And which one burns best - a gum tree adapted to the dry conditions, or the dried husk of a long-dead avo or macadamia plant?

Funny how the apple growers in Bilpin (NSW) have suffered so badly from the recent fires.......

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..
So this cattle farm in a drought area is suddenly going to find 350 litres of water per week per tree, is it? Macadamias require up to five megs per hectare per year. How many megs of reliable water has your drought-stricken property got?

Jeezers, I've got a 17 meg license (plus of course riparian rights) and that's very high for a place of this size. Five megs per hectare is huge AFAIK. Check out this map www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/climate_averages/rainfall/index.jsp and see how few areas have the 1200 mm per annum required. Oh, and it looks as if avos need just as much water.

Gee, maybe gum trees work in Oz because gum trees work in Oz?

Yeah, people generally agree that gumtrees survived fire better, but they forget that they get by on little water too... imagine how well a tropical tree does in dry parts of aus?

I think we are applying too much logic again!


Just do it!

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..
How many megs of reliable water has your drought-stricken property got?

I have also possibly the biggest in Australia cactuses growing nicely . Definitely fireproof and draught too. If only we could convert into Australian Tequila there will be plenty potential buyers for end product.Anything is better then gum tree and eucalyptus.

I think we are applying too much logic again!


Just do it!

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..
And which one burns best - a gum tree adapted to the dry conditions, or the dried husk of a long-dead avo or macadamia plant?

Funny how the apple growers in Bilpin (NSW) have suffered so badly from the recent fires.......

True. From my own experience I could say that nothing burn faster then Macademia tree/branches.
but regrow also quickly.One cut down tree a year ago, regrow into 100 x 3 meter tall stick already. I have been even thinking about cutting those 100 sticks to have 100 new trees if only they could grown own roots.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..
I think we are applying too much logic again!


Just do it!

Pekan maybe?

Although in the age of gender equality there is a bit too much to worry about my trees gender here. But at least I could claim later on the nut babies are LBGT.

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..

Chris 249 said..
And which one burns best - a gum tree adapted to the dry conditions, or the dried husk of a long-dead avo or macadamia plant?

Funny how the apple growers in Bilpin (NSW) have suffered so badly from the recent fires.......

True. From my own experience I could say that nothing burn faster then Macademia tree/branches.
but regrow also quickly.One cut down tree a year ago, regrow into 100 x 3 meter tall stick already. I have been even thinking about cutting those 100 sticks to have 100 new trees if only they could grown own roots.

Macadamia tree is native to Australia, you are an introduced pest

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..

Chris 249 said..
And which one burns best - a gum tree adapted to the dry conditions, or the dried husk of a long-dead avo or macadamia plant?

Funny how the apple growers in Bilpin (NSW) have suffered so badly from the recent fires.......

True. From my own experience I could say that nothing burn faster then Macademia tree/branches.
but regrow also quickly.One cut down tree a year ago, regrow into 100 x 3 meter tall stick already. I have been even thinking about cutting those 100 sticks to have 100 new trees if only they could grown own roots.

Macadamia tree is native to Australia, you are an introduced pest

Select to expand quote

whippingboy said..

Macroscien said..

Chris 249 said..
And which one burns best - a gum tree adapted to the dry conditions, or the dried husk of a long-dead avo or macadamia plant?

Funny how the apple growers in Bilpin (NSW) have suffered so badly from the recent fires.......

True. From my own experience I could say that nothing burn faster then Macademia tree/branches.
but regrow also quickly.One cut down tree a year ago, regrow into 100 x 3 meter tall stick already. I have been even thinking about cutting those 100 sticks to have 100 new trees if only they could grown own roots.

Macadamia tree is native to Australia, you are an introduced pest

and you are not?
as an IT professional could you do this quick check and present me yours genealogy tree rooted here for 60 thousand years or so?

Finally we come to this revelation about the root cause of Australian bushfires.Australian bushfires are not direct fault of Greta and her Global Warming.Not a drought, heat , eucalyptus trees ,arsonists, or lack of firebombing planes even. At the basis or our bushfire crisis is total lack of care for the land. Current landowner remind more robbers sucking all juices as quickly as possible without any restrain or responsibility.What is called " natural state reserve' or "state forest" represent indeed abandoned piece of land that nobody care about. This abandoned , uncared land is on fire not a well look after farming land.
What is called protection of natural environment - inside this enclave of state forest_ indeed mean - we don't have money or resources to carry about this stuff. Lets leave it to their own devices to burn.My attempt here is to find economical reasons and resources so we could take care of whole land not just gold field, iron and coal mines or fertile land.

Surprised by result of the test ? Number " billion" is conservative here actual loss is much greater then that.

www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-31/fact-check-have-bushfires-killed-more-than-a-billion-animals/11912538

But your plan would kill far more animals, since they would be left to starve without the native plants they have evolved to feed on and live with. And your claim that forests and national parks are not cared for is just BS, as is your ludicrous claim that fires don't happen on cared-for farmland. The walnut farm I mentioned earlier burned. Banana plantations have burned. Fruit orchards have burned. State forests have burned.

One hundred thousand farms animals have died or been put down after these fires. How did that happen if, as you claim, there are no fires on well cared for farms? Why are you insulting those farmers by claiming their land was not cared for? How the hell do you know they didn't care for it, and who the hell are you to slag them off?

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..
But your plan would kill far more animals, since they would be left to starve without the native plants they have evolved to feed on and live with. And your claim that forests and national parks are not cared for is just BS, as is your ludicrous claim that fires don't happen on cared-for farmland. The walnut farm I mentioned earlier burned. Banana plantations have burned. Fruit orchards have burned. State forests have burned.

One hundred thousand farms animals have died or been put down after these fires. How did that happen if, as you claim, there are no fires on well cared for farms? Why are you insulting those farmers by claiming their land was not cared for? How the hell do you know they didn't care for it, and who the hell are you to slag them off?

Fire trucks did burn too, and houses. But you mixed effects with causes. Ask your wife to explain the difference.Those plantations did burned because everything burns when greatest on Earth forest fire is unleashed. I doubt that initial source of ignition was inside those private banana farms and those green bananas suddenly exploded and cause this massive disaster. Lets look and the map and verify your claim:
What is main area effected by famous Australian bushfires? Are they private farms and plantation or state forests and national parks? We found this euphemistic name for abandoned , uncared place by calling them national state reserve. All that state do is setting up bench and toilet for public to enjoy. Lets think what public servant could even do about those " national parks" that burn.1> Allocate all public funds to properly manage parks that in return doesn't provide any return on investment. Employ army of people to rake all leaves, create firebreaks and roads, trim branches. All budget of adjustment city will not be enough.Then you need to perform regularly burning every two - three years - eradicate all living animal with premeditated cruelty. I don't believe that koalas and other slow moving animals suddenly are able to escape planned back burning. Myth created for public consumption to validate cruel extermination. In the best case scenario we could say that planned back burning is scorching only 20 to 50 percents of animals died in natural bushfires. In may experience 10 to 100 Ha will be maximum plot size for single family to take care about bushland. If you have state forest, park - you may need similar work force in constant engagement 2. Leave the place alone to own devices and call it reserve. The place will burn regularly at least once in 10 years or even more frequently with worsening climate. 3. Conversion of eucalyptus bush into planned plantation. Plantation that yield profits on annual basis , paying for all labour and material cost of transformation and care. We don't need to transform suddenly and instantly whole 10 mln km2 of state forest into plantation. We could start with few limited size 100 -1000 ha piloted plots to make this research. To check after time if conversion make any difference in large fires.


If that is coincidence that map of Australian bushfires is identical to " native forest" ?

Select to expand quote

cisco said..

Worth bumping this one. I know, 3 whackos, but that doesn't mean they might not make a valid point. What they say here is 95% correct. The interesting bit of speculation that the biologist makes. ( he's a scientist after all, knows better than us) is that eucalypts evolved in rainforest and came out into the niche of fires resulting from lightning strikes. The biologist then suggests that lightning was not enough and that the breakthrough to domination by eucalyptus occurred with human arrival and firestick farming. This recent bit of research i found suggests we are still not sure how dominant eucalypts were prior to human settlement, so his hypothesis is still on the table. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309746546_Evolution_of_the_eucalypts_an_interpretation_from_the_macrofossil_record.

If so, then the koalas could also have benefitted from human arrival. They may have evolved their specialised diet since then ?? 50,000 years is plenty, we evolved lactose tolerance only about 10,000 years ago.

Years ago I did a bit of investigation on the air temperatures required to scorch eucalyptus leaves. Didn't get to finish the job, got led onto other things, ran out of seedlings etc, publish or perish. But anyway preliminary results were that leaves were scorched dead after a few minutes in a duct of circulating 60 degree air. About what we, and presumably koalas, can survive. Hence the koala's strategy of retreating to the highest branches in a bushfire works in a prescribed burn. In a prescribed burn the aim is to have a mild surface fire that will not send up air hot enough to scorch canopy leaves.

Now we aim to prescribe burn about 10% of forest each year, probably get 5? What if the aborigines got about 30% to burn each year. Why wouldn't they have? With surface fuel restricted to a max of 3 year build up crown fires would be rare. Koalas would thrive. Now they're threatened with extinction. Are they having trouble with modern forest management?

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..

Chris 249 said..
But your plan would kill far more animals, since they would be left to starve without the native plants they have evolved to feed on and live with. And your claim that forests and national parks are not cared for is just BS, as is your ludicrous claim that fires don't happen on cared-for farmland. The walnut farm I mentioned earlier burned. Banana plantations have burned. Fruit orchards have burned. State forests have burned.

One hundred thousand farms animals have died or been put down after these fires. How did that happen if, as you claim, there are no fires on well cared for farms? Why are you insulting those farmers by claiming their land was not cared for? How the hell do you know they didn't care for it, and who the hell are you to slag them off?

Fire trucks did burn too, and houses. But you mixed effects with causes. Ask your wife to explain the difference.Those plantations did burned because everything burns when greatest on Earth forest fire is unleashed. I doubt that initial source of ignition was inside those private banana farms and those green bananas suddenly exploded and cause this massive disaster. Lets look and the map and verify your claim:
What is main area effected by famous Australian bushfires? Are they private farms and plantation or state forests and national parks? We found this euphemistic name for abandoned , uncared place by calling them national state reserve. All that state do is setting up bench and toilet for public to enjoy. Lets think what public servant could even do about those " national parks" that burn.1> Allocate all public funds to properly manage parks that in return doesn't provide any return on investment. Employ army of people to rake all leaves, create firebreaks and roads, trim branches. All budget of adjustment city will not be enough.Then you need to perform regularly burning every two - three years - eradicate all living animal with premeditated cruelty. I don't believe that koalas and other slow moving animals suddenly are able to escape planned back burning. Myth created for public consumption to validate cruel extermination. In the best case scenario we could say that planned back burning is scorching only 20 to 50 percents of animals died in natural bushfires. In may experience 10 to 100 Ha will be maximum plot size for single family to take care about bushland. If you have state forest, park - you may need similar work force in constant engagement 2. Leave the place alone to own devices and call it reserve. The place will burn regularly at least once in 10 years or even more frequently with worsening climate. 3. Conversion of eucalyptus bush into planned plantation. Plantation that yield profits on annual basis , paying for all labour and material cost of transformation and care. We don't need to transform suddenly and instantly whole 10 mln km2 of state forest into plantation. We could start with few limited size 100 -1000 ha piloted plots to make this research. To check after time if conversion make any difference in large fires.


If that is coincidence that map of Australian bushfires is identical to " native forest" ?

Sorry, mostly a crock of Sh$t
and not worth debunking

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..

Chris 249 said..
But your plan would kill far more animals, since they would be left to starve without the native plants they have evolved to feed on and live with. And your claim that forests and national parks are not cared for is just BS, as is your ludicrous claim that fires don't happen on cared-for farmland. The walnut farm I mentioned earlier burned. Banana plantations have burned. Fruit orchards have burned. State forests have burned.

One hundred thousand farms animals have died or been put down after these fires. How did that happen if, as you claim, there are no fires on well cared for farms? Why are you insulting those farmers by claiming their land was not cared for? How the hell do you know they didn't care for it, and who the hell are you to slag them off?

Fire trucks did burn too, and houses. But you mixed effects with causes. Ask your wife to explain the difference.Those plantations did burned because everything burns when greatest on Earth forest fire is unleashed. I doubt that initial source of ignition was inside those private banana farms and those green bananas suddenly exploded and cause this massive disaster. Lets look and the map and verify your claim:
What is main area effected by famous Australian bushfires? Are they private farms and plantation or state forests and national parks? We found this euphemistic name for abandoned , uncared place by calling them national state reserve. All that state do is setting up bench and toilet for public to enjoy. Lets think what public servant could even do about those " national parks" that burn.1> Allocate all public funds to properly manage parks that in return doesn't provide any return on investment. Employ army of people to rake all leaves, create firebreaks and roads, trim branches. All budget of adjustment city will not be enough.Then you need to perform regularly burning every two - three years - eradicate all living animal with premeditated cruelty. I don't believe that koalas and other slow moving animals suddenly are able to escape planned back burning. Myth created for public consumption to validate cruel extermination. In the best case scenario we could say that planned back burning is scorching only 20 to 50 percents of animals died in natural bushfires. In may experience 10 to 100 Ha will be maximum plot size for single family to take care about bushland. If you have state forest, park - you may need similar work force in constant engagement 2. Leave the place alone to own devices and call it reserve. The place will burn regularly at least once in 10 years or even more frequently with worsening climate. 3. Conversion of eucalyptus bush into planned plantation. Plantation that yield profits on annual basis , paying for all labour and material cost of transformation and care. We don't need to transform suddenly and instantly whole 10 mln km2 of state forest into plantation. We could start with few limited size 100 -1000 ha piloted plots to make this research. To check after time if conversion make any difference in large fires.


If that is coincidence that map of Australian bushfires is identical to " native forest" ?

But the map of the bushfires is NOT identical to native forest. There's been no major fires in NQ, FNQ, the Piliga, the far west of NSW, NW Vic. NT, etc.

And if you notice, forests only make up 17% of Australia. They are already rare enough - destroying them will be a tragedy.

Why in the world should we take any notice of what you think about the consequence of controlled burns on native animals, when you have ZERO experience and have been wrong so many times before? As Ian notes, it's probable that koalas etc may survive HR burns quite well. Some other flora apparently needs hotter fires to germinate which is an issue. People have been studying the issue for some time - it's complicated in quite a few ways and simplistic ignorant "solutions" don't help anyone.

You've also completely ignored the fact that plantations need more water than we have in most areas, along with the economic problems and other issues such as the fact that many of the national parks are in terrain that is far too wild and steep for plantations.

How many of the parks that have burned recently have you been through? How familiar are you with their topography, soil, rainfall and access? To take just one current example - when have you gone through the area that is currently burning south of Canberra?

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

cisco said..

Worth bumping this one. I know, 3 whackos, but that doesn't mean they might not make a valid point. What they say here is 95% correct. The interesting bit of speculation that the biologist makes. ( he's a scientist after all, knows better than us) is that eucalypts evolved in rainforest and came out into the niche of fires resulting from lightning strikes. The biologist then suggests that lightning was not enough and that the breakthrough to domination by eucalyptus occurred with human arrival and firestick farming. This recent bit of research i found suggests we are still not sure how dominant eucalypts were prior to human settlement, so his hypothesis is still on the table. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309746546_Evolution_of_the_eucalypts_an_interpretation_from_the_macrofossil_record.

If so, then the koalas could also have benefitted from human arrival. They may have evolved their specialised diet since then ?? 50,000 years is plenty, we evolved lactose tolerance only about 10,000 years ago.

Years ago I did a bit of investigation on the air temperatures required to scorch eucalyptus leaves. Didn't get to finish the job, got led onto other things, ran out of seedlings etc, publish or perish. But anyway preliminary results were that leaves were scorched dead after a few minutes in a duct of circulating 60 degree air. About what we, and presumably koalas, can survive. Hence the koala's strategy of retreating to the highest branches in a bushfire works in a prescribed burn. In a prescribed burn the aim is to have a mild surface fire that will not send up air hot enough to scorch canopy leaves.

Now we aim to prescribe burn about 10% of forest each year, probably get 5? What if the aborigines got about 30% to burn each year. Why wouldn't they have? With surface fuel restricted to a max of 3 year build up crown fires would be rare. Koalas would thrive. Now they're threatened with extinction. Are they having trouble with modern forest management?

Fair points, well expressed.

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

cisco said..

Worth bumping this one. I know, 3 whackos, but that doesn't mean they might not make a valid point. What they say here is 95% correct. The interesting bit of speculation that the biologist makes. ( he's a scientist after all, knows better than us) is that eucalypts evolved in rainforest and came out into the niche of fires resulting from lightning strikes. The biologist then suggests that lightning was not enough and that the breakthrough to domination by eucalyptus occurred with human arrival and firestick farming. This recent bit of research i found suggests we are still not sure how dominant eucalypts were prior to human settlement, so his hypothesis is still on the table. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309746546_Evolution_of_the_eucalypts_an_interpretation_from_the_macrofossil_record.

If so, then the koalas could also have benefitted from human arrival. They may have evolved their specialised diet since then ?? 50,000 years is plenty, we evolved lactose tolerance only about 10,000 years ago.

Years ago I did a bit of investigation on the air temperatures required to scorch eucalyptus leaves. Didn't get to finish the job, got led onto other things, ran out of seedlings etc, publish or perish. But anyway preliminary results were that leaves were scorched dead after a few minutes in a duct of circulating 60 degree air. About what we, and presumably koalas, can survive. Hence the koala's strategy of retreating to the highest branches in a bushfire works in a prescribed burn. In a prescribed burn the aim is to have a mild surface fire that will not send up air hot enough to scorch canopy leaves.

Now we aim to prescribe burn about 10% of forest each year, probably get 5? What if the aborigines got about 30% to burn each year. Why wouldn't they have? With surface fuel restricted to a max of 3 year build up crown fires would be rare. Koalas would thrive. Now they're threatened with extinction. Are they having trouble with modern forest management?

There is a problem. Within those billion animals killed by bushfires only small percentage are koalas. I doubt that all could climb quickly to the top of the tree or run to escape. I can see a pattern emerging. Since Australia burn for thousand of years why to bother now ? Maybe because now we could do a difference.Moon is hanging above humans also for quite a time. Somehow now is time we could reach it , not only glare at. We have science , experience and technology. Even if Australia was on fire for last few thousand years doesn't meat that always must in the future. I understand Kato, dilemma. Will loose a well paid job when forest stop burning. Go fishing or surfing for a change.Then please spare me this heroes glorifications. All our citizens needs to turn into hearos because everything is burning around.But we don't need their sacrifice if everything is in order.Our next greatest example will be Gallipoli diggers.If somebody comes and turn the clock and prevent WWI in first place , there will be no need to those heroes at all. Our history will be wiped white from the most glorious achievements ! But this time traveler could crucified here for targeting nation saints.As usual in science the best method is well designed experiment.We could do such thought experiment even now without going into field.Lets take 3 similar in size districts / plots of forest most likely affected by frequent fires and set 3 different managers.1. First will be Kato doing nothing , but waiting , then running when lighting strikes and fire starts. We all know results already. May extinguish fire when lucky or not at all. Cost to the city council minimal,. just water bill.
2.IanK have another 1000 ha plot, to burn back every two or three years at best. Damage in the real fire will be lesser but counts of lost animals assured,l air polution, risk to spreading etc. Cost to the city council reasonable. Surrounding properties safe. Labour market only slightly improved
3. Me take another 1000 Ha plot from council. Hired contractor to cut the eucap trees, sell to the paper mill. Lease the space to banana grower , avocado and walnut plantation. Wait three year to have first harvest and none of the fires at all . After 30 years sell walnut trees again to IKEA to make furniture and plant nectarine, plums and mango trees. Excess money from operation delivered to city council regularly to build a school and hospital. Labour intensive and well paid enterprise but totally self funding.

Are you seriously claiming that Kato is trying to keep a "well paid job" and therefore discouraging attempts to stop bushfires?

It's ridiculous to talk about animals dying when your plan will stop them from ever having a life because you are destroying their habitat. Wildlife from koalas to platypus to fish and insects will be almost eradicated under your weird ideas.

Don't talk about science and experience when you keep on insulting those who know the science and have the experience.

I see that once again you have been unable to answer simple questions, such as;

1- where is the water for these orchards going to come from and at what cost, in dollars and to the ecology?

2- how many of the recent fire grounds have you been in or near, and if the answer is (as I suspect) few or none then why on earth do you assume that they could be planted with orchards etc?

Oh, and here's a third one - if you are such an expert on everything why are you stuck on a drought ridden farm and why have you not joined up with the volunteers and showed everyone how you know everything?

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..
Are you seriously claiming that Kato is trying to keep a "well paid job" and therefore encouraging bushfires?

It's ridiculous to talk about animals dying when your plan will stop them from ever having a life because you are destroying their habitat. Wildlife from koalas to platypus to fish and insects will be almost eradicated under your weird ideas.

Don't talk about science and experience when you keep on insulting those who know the science and have the experience.

I see that once again you have been unable to answer simple questions, such as;

1- where is the water for these orchards going to come from and at what cost, in dollars and to the ecology?

2- how many of the recent fire grounds have you been in or near, and if the answer is (as I suspect) few or none then why on earth do you assume that they could be planted with orchards etc?

Oh, and here's a third one - if you are such an expert on everything why are you stuck on a drought ridden farm and why have you not joined up with the volunteers and showed everyone how you know everything?

Did you really saw the video with eucalyptus incinerators? Isn't he your favorite specialist , expert biologist with all titles and position in your highly regarded hierarchy world? So now you don't trust me be even this super thinker because said something that you didn't expect? Effect to ecology ? burned place versus cultivated? Would you like you own home to be burned down every year and rebuild or rather left alone by bushfires?You don't really think that cultivated plantation means : fruit tree only and zero insects , birds, animals around , biologically empty desert?I am not a racist by somehow I am starting to believe that as a guardian of the land , you may not be my first choice . Chinese could transform landscape, turn into beautiful gardens, gorgeous places, but you just kept burning ugly bone fire , because it is all you can do. They ( Chinese) do build dams, irrigation, artificial rain, plantations, fish farms, - everything you ( and most here) are against. I may have to options; pack you in the bag and send to China to educational camp- never too late.Bring Chinese here and let them show what can be done in no time at all.
If they could build Tesla car company in 1 year , they could set a banana plot quicker then you blink.Anyway as stupid as you are I will try another easy to understand example. Maybe you will grasp that one.Why city council and building regulations now forbid using nice, shinny plastic cladding where the only fault is highly flammable? we have brave firefighters so why should we would be worried? People are no so stupid to light fire on their sky scrapers?
Even if some may need to jump from the windows some may still survive. Now substitute PLASTIC CLADDING with EUCALYPTUS TREE and maybe something light on in your empty scalp.

I'm not into hierarchies - I just dislike revoltingly arrogant ****wits who believe they know everything. Oh our lord Macro, please favour us with more of your omniscient perfection! Please, keep on telling the moronic firies that you know more than they do! Please keep on telling stupid farmers that you know what they should grow! Please keep on telling the water engineers how you know more than they do about rivers! Please keep on showing the CSIRO and BoM where they go wrong! Please keep on telling everyone how you know more than they do about everything! Only Macro can save the world!

On a serious note, it's bizarre that you can claim that destroying estuaries, destroying mangroves, destroying the bush and destroying the fauna is being "a guardian of the land". And comparing flammable skyscraper cladding to native forests is just weird. One of them is a cheap and nasty artificial product; the other is something that provides life for millions of creatures, oxygen, and natural balance.

I'm not the one who brought up Griffiths, and the fact that he is a biologist does not mean that he is an expert on fire control so he is irrelevant. Oh, and let's see - you haven't had the guts and honesty to answer the questions so let's have them again;

1- Do you seriously claim that Kato does not want to discourage fires, so that he can save his job? That's the slur you implied, and it is disgusting.

2 - Have you been to many of the recent fire grounds and do you have the faintest idea of the landscape and the related issues with your weird ideas? Do you know, for example, the topography around the Clyde Mountain fire?

3- Since you reckon you are a God who knows everything, why aren't you out there with the volunteers showing them how to do it?

4- How can you do things like dishonestly or stupidly claim that the map of forests is "identical" to a map of the fires, which is simply completely and utterly untrue?

By the way, if I'm stupid and you are the God who knows all about the environment and everything else like you claim to be, why are you the one who bought a place that can't even qualify for drought relief? You didn't even check water issues when buying a farm inland?Seriously, you are that bad at researching your own life and you try to tell other people how to run theirs?

I ask again - what is wrong with respecting other people instead of worshipping yourself like you do?

Well your home might burn down every year but that's the explosion in the meth lab .
lmfho

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..

1- Do you seriously claim that Kato does not want to discourage fires, so that he can save his job? That's the slur you implied, and it is disgusting.

Leave Kato alone. Good guy but his job description is not exactly city or country planning ,what we are doing here.
Yours not too anyway, because to plan something you may need to imagine something before. Than make plans and preparation, resolve the problems. That is completely beyond you so I am not even know what are you doing or saying here?
Volunteer protestant? Bushfire admirer?
For everything I proposed here : irrigation, lakes ,dams, plantation, air humidification, alternate tree species, drone, firefighter planes, the only answer is NO. All I could say, the place is perfect ( Australia ) land but occupied by wrong sorts off. That is main cause of bushfires, not the Global Warming Climate Scaremongering. Unable to take care for the land, just grab what is easy , suck all the juices. Mentality of exploitation resources to the max. Dig the gold, suck oil, pump gas, flot the ore, conversion Earth landscape into Moon like not the vice verse.
Burning Bushfires are only a symbol to the whole world of the disgusted inability of the nation or leader at least.

Ahhh, so basically you came here, and being a racist you reckon we all suffer from "disgusted inability" (whatever that is supposed to mean).

Yep, we all want the country to look like China, because this is soooo much better than bushland;


There are plenty of ideas we can use - no one has said there are not. We just don't need dumb ones from someone who worships himself and disrespects everyone else so much that is he too arrogant to do any research. We need ideas from people who actually do research and have knowledge, instead of just having a gigantic ego and who disrespects so many others.

The reason the answer for your ideas is "no" is because they won't work. We don't need ideas from someone who says that the map of forests is "identical" to the map of fires, when that is simply untrue. We don't need ideas from someone who is so ignorant that he doesn't know about dry land salinity, and who reckons he knows how practical plantations will be even when he has never seen the areas he wants to plant them.

The arrogance of your approach is shown by the fact that you said that people should study the effect of inland lakes on rainfall, but only AFTER you had rejected a CSIRO/BoM study on exactly that topic. That's where your insane arrogance comes in - instead of respecting the work and expertise of the authors of that study, you reckoned you knew more about the topic than they did.

Oh, and YOU are the one who implied that Kato was not interested in reducing fires because it would cost him a well paid job. That is a disgusting and vile slur from you. It's typical of your inability to respect other people, which considering your own situation is pretty odd.

By the way, you reckon that you know more about plans, preparation and problems than I do. If so, why are you the person who was silly enough to buy a property that doesn't even qualify for drought relief, while I'm the guy who bought the inland property with a water license and its own lake to sail on even in drought? How can you claim to tell scientists and firies about planning when you couldn't even check your own property's status?

Statement like :
"Australia's catastrophic bushfires are quite normal and we need to learn to live with that"
sound like complete nonsense / madness for me and any reasonable person alive.
I did spend some time in New Zealand and I could amazed that Kiwi attitude to nature and environment is completely different.Australia did import all the worst animals and plant pest from all other the world. Kiwi seriously thing about domestic cats control, hate possums , biosecurity is the ultimate goal.They didn't sell their sand from the beaches even if offered gold for it. Yep , they have pine plantation that don't burn in smoke every year.
Here on SB for simple question if replacing Eucalyptus Tree in given forest with another tree species of your choice may be beneficial _ bring you back abuse only.

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..
Statement like :
"Australia's catastrophic bushfires are quite normal and we need to learn to live with that"
sound like complete nonsense / madness for me and any reasonable person alive.
I did spend some time in New Zealand and I could amazed that Kiwi attitude to nature and environment is completely different.Australia did import all the worst animals and plant pest from all other the world. Kiwi seriously thing about domestic cats control, hate possums , biosecurity is the ultimate goal.They didn't sell their sand from the beaches even if offered gold for it. Yep , they have pine plantation that don't burn in smoke every year.
Here on SB for simple question if replacing Eucalyptus Tree in given forest with another tree species of your choice may be beneficial _ bring you back abuse only.

Macro you're a bit out there sometimes but I for one find your posts challenging and more often than not amusing.

In my experience your description of national parks. I won't use capitals. is spot on.

Don't give up. If you're attract abuse it means you're getting under they're skin. When they stop scratching they may start thinking.

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..

Oh, and YOU are the one who implied that Kato

I am telling you again and strongly request this time. Leave Kato alone as I can assure you he don't want to be drawn into this stupid discussion. Eventually I may do this same and finish pointless exchange with you.
You may be completely brain dead but still function on the forum so wish you well. In all theat 14 pages long topic I could not recall a single positive input , proposal to improve something, own idea or advice for others.

get new avatar for you.

Oh, that's just stupid. You started this whole thread with abuse. This is from your first post;

"Scientific advisors that provide this backup to political finanse (sic) scam should be fires (sic) for dishonesty while producing false report, drawing wrong conclusion as to the river and biosphere health at NSW...."

Your very first post abused scientific advisors, claiming they lied and cost the country billions. You kept on abusing other people post after post; you called older people "Old creeps" who should not have a say in the future; you abused all Australians; you insulted CSIRO and BoM scientists and others.

If you're going to start a thread by abusing scientific advisors and others, and end it with abusing all Australians, then it's ridiculous to complain when you cop abuse back.



PS - YOU were the one who brought Kato into it, when you implied that he was happy to let fires burn to protect his "well paid job". That was a disgusting implication.

Select to expand quote

japie said..

Macroscien said..
Statement like :
"Australia's catastrophic bushfires are quite normal and we need to learn to live with that"
sound like complete nonsense / madness for me and any reasonable person alive.
I did spend some time in New Zealand and I could amazed that Kiwi attitude to nature and environment is completely different.Australia did import all the worst animals and plant pest from all other the world. Kiwi seriously thing about domestic cats control, hate possums , biosecurity is the ultimate goal.They didn't sell their sand from the beaches even if offered gold for it. Yep , they have pine plantation that don't burn in smoke every year.
Here on SB for simple question if replacing Eucalyptus Tree in given forest with another tree species of your choice may be beneficial _ bring you back abuse only.

Macro you're a bit out there sometimes but I for one find your posts challenging and more often than not amusing.

In my experience your description of national parks. I won't use capitals. is spot on.

Don't give up. If you're attract abuse it means you're getting under they're skin. When they stop scratching they may start thinking.

Japie, he's been getting under Kato's skin, and Kato has been out there fighting the fires.

Are you seriously claiming that Kato, who is out there with a hose, is not thinking? Are you claiming that those who are narked with Macro and are in the RFS, who may have fought a fire or two, talk to brigade captains, local commanders their friends and neighbours on the fire ground etc are not thinking about fires and how to stop them? That's just BS.

The reason he gets under some skins is that he's an arrogant person who can only think shallowly and abuses people like scientists, engineers and firies from the safety of his keyboard.

Select to expand quote

japie said..

Macroscien said..
Statement like :
"Australia's catastrophic bushfires are quite normal and we need to learn to live with that"
sound like complete nonsense / madness for me and any reasonable person alive.
I did spend some time in New Zealand and I could amazed that Kiwi attitude to nature and environment is completely different.Australia did import all the worst animals and plant pest from all other the world. Kiwi seriously thing about domestic cats control, hate possums , biosecurity is the ultimate goal.They didn't sell their sand from the beaches even if offered gold for it. Yep , they have pine plantation that don't burn in smoke every year.
Here on SB for simple question if replacing Eucalyptus Tree in given forest with another tree species of your choice may be beneficial _ bring you back abuse only.

Macro you're a bit out there sometimes but I for one find your posts challenging and more often than not amusing.

In my experience your description of national parks. I won't use capitals. is spot on.

Don't give up. If you're attract abuse it means you're getting under they're skin. When they stop scratching they may start thinking.

The problem is that I have one of those near my farm. State park , forest.
If there is any risk for fire affecting my property that most likely will not be my hard working neighbours plots but one of those neglected national park treasure.
Overgrown with Lantana to the point the posi track may gave up. Another 200m thick strip of public bush, between road , and my 4 km fence also didn't saw any maintenance work in last 60, 000 years. So even I clean on my site perfectly, I am not safe at all. I understand that council are unable to take care about everything but simple cooperation with landowners may be beneficial.For example Council supply weed killer and I spray on their land at my own time and expense. Win , win.Council could buy tonnes of herbicide at bulk price, but land owners need to pay retail. Even if land rates go a bit up- still win win for both.