I hope your conflation of "green" groups with the Greens as a political party is not a deliberate slur. The Greens are not in government in the areas affected. The reaction of Liberals and ALP to a threat losing votes to the Greens is to implement fake "green" policies that are not scientifically based. The science of bush fire prevention and management is extremely complex and no one single lobby group can claim to have the wisdom and breadth of understanding to come up with a comprehensive policy.

Rather than assigning blame, why do we not push for true multi-discipline approach by an independent research body such as the CSIRO that can look at all factors, including building design, defence and escape strategies, fire shelters, the effect of exotic invader fire-adapted vegetation, forestry practice and best practice in preventive burning?

It is not correct to ascribe the Victorian fires to climate change, and I am not aware of anyone who understands the science who has done so. However, an increased trend towards extended droughts and heat waves can be expected, based on the best science available, so we really do need to get out act together to prevent or at least mitigate future disasters.

I am running for Greens in the Qld state election so no doubt the author will consider me hostile. But I would genuinely welcome a broad-scale approach to the problem and an end to assigning blame without offering solutions.

'However, an increased trend towards extended droughts and heat waves can be expected, based on the best science available,'

The 'best science' is crap. Just ask the scientist (BOM) who predicted a dryer than average summer in North Queensland. When computer models can get it right one week in advance then we might be able take the best science a little seriously. The Greens are nothing short of disgraceful in denial as usual as to their role in black Saturday. How convenient to blame it on climate change . What an insult to true scientist.

Philip, I would refer you to
http://www.abc.net.au/blackfriday/aftermath/dpackham.htm

The CSIRO have been researching the effects of forest fires for many years and most foresters seem to agree that they have got a pretty good handle on what constitutes effective management of our forests. Hopefully, some common sense will prevail as a result of the Black Saturday carnage. If a fire had started on the north side of the Dandenongs, what happened in Marysville and Kinglake would have seemed like chicken feed. We await next summer with trepidation.

Mark Poynter is also very well qualified to make the comments in the article, having had 30 years of experience to back it up.

David

I too hope that local Governments are forced to rethink their position on removal of "native vegetation" in order to place a fire break around homes built in bushland and designated "firestorm" areas.

Recently, I rang my shire to ask about cutting down a swath of trees around my home which is in a designated firestorm area and was told that I was not allowed to cut down a single tree without a planning permit which in all likelihood would not be granted since I wasn't taking out the trees in order to build anything. I was further told I am not even allowed to cut up deadfall.

I've written to local politicians and my letters have been handed on to appropriate authorities. I'm hoping that out of the terrible tragedy of 'Black Saturday' comes some common sense.

By the way Runner, you call yourself a Christian, yet you tend to use very hostile language of late and the use of the word "crap" during much of your vile diatribe, I find most offensive.
Aime.

Aime, just do it. If you wait for the bureaucrats to give you a permit, Hell will have frozen over. Just make sure that nothing falls on your house. Plant a nice evergreen hedge around it all, they make good fire retardant breaks if you keep them tidy.

David

Blaming sustainable forest management for global warming is nonsense and shows how extreme self labelled ‘green’ groups have become.

In 2007 for its Fourth Assessment Report the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said of Forestry in relation to reducing climate change said:

“In the long term, a sustainable forest management strategy aimed at maintaining or increasing forest carbon stocks, while producing an annual sustained yield of timber, fibre or energy from the forest, will generate the largest sustained mitigation benefit”

Forestry is saving and storing emissions of greenhouse gas as it renews the forest after harvest with carbon stored in the living wood and our timber products. This is not to be confused with deforestation, where the forests are cleared and the land converted to other uses, such as agriculture, infrastructure or cities.

Mark is also correct that ‘greens’ are looking to deflect the blame, by targeting climate change as contributing to the fires. This ignores the fact that Victoria has had a long record of bushfires recorded as early as 1850, and well before the recent increase in global temperature.

Such blame shifting was tried Channel 7 Sunday Night Program on, see http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunday-night/video/-/page/5 click on “Questioning the Victorian bushfire disaster” in the video archive.

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”.

Let’s hope in the future politics is excluded from bushfire management

Mark does indeed make some good points but his contradictory expression/logic and myopic half truths do betray his motives. While he acknowledges that the green lobby isn’t all people playing flutes and worshiping trees spirits or involving chains. Yet continues to criticise the ‘the green lobby’ as an unicellular entity therefore must be over ruled. for ‘wood products’ (euphemism for logging) and safety.
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.

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.

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

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.

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.

"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

Protagoras:
In your previous post that I was referring to, you quoted from a WAFA submission dated October 2003. Because of my many years of dealing with WAFA, my instinct is to assume that they have quoted the CALM annual reports out of context. For example, spring burning is cheaper to undertake than autumn burning but it is environmentally more damaging, so, without knowing the context of the quotes from CALM's reports, it's hard to know exactly what message CALM was trying to get across (although the WAFA modus operandi was to always bag CALM no matter what they said).

Your long extract from the CALM 2001-2 annual report highlights my concerns about the impact of political and public pressure on both CALM's preparedness to burn and on the lack of funding available to CALM at that time (funding was significantly increased in the following years).

Yes, smoke is damaging to health but wildfire is even more damaging: it kills, as the 210 dead from the Victorian bushfires of last month show.

The bottom line is that, while DEC can and should do a better job of prescribed burning with greater attention paid to protecting environmental values, politicians need to fund DEC better so they can do this job properly. As well, people like you and I need to publicly support DEC and be willing to put up with smoke a few times a year in exchange for a forest environment that is much more fire safe.

I live near the Murrindindi area that was burnt and I am seeking some clarification....

Mark Poynter raises his concerns of forest management being withdrawn from forests and that this poses a problem for fire management.

However, the Murrindindi fire. that started at the old sawmill, progressed into the adjoining state forest which has been extensively logged for many years. It has further logging planned. There are no national parks near the old sawmill, but only a small strip of a camping reserve following the Murrindindi River. Driving through the area, much of the logged area has been severely burnt. I am under the impression that the forestry industry would view the state forests of Murrindindi as being well managed. So, why is there so much discussion of 'locking up forests', removing foresters from the forest and angst at greenies when the forests surrounding the old sawmill have been heavily logged for decades and had roads extensively built through them? Looking at the fire maps, by the time the fire front began burning into the Yarra Ranges National Park, it had since burnt through Marysville and other extensively logged areas surrounding the town up on Paradise Plains and Taggerty River area. Please, I am no fire expert, so any clarification would be welcome??