The recent and possibly current, destruction of homes in the Victorian fires seems to highlight, going by the coverage on TV, that most of the homes lost were situated in areas of heavy eucalyptus tree presence.

One wonders why the trees were not cleared away from the houses as euclyptus oil, which is a fire accelerant, is a feature of such trees.

Dear Is Mise,

Perhaps it's a question of "It won't happen to us?"

Foolish, yes. But then perhaps it's possibly the
love of nature and the bush that these people love
that prompts them to move to these areas in the
first place. They feel the risk is worth it.

Perhaps people might avoid building houses on flood plains, among eucalypts or on prime agricultural land.

Re, BUSHFIRES, Is Mise got it right.
People who build homes in the thick of highly flammable bush have no right to expect Firemen and women to risk their lives defending such indefensible foibles.
It's time for Rural Fire Brigades to advise these selfish home owners that the Brigades will not come to their aid,.

Indeed, eucalyptus trees should be replaced with useful and not-so-flammable fruit-trees.

Is Mise,
If one travels the Great Ocean Road one sees roofs of houses just above thick dense low scrub. No wonder they burnt.

In some cases it is just stupidity in other cases the local council may have 'tree preservation' orders that stop people from clearing flammable material from near their homes. Even with adequate clearing that stops a house from catching alight from radiated heat, a home can still ignite from embers from an approaching fire. This cause of fire, by burning embers, can be extinguished if there is at least one able bodied person at the house. The present fashion of mass evacuation has a lot to do with many homes burning.

I have had over 50 years experience in bushfire fighting at all levels so know a little about it. Basicly, a home needs a cleared area to stop radiated heat causing ignition and someone in attendance to put out any fire started by wind blown embers.

If anyone doubts what I say, then consult the Australian Bushfires book written by Joan Webster of Victoria, after the disasterous Ash Wednesday fires, It has many recommendations, as has state fire service publications.

City types shouldn't be complacent and criticising.

It wouldn't take much: a hot dry period, gusting winds and a mistake somewhere (a powerline affected by a falling limb or lightning?) for whole suburbs to be engulfed in a fire storm due to the native tree and shrub fashion and litter used in gardens.

Where fires leap streets fire brigades are easily overwhelmed.

Foxy,
You may have reviewed the above book or one of your colleges may have some years ago.

The correct title is 'The Complete Australian Bushfire Book' Joan Katherine Webster. ISBN 0 17 006759 9

It is written in straight forward everyday language and easy to read. To me it shows that the author is a very practical person.

So impressed am I by the book that I have purchased over the years about a dozen copies and given them as presents to people that reside in 'at risk' areas.

Being written by a fellow Victorian, I thought you may be interested.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Eucalypts are the base of many Australian ecosystems. Other plants and animals depend on the eucalypts being there. By replacing eucalypts with fruit trees an ecosystem is destroyed. There has been too much habitat destruction by human intervention. Habitat destruction is the chief cause of species extinction.

Also evident on the TV were tall trees that had fallen across some roads; one might ask why are trees that can fall and block a road during a bushfire not cut down?

Is Mise,
If we could asses where a bushfire was going to start and its path removing roadside trees could be done, but we cannot do that. Its like trying to predict where lightning will strike. There are thousands of miles of rural roads, so cost is the problem. Roads have become fire hazards now since the advent of livestock transport. Council in my former area weed spray the roadsides to stop grass growing right up to the bitumen, thus giving a wider fire break. Some 'greenie' councils have stopped firewood gathering from roadsides which adds to the hazard.

Clearing near a house does not necessarily mean 'shearing'. Some trees can be retained, but they should be smooth barked and spaced well apart.

Banjo,

I've been in a rural fire brigade also but nowhere near your length of time, I have also been on private company fire teams and on the Army Fire squad in a couple of big storage areas with acres of grass which we kept well cut where possible and burnt off other areas (no greenies to worry about). We usually did the burn offs as a fire fighting drill.

Among the hippies that I know on the North Coast and adjacent mountains in NSW the planting of fire retardant species of trees and bushes has always been of much importance.

For a good read, see:
http://www.smalltreefarm.com.au/Aust%20Article-Take%20The%20Eucalypt%20Out%20of%20Incendiary%20Debate.pdf

One way to clear trees from the roadsides would be to allow the felling and removal of trees for firewood.

Banjo, "Some 'greenie' councils have stopped firewood gathering from roadsides which adds to the hazard"

Western Australia would take the prize for over-zealousness.

What irritates farmers are the lunatic bans preventing farmers from slashing and so on to reduce the fuel along fences bordered by roads.

Is Mise,

An interesting article, thank you.

Dear David,

<<Habitat destruction is the chief cause of species extinction.>>

So your priority is to preserve all species even if it means that your home will burn down with everything you have inside, including those sentimental and otherwise things that no insurance can replace.

Or is this priority of yours only in regards to other people's houses?

People should be able to exercise their priorities on their own land: if yours is to preserve more species than by all means do so - on yours.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I am asking people to think of the consequences resulting from where they put their homes. I am asking people to go easy on destruction of nature. I am asking people to think of the consequences of their actions. I don't think we should be free to do what we want regardless of how much damage we do not only to other humans but also to other species and the general environment.

You wrote: "People should be able to exercise their priorities on their own land: if yours is to preserve more species than by all means do so - on yours."

There are laws restricting what people can do on their own land. People are not free to dump noxious materials in a stream running through their property, to clear forest land without a permit or to do other things on land even if it is our own. The reason is that what we do on our property can affect others.

We cannot operate on the basis, "I'm all right, Jack. To hell with everybody else."

When I was growing up in the Victorian Western districts I spent quite a few springs out on the back of the local brigade truck conducting roadside burns. Back then the done thing was for the farmer to have plowed a run next to his fence as part of his contribution to the break, and there was a lot of mutterings on the truck about 'the slack bastard' if we came to a section that was not done. Thankfully there were very few of them.

Now-a-days it seems none of them do it. Either too bloody tight to spend the diesel or wanting to crop every last inch.

I would love to see it made mandatory.

Dear David,

<<There are laws restricting what people can do on their own land>>

Anyone who isn't blind knows that, but it's an Argumentum ad baculum.
Other places have laws saying that a woman may not go outside unless fully covered and accompanied by a male relative - it proves nothing about right and wrong!

<<The reason is that what we do on our property can affect others>>

Dumping noxious materials in a stream that flows to other properties can actively and adversely affect others, real others, thus is immoral. Whether it is also happens to be illegal I care not of.

Clearing one's own forest land (and especially when those trees are replaced with fruit trees), does not meet that criterion and in any case, how could a piece of paper called "permit" make a difference whether a particular act is harmful or otherwise?

You could obviously claim that everything we do affects everyone else, concluding that we should not be free to scratch our nose without a permit from "those who know". You may note from chaos-theory that scratching our nose could cause a typhoon - or also prevent a typhoon: could your omniscient government tell which will actually result?

How more so when the "affected others" do not even exist!
The claim against cutting down forests is of protecting those generations yet to come: well why ought they come in the first place? This is not a necessity, this is only a DESIRE, an AMBITION that some people harbour to see their progeny last long after they die (including biological, cultural and intellectual progeny). What the state is saying here is that you who owns land must sacrifice your desires, forego your comfort on your land and in this particular case even live in constant fear of fire under the significant risk of losing all you have, all for the desires of others. How odd!

SteeleRedux, "Now-a-days it seems none of them do it [plow a run as a fire break]. Either too bloody tight to spend the diesel or wanting to crop every last inch"

See this earlier post,
"..What irritates farmers are the lunatic bans preventing farmers from slashing and so on to reduce the fuel along fences bordered by roads"
(Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 4 January 2016 11:22:29 PM)

Where the fuel break is within the property fence (and not on the road side) the fences are lost in any fire, likely caused by an idiotic act by a member of the travelling public.

You couldn't have done much volunteering for the rural fire service, which largely relies on the farming community for its volunteers and equipment, it you were not aware that up until the interfering urban keyboard greens of recent years, firebreaks were immediately external to the boundary fence surrounding the property. Done by farmers. Main Roads or Shire Councils also ran a tractor slasher or a sprayer early in the season to reduce the fuel that was immediately adjoining the road.

Contrary to what you say though, it would be the rare farmer who doesn't do the firebreak within his fences, while knowing that he will still lose his fencing and stock.

Maybe you could get off that backside to volunteer for Blazeaid, to see first hand the damage and do something to help,

http://blazeaid.com/

Dear Yuyutsu,

You do not have to live in fear of fire. Where building a house is in a fire-hazard area where you must make great modifications in the area to live there you just don't build. It's that simple.

I live on acreage. We have eucalypts, poincianas, grevilleas, cycads and other good stuff growing. We have parrots, butcher birds, kookaburras, noisy miners, goannas, pythons, koalas and other creatures. I enjoy what we have very much. I am 90 years old. When I die the land will remain. I want to leave it in a condition so that the next person who lives here can enjoy it as I do. The others are not only people but the other living beings with whom I share this land.

All of us will die, but the land will still be here along with the life on it. Let's not mess it up.

We differ as we do in so many things.

Is Mise,
I am aware of your military experience but was not aware that included time in the fire squad as well.

I take your point about tree species that have fire retardant properties and you are right about the need to promote them and to use them as a screen to catch burning embers. That helps to protect houses.

However I believe that the current fashion of mass evacuation is the cause of the loss of many homes. Certainly send the kids and the infirm away to a safe location as one only needs able bodied people to remain to protect the home. Many homes can be made a lot safer with some work and a little cost. One should think of the home as the refuge for when the smoke gets too thick to remain outside.

Before moving to an urban area in Qld, I had built a rural home that had a roof and under verandah sprinkler system, plus sprinklers on the perimeter fence to water the lawn and fire prevention. It can be done with some thought.

Education of rural and outer urban residents is essential and I would like to see an end to this fashion of mass evacuation and road closures.

This affects all of us because when houses are lost the cost of insurance goes up. Not to even mention the heartbreak and having to start over again for the victims.

The dense vegetation might look pretty when it's lush and it's raining, but during fire season it's deadly.

Councils must allow people to clear a safe space around their houses or should be liable.

Australia has always had bushfires. Many species need fire to propagate. They've evolved that way in response to the aboriginal practice of burning to promote new growth.

The issue is why do we have so many more raging, uncontrollable fires as compared to the pre-1950 periods.

Reason - the bush is now considered sacred and controlled burn of the undergrowth is now sacrilegious.

The best summary of this is here:

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2015/12/green-burnt-red/

mhaze says 'Many species need fire to propagate. They've evolved that way in response to the aboriginal practice of burning to promote new growth.' I find this almost impossible to believe.

Dear mhaze could you please give us a brief description of this evolutionary process?

Are there any scientists out there who can support mhaze's statement?

//Dear mhaze could you please give us a brief description of this evolutionary process?

Are there any scientists out there who can support mhaze's statement?//

I'm not a scientist, but this ain't quantum electrodynamics. It's not even rocket science.

Fire acts as a selective pressure on vegetative populations. Those trees which are better at resisting fire or re-propagating after a fire have a selective advantage over those that don't. I general, trees which survive fires go on to propagate more trees which are good at surviving fires. Those that don't, don't.

I don't know how to break it down any more simply for you simpletons without the use of hand puppets and silly voices. If you can't wrap your head around the concept of evolution by natural selection, it is clear that science is not your forté.

Back to the topic:

Fuel is going to burn at some point. It's not question of 'if' but when, where and how. I'm in favour of controlled burning and allowing people to pick up deadfall for firewood, no matter where that deadfall occurs. The National Parks an Wildlife Service disagree with me on the latter point, but those guys are dicks.

Dear Toni Lavis,

A high school kid could come up with the explanation you just put forward. We all know the basic tenet of natural selection. What I'm looking for is a scientific description of what happened in the Australian bush as a result of human intervention. I want dates, taxonomies, archaeological data, etc. So maybe you and mhaze can put your heads together and come up with the sort of stuff I am looking for instead of telling us the obvious about not knowing any science.

//What I'm looking for is a scientific description of what happened in the Australian bush as a result of human intervention. I want dates, taxonomies, archaeological data, etc.//

Well you're a big boy now Mr. Opinion, so you can research that stuff for yourself like other people do. If you need somebody to hold your hand and help you do your research, there are a lot of Universities in this country who would be happy to help you: that's what they're there for.

I don't give a rat's anus because botany is one of the boring sciences. But whatever floats your boat...

Dear Toni Lavis,

That's what I expected to hear from you: the 'know-all-know-nothing' response.

//Well you're a big boy now Mr. Opinion//

Apparently I was wrong...

Oh well. You learn something new every day.

MR O,

I'm tempted to respond as you once responded when I asked you to provide support for one of your daffy notions..."My answer to your requests is NO. Don't ask me to do what you yourself cannot do." But knowing that that response was just proof that you indeed had no evidence and knowing that my responding in a like matter would just lower me to your level ( and I don't want to be that far down), I'll provide you with some data.

(Although I'm flabbergasted that someone with 4 degrees -lol- wouldn't know this. I seem to recall learning of it in primary school all those years ago).

Anyway, some plants have evolved such that they require fire to germinate and /or flower and some fauna use the post-fire feast to increase their numbers. Aboriginals used the fire to create the new growth which then attracted fauna and thus food.

eg:

eucalypt species produce shoots from burnt trunks and boughs. These shoots are eventually able to establish leaves, and so
provide nourishment to the trees.

Banksias and hakeas store seed in woody fruits which open as a result of fire. Consequently the seeds germinate and grow on the burnt ground with reduced competition from grasses.

Grass trees flower after fire due to a fire-initiated release of the gas acetylene, which initiates the growth of the flower spike

Some native orchids only flower immediately after fire and sprout from bulbs which may have lain dormant in the soil for up to 20 years.

Sclerophyll is a term used to describe plants with an adaptation for survival in extreme conditions. This includes leaves that are hardened, thickened and resistant to moisture loss, such as
those of a eucalypt tree or the native heath. Most sclerophyll vegetation is also well adapted to fire

The New Holland mouse increases in numbers soon after a fire has occurred. This is because seeds, the primary food source for this mouse, are released after fire.

Let me know if you need help with anything else eg understanding statistics.

If people want to live in Australian forests then they should build fireproof houses and plant retardants around them.

It's not hard to design a fireproof house.

Onthebeach wrote “firebreaks were immediately external to the boundary fence surrounding the property.” which is complete rubbish. They were always internal here in Victoria and they were rightly seen as the farmer doing his bit.

Did a trip from Ballarat to Hamilton in the Western Districts a little while back and fewer than 1 in 10 farmers had put fire breaks on their sides of the fences. They have gotten out of the habit and there seems to be a shifting of the burden of responsibility on to others. It has to stop.

What was also evident was the lack of fuel control in and around windbreaks next to the road. When I was helping with spring burn-offs in the seventies the land owner would often have collected the bark and fallen branches into a pile for us to fire up in a controlled setting. Doesn't seem to be a priority any more.

The argument that roadside edges need to be stripped to save fencing is inane. By far the major sources of ignition are lighting strikes and on farm machinery. If this was truly a concern it would make far more sense to have mandatory breaks on the farmer's side of the property.

There are some roadside verges in our district harbouring the last remnants of some species of native grasses. They most certainly need protection. My brother-in-law is a sheep farmer on a soldier settlement block. He is chuffed to have an orchid that is only found on the section of road out the front of his property and is quite protective of it.

Dear ShadowMinister

You wrote;

“Councils must allow people to clear a safe space around their houses or should be liable.” Most councils down our way mandate just this. However the land owner is intent on clearing native veg then they should pay for offsets. We have less than 15% of the original forest cover left in this state and the biggest cause of clearing isn't forestry any more it is hobby farmers on 20 to 40 acres wanting to clear sections of a subdivided bigger property that were often left uncleared for generations.

What gets my goat are people moving into areas which are known for beautiful forested areas then take councils to court over clearing restrictions. If everyone did what they do then the place would quickly lose its appeal and these belligerent types would just move on to spoil the next beaut spot.

Dear mhaze

You wrote;

“The issue is why do we have so many more raging, uncontrollable fires as compared to the pre-1950 periods. Reason - the bush is now considered sacred and controlled burn of the undergrowth is now sacrilegious.”

Rubbish. The Victorian government has been aggressively conducting burns throughout the state and had a mandated 5% of all forested areas to be burnt each year. It was idiocy and resulted in some areas which had never seen fires in living memory being put to the match, other areas where the practice actually increased the fuel load, and others which were so far from any community the time effort and money spent was a complete waste. What didn't happen were burns where they were really needed, close to townships to buffer them from fires. Why? Because the risk that one might get away, which is very real, and result in the loss of homes was too great for any public servant to take.

I have a cousin who is a recognised fire expert in a government department in Victoria with a very large area under his responsibility. He recognises climate change and the biggest contributor to the great frequency of wildfires, why don't you?

Dear Is Mise,

You wrote;

“It's not hard to design a fireproof house.”

A geologist I know has his house right in the middle of an eucalyptus forest about 20kms away from us. It is partially underground, surrounded by thick earthen walls and a meter of soil on its roof. The windows and doors are narrow and designed to withstand very high temperatures. However when I asked his if he was going to stay if a fire came through the answer was “No way in the world!”

I helped a mate clean up after the Ash Wednesday fires. His brick house was reduced to walls 2 bricks high, life memories all destroyed. We then went on to help others, taking truckloads of twisted roofing iron to an area that was bulldozed out of the side of a hill. He was a member of the local brigade and they had fled in front of the fire but decided to try and make a stand where the trees thinned into heath land. That idea was shelved when their fire brigade shed flew 60 meters over their heads. Some of the properties we cleaned up were not touched by the fire, just completely blown apart by the wind generated in front of the blaze. There were others on the downslopes which had survived but lay at extreme angles. The fire had burnt the timber stilts and when the house collapsed as a result it put the fire out underneath.

A fireproof house might look good on paper but I would need to be very confident to bet my life on one.

Dear mhaze,

That's not what I would call much of a scientific explanation. Looks more like the sort of description one would get from someone who spends a lot of time in the garden. I don't suppose we would be lucky enough to find any evolutionary biologists on this website who could give us a proper explanation.

I suppose that's the problem I find with the general discussions in The Forum - it lacks expertise. This means I don't get a chance to learn anything apart from the fact that there are a lot of people in the world who know very little about the world they live in. Which is of course the consequence of a society that emphasises earning a living at the expense of learning knowledge.

Mr O,

"That's not what I would call much of a scientific explanation"

Well its difficult to fit an entire scientific treatise into 350 words particularly when trying to educate someone who is so ill-educated on the subject that we need to go back to first principles.

Perhaps this will help your education:

http://www.adonline.id.au/plantevol/australian/

"Of course, there was human influence also. There is a widely-accepted theory which states the Australian aborigines contributed to the change in the Australian landscape.

Aborigines are thought to have colonised Australia about 38 000 years ago. Incidentally, the charcoal deposits in the fossil record increase at around this time. It is known that the aboriginals had a régime of burning, which led to the renewing of the Australian bush.

While fire had already restricted the rainforests of Australia, it is thought that the aboriginal fire program in combination with the dry climate may account for the unusually high levels of sclerophyllous vegetation in Australia. It is also though that the high frequency of fires eliminated the Araucarian forests of Australia, and restricted Dacrydium to Tasmania."

If you but look there's a whole plethora of data on this on the internet thingy.

SteeleRedux,

I know that in some circles the government having a target is the same as the government doing something, but elsewhere, others like to actually see the results rather than the targets.

Yes Victoria had a 5% target which was recommended by 2009 Bushfires Royal Commission. But is was never met and is now officially abandoned. The new system was advocated by those who wanted, for environmental reasons, less burning so, even though the current government won't outright say it, the effect is less controlled burning than what was previously done which was in turn less than the recommended 5%.

And then they wonder why there are more fires!

Ahhh but we always have the fall-back position of every government around the world....it wasn't our fault, it was that darned global warming what done it.

"I have a cousin who is a recognised fire expert in a government department in Victoria with a very large area under his responsibility. "

What's his name? I'll look up what he has to say to justify his claims that AGW is the culprit.

'I have a cousin who is a recognised fire expert in a government department in Victoria with a very large area under his responsibility. He recognises climate change and the biggest contributor to the great frequency of wildfires, why don't you?'

did not take long before Steele's blind faith and ignoraqnce of past fires comes gets blurted out. I suspect Steelie all the extra rain that was never suppose to fall around Sydney might add a little more fuel when it dries out Steelie. How gullible can one really be?

Dear runner,

This is a quote from Page 1 of the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission;

“It would be a mistake to treat Black Saturday as a ‘one-off’ event. With populations at the rural–urban interface growing and the impact of climate change, the risks associated with bushfire are likely to increase.”

So I can either take the learned opinion of three royal commissioners or the Tourettesque mutterings of a religious nutter like yourself.

Spoilt for choice yet again.

Dear mhaze,

You really are suffering from a disconnect aren't you.

I will bring you back to your claim;

“The issue is why do we have so many more raging, uncontrollable fires as compared to the pre-1950 periods. Reason - the bush is now considered sacred and controlled burn of the undergrowth is now sacrilegious.”

How on earth have we managed to have “many more raging, uncontrollable fires” when the amount of public land that has been control burnt has risen substantially every decade for the last 50 bloody years?

In the first part of the 1990s the average was around 20,000 hectares a year. By the end of the decade it had climbed to over 100,000 hectares per year. In the three years preceding the 2009 fires saw record amounts of burning off averaging nearly 150,000 h/y well above targets. In the years following huge jumps were made. In 2010 it was around 190,000, and by 2012 it had hit over 200,000 h/y, nearly 10 times that of the 1990 average. So has all this scorched earth resulted in less fires? Not according to you.

Perhaps my friend there might be some other factor, would you like to offer your thoughts? The Royal Commissioners felt they knew the reason but possibly your broad expertise might furnish us with a different perspective. The floor is yours.

SteeleRedux,

The Royal Commission 2009 mentions climate change exactly twice in a 42 page report. It makes no attempt to analysis any effects but mentions it in passing as a contributing factor.

It also recommends that "The State fund and commit to implementing a long-term program of prescribed burning based on an annual
rolling target of 5 per cent minimum of public land." That equates to about 390000 ha/pa.

"Executive Director of Fire and Emergency Management at DEPI, Lee Miezis said the department is in the process of working up to the five per cent target.'Last year [2013]we achieved 250 000 hectares and this year we are working towards a target of 260 000 hectares.'. So they never got anywhere near the recommendation and have now abandoned the effort.

Incidentally, the 5% was a minimum. Submission to the RC had talked of needing 10% and some experts talked about 33%.

There are really only two possible reasons why these minimums haven't been met or even attempted - funding or opposition to it. But the government keeps saying that they'll spend whatever is needed so logically....

Still waiting for the name of your cousin who has decided that its all down to AGW.

mhaze, "Still waiting for the name of your cousin who has decided that its all down to AGW"

Perhaps the same cousin, the Greens, who claimed that Queensland floods were caused by mining.

"Coal miners to blame for Queensland floods, says Australian Greens leader Bob Brown"
http://tinyurl.com/4bqxdtd