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 > Bushfire blame misses the point > Comments

Bushfire blame misses the point : Comments

By Paul Collins, published 9/8/2010

No longer are Black Friday and Ash Wednesday the norms by which fires are judged; the new measure is Black Saturday.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Another knee jeck reaction to a natural event.
Posted by Kenny, Monday, 9 August 2010 10:43:45 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
Re the follwing paragraph: "For some prescribed burning has assumed the status of unchallengeable orthodox dogma. But in my view hazard reduction burning is becoming completely ineffective as global warming takes hold. Even when carried out with environmental sensitivity it still has inevitable impacts on native flora and fauna"

It is notable that the 'some' who regard prescribed burning as an "orthodox dogma" are those who work in the realm of forest and fire management, whilst those (such as the author) who doubt its effectiveness generally have little or no practical experience of forest fire.

In a warming climate, the use of prescribed burning becomes even more important as it has the capability to make bushfires more controllable. The alternative of not burning and thereby allowing fuels to accumulate to heavy accumulations makes fires burning even under relatively benign conditions, very difficult to control, and more dangerous to both firefighters and the public.

Much of the fear about the environmental impact of prescribed burning is irrational because people don't understand what it is and how often it would be done. Too many people see images of Black Saturday type devastation when they imagine prescribed burning and think it entail burning areas every 3 to 4 years. In fact, the RC's recommendation to burn 5% of the forest per year, equates to burning each part on average once every 20 years.

The research shows that environmental damage would be incurred by both burning very frequently (less than 10 years apart), and leaving areas unburnt for 30 - 40 years. The RC's recommendation strikes an appropriate balance.
Posted by MWPOYNTER, Monday, 9 August 2010 11:45:25 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
Well said Mark Poynter - right on the mark.
Remind me to start lecturing Paul Collins on religious matters. Ever since he purchased a bush block and got burnt out in 2003, Collins has set himself up as an authority on forest management.
He has as much right to do that as I have to teach the Pope religion!
What the R.C. found regarding prescribed burning is the very minimum that ought to be done.
On ABC Radio, Bushfire scientist David Packham suggests up to 12%. I have no doubt that Bushfire scientist Phil Cheney would agree.
What the bushfire R.C. completely missed was that the John Cain Government stopped prescribed burning in 1981. Why? The Greens had just helped his election and flushed with the Franklin River success they gave themselves the authority to treat Australian forests the same as deciduous forests.
Posted by phoenix94, Monday, 9 August 2010 12:02:46 PM
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
If Paul Collins is searching for truth, then he is straying way off the track by embracing and preaching green ideology.

This is surprising, given that he regards himself as an historian. It is obvious that, as an historian, he did not put much effort into checking out the history of the anthropogenic climate change (AGW) movement (or should I say religion) of which the greens are devout followers. He would have found that AGW is an hypothesis which has no scientific proof to justify it. The IPCC has spent more than 20 years "researching" it, but has failed to find the proof . The best the IPCC can do is come up with the assertion, " Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”.

Paul Collins has his head in the sand if he believes that the Black Saturday fire intensity was not influenced by the lack of hazard reduction by the Victorian Govt, whose policies in this regard had been set to appease the greens
Posted by Raycom, Monday, 9 August 2010 1:02:12 PM
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
Paul Collins has never been a practitioner of fire/land management, only a voyeur looking on from a distance.
He has never known the experience of being involved in a prescribed burn performed in Autumn that then gives shelter to wildlife and firefighters the following Summer at FDI's exceeding 100.
He doesn't share the anger at poor land management that allows high intensity fires that kill trees that were standing when Cook sailed up the coast.
He doesn't understand that even if it is true that the current warming in the climate is anthropogenic, the only thing we can manage TODAY is the amount of fuel in the landscape.
Paul Collins is to fire management as Richard Dawkins is to religion, a heretic.
Posted by Little Brother, Monday, 9 August 2010 2:35:19 PM
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
The trouble with the "its all the fault of global warming" argument, is that it means nothiing can be done to minimise serious bushfires in the future, because, as I understand the argument to run, nothing can be done to stop global warming. In fact this is a defeatist, and largely inhumane argument. In fact a great deal can be done, and amongst all those things, the application of a sensible program of fuel reduction burning is one of the most important.

It should be remembered that not all of the fires that killed people on Black Saturday started on that day. Some were burning for days, and had they not been burning with such intensity in such heavy fuels could more easily have been caught before the worst of the fire weather arrived.

I find Paul Collins article depressing. He has no training or experience in bushfire science, but puts himself forward as an expert. He has no responsibility for bushfire operations, but is critical of those who do. He rejects the wisdom of people with a life-time of experience and scholarship in fire science and operations, but takes as gospel the words of academics who no almost nothing. This does not make for a useful contribution to the challenge of preventing another Black Saturday in the future.

Yorkie
Posted by yorkie, Monday, 9 August 2010 3:15:07 PM
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
Just to add fuel to the fire, this is not the first time Paul Collins has weighed into the forestry debate. In April 1999 he used his religious "authority" as a Catholic priest to write:

"Woodchipping is sinful because it attacks the grandeur of God...woodchipping old growth forests could be seen as a sinful act because it uses a resource at a prodigal rate"

and of course he published his book trying to rewrite fire history in Australia.

To me, rather than being a person of high regard in his religious position, he has shown himself to be a fool in environmental issues by continually publishing diatribes like this. He should simply state his opinion that he believes the fires are not controllable due to changing climate and not use science to back up his claim.
Posted by tragedy, Monday, 9 August 2010 7:02:14 PM
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
How does proscribed burning defend against the catastrophic crown fires of Black Saturday and other major fires?
On high risk days fires regularly burn through previously lightly burned off areas. A proscribed burn does not burn the crown of the tree only undergrowth and dead fuel. This means there is no proscribed burn off that will stop a fire on a day of extreme wind and temperature when the fire can jump from tree to tree and not rely on ground fuel for propagation.

The next El Nino drought will undoubtedly result in more catastrophic fires and loss of life no matter how much burning is done in winter.
When will we learn to live with instead of always trying (and failing) to dominate nature?

As for scapegoating....
I want answers from the media as to why they screamed arson and went out inciting mob behavior and murderous attitudes at the time of the fires and why they have said virtually zip since it was revealed that the majority were not arsonists but commercial power generators fatally neglecting their maintenance of powerlines.
Why are the media not excoriating the power companies like they tried to do to the imaginary arsonists back at the time of the fires?
Posted by mikk, Monday, 9 August 2010 7:07:29 PM
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
Mikk
You are right that bushfires burning under extreme weather conditions can move through areas that have been fuel reduced several years before. However, 99.9% of bushfires don't occur under these conditions, but if fuels are allowed to build-up by not fuel reducing, then even fires burning under lesser conditions can become uncontrollable crown fires.

The great benefit of fuel reduction burning is that these previously treated areas burn with far less intensity and so the damage inflicted on them is much less, even on days like Black Saturday. when there were many instances of this. These areas have recovered far better with far less damage to soils than the areas which were carrying heavy fuels.

In fact, the great benefit of fuel reduction burning is on lessening the environmental impact of bushfires. For this reason it is astounding that the environmental movement, which sees itself as the protector of forests, is so opposed to the recommendation to do more prescribed burning.

To me it only confirms the muddled thinking that underpins Australian environmentalism - the notion of forests as fragile paradises which is so far at odds with the reality that our forests are reliant on disturbance in the form of periodic fire, for their renewal.

It also highlights how so much of our environmental activism is based on conspiracy theories - in this case, the forests will supposedly have the 'bejesus burnt out of them every 3 to 4 years', when clearly a burning target of 5% of the forest per year, equates to an average 20-year interval between burns. Also, prescribed burns are done under cool conditions and are meant to burn in a mosaic fashion which has far less impact on the forest.
Posted by MWPOYNTER, Monday, 9 August 2010 10:19:56 PM
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
It's easy to say that forestry should have been doing more burning off in the lead up to Black Saturday. Given the prolonged dry conditions, no-one can say exactly when it would have been possible. Imagine the furore if one of these controlled burns had gotten away. Foresters are damned if they do burn off in innapropriate conditions and damned if they don't.

Perhaps logging, not burn offs is the way to reduce fuel.
Posted by benk, Tuesday, 10 August 2010 8:00:00 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
OK so increased frequency and severity of bushfires was a clear prediction from GW...yet still the ignorant cry "it is natural!".
I suppose the record temperatures in Russia are "normal" too?
Climate science is getting nothing but stronger signals indicating Global Warming (*not* "Climate change" but *Warming*) is getting worse according to the worst case scenarios. The clear migration of the tropics and subsequent weather pattern shifts are huge signals and are very clear, as are the ice melts and sea temperatures.
Folks, the canaries are all dead: must we now wait for calamity before the evidence is believed?
Blaming Greens for reduced burning whilst ignoring the impact of cheapskate privatised power line operators is pretty disingenuous.
They also ignore the fact that due to GW there is now much fewer opportunities to burn off safely...particularly in the lead-up to Black Saturday where we had the most prolonged drought and extreme temperatures on record. All the green folks I know support limited fuel reduction burning. When burn-offs get out of control and kill people the CFA get little sympathy.
I'm not sure what it will take to convince the anti-science brigade short of God appearing from the clouds saying "stop sh&tting in your own cradle fools!".
Posted by Ozandy, Tuesday, 10 August 2010 9:04:33 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
Ozandy
Regardless of whether GW is going to increase the frequency of bushfires, their severity can only be mitigated by doing more fuel reduction burning. This is hardly unnatural since all but the wettest mountain forests natural state is to have low fuels due to the frequent uncontrolled fire from lightning and aboriginal burning that traversed through the landscape every summer and autumn prior to European settlement.

Yes, most of the 'green'folks say they support LIMITED burning - this is the problem, because it needs to be done at a landscape scale, not just a couple of hectares next their boundary fence. If done properly and not too frequently, it shouldn't have much environmental impact, but will save our forested environments from the worst of the massive impacts from catastrophic bushfires like Black Saturday.

A drier climate shouldn't really affect the opportunities for fuel reduction burning too much - it may mean that it cannot be undertaken as early in autumn as it currently is, but it should extend the period in which it can be done as we head into winter.

The CFA does not do much forest fuel reduction burning, although it may at times assist the government agencies, DSE and Parks Vic who are responsible for this. I can’t recall anyone ever being killed by an escaped fuel reduction burn, although there has occasionally been property damage.

Re: Anti-science - in my view, those who oppose fuel reduction burning simply because of romantic notions about the supposed fragility of the Australian bush, are most guilty of being anti-science.
Posted by MWPOYNTER, Tuesday, 10 August 2010 12:50:23 PM
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
Why do people talk so much bull dust.

There are a few simple things to make all areas much safer, but they are anti green. When will we tell the greens to get stuffed, & keep their stupid prejudices in there own areas.

Simple Safety Measures.

1/ A large cleared, & slashed area [say 50 acres] in close proximity to each minor population centre.

2/ A large body of water, [at least a couple of acre dam], be established in each cleared area.

3/ All bush, & trees cleared back far enough from all public roads, so that no tree can fall on the road, blocking it. This would not only make escape possible in a fire, but would save thousands of lives, [both human, & wildlife] without fires.

4/ Roads must not be treated as wildlife corridors./

5/ Only appoint very experienced fire fighters, [& I mean real fighting, not management only types] to all senior firefighting organisations.

This would offer a reasonable chance of escape to safe areas, when all else was lost, rather than dead traffic jams behind fallen, burning trees, on blocked roads
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 10 August 2010 3:40:29 PM
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. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

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