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.