument and wood products
There is no ONE magic bullet answer in truth if we believe Mark then the risk of fire would arguably increase ….less trees =hotter climate= more drying .
I would refer him and all to the apposite conversation on http://www.realclimate.org/ dated Feb 19 2009 et sec.
The actual issue is far more complex and probably expensive it can’t be separated out.
Issues like where and how and what we build must be addressed.
We need to live according to cope with nature’s tantrums and stop being so arrogant as to assume we can bend her to our convenience. Some landscapes are just too dangerous to live cheaply in.
National parks environment need a higher financial priority. Climate change and all that
BTW fire storms make their own winds and embers can travel ½ a K or more so clearing anything less is of limited value. Smoke heat O2 depletion etc.
NB. I am not a greenie, green, Labor voter or anti-conservative only rational and consider what is good for all the country.