The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > New plan for Victoria needed in wake of the bushfires > Comments

New plan for Victoria needed in wake of the bushfires : Comments

By Gavan McFadzean, published 27/3/2009

Since Black Saturday one thing is certain, the rules about fire management have changed and a new approach is necessary.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
It would appear that the greens have entirely lost the plot. With the reckless policy of stopping fuel management, the damage to the environment was worse than if the recommended fuel management systems had been allowed.

None of the proposals mentioned in the article mention fuel management which would indicate that the terrible loss of life has had little impact on Gavin Mcfadzean, as he still pushes the lethal practise of laize faire environmental control.

The greens have a place as a social conscience, but allowing them to dictate policy where lives are concerned is like letting a teenager zonked on ectasy drive a school bus.

The two past royal commissions ignored by the greens provided sound recommendations. For god's sake implement them over fuzzy wuzzy ideals.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 27 March 2009 9:22:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister,
I suggest you read the article again rather than scan it lest you make yourself look sillier than it appears.
• this is one group and is not the entire green movement.
• His article DOES talk about ‘scientific load clearing’
• The wilderness is a society is about wilderness what do you want them to say. Let concrete the lot?
• This article was measured and objective.
• It also mentioned fact about the grassland fires on private land first.
As for having all the answers of course not if they did then the RC would be unnecessary.
Clearly you have decided that the ‘greenies’ (who ever they are) are solely responsible. Rational thinking would be apposite
Posted by examinator, Friday, 27 March 2009 9:49:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In response to 'Shadow Minister' re fuel reduction burns...
Fuel reduction makes some difference to fire intensity and spread in some conditions - those of low to moderate fire danger. The conditions in February were far outside the scale previously established to measure fire danger. In such conditions, fuel load is far less important in determining fire behaviour than are factors such as wind speed.
It is understandable that in the face of such great tragedy, people point to tangible actions (such as fuel reduction burns) that they feel would change the outcomes. We do not like to feel that there are events that we cannot control. However, the reality, according to current science is that 1) not all forest types can be cool-burned 2)many of the areas that burned in february either had regular fuel reduction burns or were grassland 3)in such extreme conditions (which are likely to increase in frequency of occurrence with ongoing climate change) fuel load has minimal influence on the behaviour of fire.
Further, I presume that many of the people who choose to live outside of urban areas do so _because_ of the forests, woodlands and other natural features that surround them. Degrading and destroying these features is then not really a solution at any level.

Finally, as the article mentioneds, it seems that the upcoming argument is not only about fuel reduction but also about salvage logging. I don't have any data, but it seems likely that this activity will increase the likelihood of future fires (by increased disturbance, including access and changing forest microclimates in the forest). I suggest that this, in addition to the obvious and direct ecological impacts should be matters of great community concern. The Victorian forests have suffered substantial damage - the deepening of this damage, which may prejudice their ability to recover should not be allowed to occur without being deeply questioned. This is not a time for opportunism in forest exploitation or scapegoating - it is a time for serious reflection on how we will protect our communities and ecosystems when such conditions arise again.
Posted by rosy apples, Friday, 27 March 2009 11:04:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually examinator he does not.

" the protection of wildlife and their habitat through scientifically based fire management plans in remote areas and National Parks; "

Is not load management. In fact he does not even use the term load management, and it is clear from his "proposals" that land management and fire management are not synonymous with load management.

I hope for your credibility that you follow your own suggestion and actually read the article and my comment before making "silly" assertions.

Considering that the previous 2 royal commissions recommended load management as the primary tool for preventing loss of property and life, the only real reason I can see for an RC and a further report in 1 year is to delay any action or blame until the pain and anguish has faded.

The article is measured, but far from objective.

I don't hold the green movement responsible for the fires, but do blame them largely for the extent of the loss of life and property.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 27 March 2009 11:29:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is more spin from the so called Wilderness Society attempting to shore up its $10 million fund raising budget, after McFadzean’s disastrous appearance on Channel 7 when his outrageous claims were exposed by the bush fire victims.

Attempting to shift the blame from “green policies” that resulted in a build up of fire fuel loads on Black Saturday was tried on Channel 7 Sunday Night Program on, see http://au.tv.yahoo.com/video/-/watch/12047176. (You might have to watch an advert first)

The audience was not impressed when Gavan McFadzean, the Wilderness Society Victoria’s campaigns manager, tried to dismiss the need for fuel reduction. His credibility was questioned and found wanting.

One victim was so angry by the smooth response from this spin doctor, that he felt compelled to leave the studio rather than listen to “c**p”.

Now we have another dose, although ‘sugar coated” in spin.

Appearing on the same TV program was a real expert in fire scientist David Packham, who had warned of the disaster immediately prior to the fires and over 5 years ago. His report to the Nillumbik Ratepayers Association in 2003 on the bushfire threat to this “Green wedge shire” is chilling reading when almost half of the northern part of this shire was wiped out.

Sadly this report is still available on their web site http://www.nillumbikratepayers.asn.au/ (click on reports after watching the video) as well as the Association’s media release of 11 February 2009 that commences “We are all grieving at this dreadful loss of life…”

His conclusions were that the shire was living on borrowed time, that the prohibition on fine fuel reduction close to houses was a recipe for destruction and that the major bush fire threat comes from high fuel loads. He stated back then that the bushfire threat was extreme and ranked with the threat to Hobart before the 1967 fires.

Perhaps David’s report and that of fire chief Rod Incoll should be compulsory reading for McFadzean’s political lobby group.
Posted by cinders, Friday, 27 March 2009 11:30:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a local whose property was burnt and had to flee the inferno, I concur with the article in that it sends a resoundingly clear message - we haven't got the fire science right and the RC has an opportunity to achieve this. In 1939 Judge Stretton pronounced the blame for the ’39 fires on graziers, settlers and foresters in their misguided clearing, logging and burning of the land. In 2009 I fear, that again, it will come down to the hand of man, not tree, that will wear the onus of responsibility for Black Saturday.
From discussions with the experts (now forbidden to discuss their experiences by the arson squad and the states legal teams), the fires not only started due to arson, they ignited due to lightening in forests recently ‘fuel reduced’ whose flammability has been enhanced in the short term by such burning. Could it be that the hand of man has not only played a part in direct ignition but brocaded the lands with the drying effects of fuel reduction burns and logging and established fire highways upon which Black Saturday etched its historic path?
Today our shattered communities will be further traumatised by Vicforest’s burning their logging coupes and going in to salvage log over 1000 hectares of delicate forest - for what? Woodchips for Japanese owned mills not locals.
The risk that the Brumby government is willing to take by salvage logging around towns like Marysville is based on a 4 year electoral term and obligation to Japanese woodchip contracts .
What if this type of forest management is to blame? The science is now revealing that salvage logging makes the forests even more flammable than logging so should the Brumby government rebuild communities and surround them with logged forests, is this merely setting the pyre again? It won’t be Mr Brumby’s fault, for he will be long retired on his healthy pension but alas will fall on the fate of my children and many others who will still remember the day that the fires took our friends, our homes and our trust forever.
Posted by environment for everyone, Friday, 27 March 2009 11:50:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy