Spot on, required reading for all concerned. Some responses to points made in media debate:

1. Which is the greater threat to biodiversity - controlled hazard reduction burning or the megafires fuelled by its absence? Obvious.

2. It seems that many bushfire victims have been through a number of fires, and that fire hazard levels in Victoria might be rising. Rather than rebuilding homes in situ as promised by Rudd, the Federal and state governments might consider offering assistance to home-losers to build in less disaster-prone areas.

3. Re training the army to fight fires: the purpose of our armed forces is the defence and security of the nation. All military training should be aimed to maximise the efficiency and effectiveness of the forces in combat; anything else detracts from this. If our fire-fighting forces are inadequate, this should be addressed directly.

When I had a hilly, forested 38 acres, I undertook hazard-reduction burning on much of the block while maintaining corridors for wildlife. When a bushfire sprang from boys playing in a waste-dump, no surface life survived in the non-reduced areas - no plants, no insects - but the cleared area below the house saved it.

Roger, you and your very knowledgeable fellows have been trying to get this message across for the past sixty odd years. Ever since the Royal Commission into the 1939 fires, the same message has gone out, "Fuel reduction with mosaic burning", and it is still being either ignored or resisted. Without this measure we will continue to get these horrendous crown fire which no man or machine can stop and which also produce numerous spot fires many kilometres from the main fire.

Of course we are always going to get fires in the bush. Every time a dry thunderstorm goes through we have the potential for a fire to start in some inaccessible place where immediate response is impossible, and the current lack of fire tracks or real fire breaks in public lands exacerbates the problem.

Finally, we need to build houses more suited to the environment and improve the area around these houses so that the option of stay and fight is better than the one of flee, in which so many perish because they leave too late. All houses in the country or in the bush need to have a 30,000 litre concrete tank attached to an engine driven fire pump so that they can effectively stay and fight when it becomes necessary.

Keep up the good work, Roger.

David

I might also add, "Beware of the ABC and the members of the nutty media".

See http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001633.html

Jennifer Marohasy is well known for her in depth expose of some of these cranks.

David

For the life of me I don't understand why people who buy bush blocks with a little home nestled among the gum trees move in with a bulldozer to reduce the ground on their quarter acre block surrounding their house to bare mineral earth. Do they think they can survive a fire if their neighbours are surrounded by native bush? If every one cleared the bush to back to park like surroundings it would be like living in the suburbs.

Why does David Packham want to live in the bush, if he wants it converted to suburbs like Wantirna or Narre Warren.

Likewise the family that built in the bush then cleared all the trees off their block to create a fire break - why build in Nillumbuk with all its tree covenants when there is plenty of open land at Mickleham, Donnybrook - 10 minutes west. There isn't much forested bush land left near Melbourne.

Whilst we are still coming to grips with the Victorian tragedy it seems that Roger's article gives hope to how best to effectively deal with future bushfires and their causes.

It is worth considering that the Parliament of Victoria’s 2008 Inquiry into the Impact of Public Land Management Practices on Bushfires in Victoria found the state has experienced over 34 significant fires since 1851 with approximately 2/3rds of these fires occurring since the 1950s. On average, Victoria experiences over 600 bushfires every year on public land with lightning and arson accounting for over half of these fires.

Major findings from this inquiry included
Finding 3.1:
The bushfires of 2002/03 and 2006/07 were of a scale, intensity and frequency which resulted in an immediate and severe impact on Victoria’s biodiversity.
Finding 3.2:
The scale and intensity of the 2002/03 and 2006/07 bushfires were the result of inappropriate fire regimes, and in particular, of an insufficient level of landscape-scale prescribed burning.
Finding 3.3:
An increase in prescribed burning across the landscape, … in a manner which mimics natural fire regimes, represents the most appropriate strategy for minimising the immediate and long-term threats to biodiversity from large and intense bushfires.
Finding 5.2:
That the reduction in the extent of timber harvesting on public land and associated loss of local knowledge and expertise, machinery available for fire prevention and suppression, and a decline in the number and accessibility of vehicle access tracks has had a negative impact on land and fire management, particularly the bushfire suppression capacity of relevant agencies.

Yet there has been a demand for limiting fuel reduction burning on public land and the end of industrial forest harvesting in native forests. Sections of the community have expressed alarm at the loss of biodiversity and the smoke from prescribed burning and the construction of access roads in our forests.

Whilst our immediate thoughts are with the victims, the firefighters and those providing emergency reponse , we need to also act in the long term to help reduce the impact of bushfires such as those witnessed on 7th February this year in Victoria.

As farmers our property is north of Perth 250 K's over the Darling Ranges which seemingly comfy and close to the city for retiremnt, has similar problems to the high sloping heavily wooded country of the potential firestorm lands in Victoria.

Travelling to Perth in the New Year if we could afford a holidsy, in a summer such as this we would some years see many homes burnt out, and wondered why highly inflammable monster eucalypts now bare and blackened had been standing so close to homesteads and sheds.

As wheat farmers with highly inflammable stubble still left in our padoocks near after harvest, we certainly had to make sure our homesteads and sheds were always well cleared of any dry grass and especially only to leave just one or two tall eucalypts to give that stupid potentially dangerous appeal that any old cockie knows about.

Of course, nobody ever listens much to loud-mouth cockies similar to me who now hangs out in Mandurah.

Pity they didn't because our stupid governments by putting a ban on too much clearing in semi-sightseeing venues creates a potential death knell like has happened in our ranges and as certainly tragically came about in Victoria.

While we are sympathetic, certainly we are allowed to declare that silly buggers is not only related to hill's residents, but even more to governments.

Faustino, Friday, 13 February 2009 9:24:00 AM ::: Army to be trained...

Item 3 , Better idea use the Army for back burning , remember that many areas can be slashed , heavy branches/trees etc can be collected. Burrawongs bulldozed then crushed with the B-Dozer tracks .

Burrawongs burn with extreme heat , but hey.......don't they look nice so the Green element will win there .

Another important point , if the bush is burned regularly , shrubbery is kept small and spindly in stature and native grasses prevail reducing the strike rate of the shrubs these grasses burn quietly but easily and make it easy to ignite branches and forrest litter .

Back burning can be dangerous and requires experienced people with bush know how .
Windows of opportunity will be difficult to find in places like Kinglake , just dry enough to burn well before really hot days .

Saw David Packham on TV and now listened to Dr Attiwell.

I am reminded of the forestry conference in 2007 where the keynote speaker said that the foresters were using such small samples that their findings were absolutely spurious and failed to take account of the clearing of the forest on climate change. Victoria had its hottest day on record, after a heat wave, and 12 years of drought where are the bush has dried out.

This old farmer wants to collect firewood & clear the bush - pity about the small mammals that won't have anywhere to nest. So humans and their cats and dogs are really far more worthy than the native animals.

In another debate, I have said that the destructive bushfires are the work of atheists. The separation of church and state, that was a feature of Australian Law, and led to great government, was abolished in South Australia in 1927, New South Wales in 1970, and the Commonwealth in 1976 and 1979. Victoria abolished it in 1986. In 1983 we had Ash Wednesday. Twenty six years later an even bigger disaster; Are we slow learners or what?

The atheist movement centered in the legal profession, has been destroying the ability of individuals to manage and mitigate personal risks, and at the same time, protecting the irresponsible governments of all States, and the Commonwealth. The Parliament of the Commonwealth has become totally irrelevant because its Federal Court of Australia is not prepared to compete with State Supreme Courts for business. The commodity they should be selling is justice. Chairman Mao said that justice grew out of the barrel of a gun. Christians believe that justice is a Royal Prerogative, vested in Almighty God and should be freely available in every court.

The Commonwealth has started to reform the courts, by changing the spelling in the Trade Practices Act 1974. They have taken the capital letter, C off the word Court, and put court in its stead. This would be enough to ensure that we never have another fire like last week, if the Federal Court of Australia would file everything presented to it, and offer a choice of mode of trial. The Commonwealth has provided funding for jury trials in that court. Poor people do not have to pay a filing fee. It should be a marvelous place, but it is a horrible place instead.

If victims of the bushfire, were given free access to the Federal Court of Australia and a jury trial, the taxpayers of Victoria, will be liable to rebuild every house destroyed free of a mortgage. S64 Judiciary Act 1903 makes the State of Victoria the same as an individual. It has been grossly negligent in its management of State land, and interference with private land

Roger

It is great to hear a rational voice emerging from the emotional noise and nonsense surrounding bush living. I started my working life in the then Forest Dept in WA and learnt very early on that it was all about fuel loads and the physics of these determined the intensity of resultant fires.
How this has been lost in the ensuing environmental debate over the years is a frightening reminder of how we never seem to let facts get in the way of a good story.
Hopefully, at least for a little while, something will be learnt from the overwhelming tragedy in Victoria, but I'm not sure. Even this morning in your on air debate, you were accused of "old fashioned thinking" and the disaster is only a week old! I wonder what will have changed in say 12 months from now?

Roger,
I have lived in a fire-prone area in the midst of incredibly beautiful wet and dry sclerophyll forest for 20+ years now. If I sold my house & property and moved to the city or its suburbs with mains water and sewage, wheelie bins, public transport, shops, and a swimming pool, I could not possibly get equal value for what I already have.
But, all that aside, my question is: To what extent have gas bottles, of various size, contributed to the fires? Many homes where I live have gas rather than electric or solid fuel cooking and heating appliances. I will not have gas as I used to work for BOC (the UK equivalent of CIG - Australia's compressed gas industry) and I was well trained in the dangers of fire and explosion when working with gas bottles in the factory.
Dee

All my experience, of over 60 years has shown me that houses in the bush can be made fairly fire safe. There is no such thing as a completely fireproof house. The eucalyptus tree is probably the most combustible of trees.

A house needs to have cleared land around it. Not absolute bare ground, a nice garden and selected shrubs can be very attractive. Beyond that plant quick-growing deciduous trees.

A bush fire will ‘crown’ in the native bush and travel at speed the ground fire follows it. Flying embers are filtered by the deciduous trees, so limiting spot fires beyond. Their leaves resist burning until most of their water has evaporated. The deciduous trees act as a barrier and so minimise the radiant heat beyond them.

Less radiant heat allows the householder to fight the small spot fires that will occur in grass and shrubs or the garden. The house absorbs little heat, therefore reducing the chance of it catching spontaneously.

Every home owner under those circumstances should have a refuge of last resort.They need somewhere to shelter. On a farm, a dam is a good spot or a dugout made like an earth cave , but if all else fails, then get into a clear area and cover yourself/selves with wet blankets.

Drive around some of our beautiful bushland and see how so many people build their houses- gum trees to the door. Partof the reason for this is the fact that they are not allowed to cut the trees. See the festoons of dried bark hanging from those trees, just waiting for the fire! Live in some of those areas and try to plant a ‘European Tree’ and the members of the ‘green’ element will destroy it.

I hope that current events make government and councils re-think the whole situation and that they realise that the ‘vocal green’ is certainly not a real conservationist. It is so sad, that it will have taken the death of so many people to make them see some sense.

Shazbaz
Bulldozers? Army back burning? More Brute Force and Ignorance (BFI)! Arguably that is part of the problem that’s got us into this mess.
That might be so disastrous on open or flat land but in gullies, Steep slopes, and heavily forested areas. Over 12 years I’ve watched a slope being eroded away into deep channels where only weeds grow now. The clay has clogged what was a creek at the bottom. (Previously a farmer down stream reliable water source for his cows.) All because the Electricity Company bulldozed a fire break on the slope.
These scraped clear areas create the “edge effect” a greater area for weed infestation.

There is clear research that shows that wide scale hot and cold burning decreases native biodiversity.
• If cold burnt too often then many native species can't recover enough between fires and will die out. Fire destroys ground load seeds too regular fires denude areas of this natural larder.
• Introduced weeds are opportunistic and generate faster than many understorey native species and tend to take over eg Lantana and blackberries et al. Some actively poison the ground against native competitors.
• This weed proliferation causes greater burnable vegetation mass creating the need for more burning.
• This cycle also denudes our forest soils of nutriments from already low nutriment soils much of our naturally forested areas if cleared needs fertilizers to grow crops. Australian natives have evolved to survive in this poor environment. Weeds unfortunately do too.

The issue of fire suppression or more sensibly forest/fire management need a lot more research, money to do the on ground work and effort from people who live in or near bush.
It is the height of naivety to correlate aboriginal fire stick farming with what is required today weeds, proximity to housing; changed conditions etc make for a very much more complex issue.
.The author is right it needs more involvement and personal preparation for the inevitable.
BTW I’m neither against burn-offs or a greenie just that there are no quick fixes or one size fits all solutions

Well argued, Roger, particularly your statement;
"the second requirement is for the owner-occupiers of land to
realise that they own the fuel and thus the fire that burns that fuel. Their primary responsibility is to ensure their own, and their neighbours’ bushfire safety. To sit back, do nothing and rely on the men and women in the yellow overalls to turn up in their tanker, is little more than civic irresponsibility."

Not only irresponsibility - downright thoughtlessness!
I'm reminded of the old saying: "if you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen!"
If anyone wants to live in or near the bush, for goodness sake TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for your choice, and accept that you are just one creature living in a continent formed over millions of years. If you choose to live here, accept the facts of your environment - work with what exists, don't try to change it!

To name it as Irresponsible and thoughtless is a bit of a travesty, and a bit like applying a wet lettuce leaf smack over the wrist approach.
I think it is about time the responsibility of Government and its agencies – Greens, etc are now personally held accountable for this act of Aiding and abetting the commission of the Act of Murder by default.
They not only facilitate the Murder of Humans and the destruction of property on a scale not seen outside of a World War , they Mass murder in their hundreds of thousands, many species of wild life , and done in the name of Environmental ambitions.
Just as well those pigs could fly , or they would be dead too.

What has happened is not a disaster , it is a massive crime.

If there are trees near your house and a bush fire is approaching
then it would be a good idea to burn the trees one by one before the bushfire gets there.
A house that can survive heat from one burning tree at a time may well
be destroyed by the heat from 10 nearby burning trees.
Burn any grass near the house.Watch it burn AWAY from the house to leave a safe area.

The website I administer has attracted a considerable number of visitors and articles concerning the Victorian bush fires. They concern the conservation and land-use planning implications of the bush fires. They pose questions about what are the best long-term solutions to the problem and challenge many mainstream views about the bush fires. The articles can be found at http://candobetter.org/VictorianFires2009

Comments there or here are welcome.

(Cross-posted to http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/02/13/more-fire-updates/#comment-635151 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8547&page=1#135073)

People seem to forget that aboriginal people had no assets to worry about losing when they set fires. Ill bet they set plenty at bad times that affected or even killed neighboring tribes. How many times have we seen "backburn gone wrong" stories? Who is going to pay for all this hazard reduction burning? Who will compensate the hayfever and asthma sufferers? What will you lot say when the skies are perpetually hazy and the smell of smoke lingers for months and months?

Numerous previous inquiries following fires have all come to the same conclusions and I doubt this one will be any different. It will find that the majority of deaths were from people in cars who saw the flames then decided to run way too late. The houses that burned will be found to have been abandoned while those that survived had residents present and actively suppressing spot fires.

The conclusions will be the same as all the other inquiries. i.e. If your leaving, leave early, long before you see flames or even smoke. If you see the fire and decide to run you are probably going to die. If you stay be prepared to hide while the fire front passes and then get out and extinguish spotfires. Longstanding and successful wisdom that country people would be wise to take heed of.

It would be quite felonious to argue that Aboriginals did not have any assets; it is 2009, although it is obvious that some people’s intellectual capacity has reached rock bottom, not everyone has surrender to Primitive idiocy.
Many people perished in cars because of the intensity and speed of the fire; If Man cannot escape in Machines , how the hell do you think anyone or thing could escape ;- this is so , because of the Criminal negligent laws PASSED by your government to appease a minority of Lobotomized Idiots, and the brainwashed Cosmo Lobotomized snotty nosed morons .
In turn, prevent anyone, or Authority to do anything to prevent it.
The fact that the temperatures released was 26 times more radiation than Hiroshima Atomic detonation, is the prize winning assumption of how much fuel was on the floor.

It will not matter if a house is burnt down or not, the Intensity from NOW on , and well off into the future , fires will ensure that there will be vast horizons of dead baron wastelands; - poetic justice then, it matches the Greens theory not only anti Human , it kills off and makes nature redundant.A new definition of National Geographics.
Nothing ,or No one would escape that.

The sheer ignorance about the bush and bushfires is underlined by may of these posts.
In a fire like the Vic ones create their own wind and can and do blow embers up to a kilometre. In many house burns it’s the embers that burn houses!

Therefore clear areas alone won't necessarily save houses. SA Hills houses in the Cherry Garden/Corromandel (rain shadow and regular fires) after “the big Hills burn” had extra building requirements mandated. Boxed guttering, roof sprinklers independent water, Double Glazing, shutters to mention a few. Perhaps bunkers should be added. Sure it cost more to build there but if you couldn't afford to build in those safety features then you couldn't "afford"(too dangerous) to live there.

As I've said before there is no one culprit or solution that will solve the issue.

I could point to those recalcitrant residents who refuse to move with the times and store their winter fire wood, build chicken coops, dump their prunings, park derelict cars in firebreaks behind their houses (as have occurred near my home) some have even fenced them off to stop people going behind their houses! And become violent when made to clear it up. Their argument is that these areas won’t stop fire…of course not they’re access to defend their houses.

It should be noted the SES/council/fire brigade organized a fire information afternoon because of the proximity to high fire loaded bush and drought…no body came. The attitude that Fire protection is Somebody Else’s Problem….councils Government bodies, Greenies (usually far end extremists) and fire Bugs. Yet raise their taxes/rates to pay for it and then listen to the screams. But a new performing arts centre, a settler museum or improvements to a sporting field etc….well!
Every environment has its costs and risks. Be aware, properly prepare or pay the price. Wake up Australia fire protection is down to all of us after all this is a country that has evolved to burn. Too busy is not an excuse it’s an epitaph

Roger you said! "The second requirement is for the owner-occupiers of land to realize that they own the fuel and thus the fire that burns that fuel" Well Roger, resident owners do not always have control over vegetation or its offspring,the fuel load on their property. Local councils and their state government masters prescribe environmental bylaws,local laws,statutory instruments which ban,outlaw and further restrict the owners maintenance and safe management of their homes where native vegetation is present, even if the vegetation is planted and produced by the owners .

I am amazed at the armchair environmentalist's who try to slate the blame to the property owners and in another issue, lobby state and local councils to prescribe no selective clearing and prescriptive controls over other residents property to selfishly protect their views.

Mikk,
Aboriginal people had many assets that they carefully protected with their use of fire that they evolved over their 40-60,000 years of living in Australia. Those assets were their food sources, animals for many products such as skins and bones, medicinal plants, bark of certain trees for canoes or utensils, clean water supplies, and the list goes on (not forgetting their own lives and those of their families and tribal members). Many of these assets were very different to what so many Victorians have sadly lost in the fires, but they were essential assets nonetheless.
Roger, Good article; keep it up.