www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-14/analysis-bushfire-politics-hazard-reduction-climate-change/11700594

All the various opinions are getting out there.

This article delves into how much the Australian bush has changed since we displaced the original land managers. Just a few paintings and writings to go on. It's going to take a lot of prescribed burning to catch up on 200 years of relative fire exclusion. Go to the article to see what this scene looks like today. Riding horses! Today that clearing is so thick a dog couldn't bark in it.


www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-14/analysis-bushfire-politics-hazard-reduction-climate-change/11700594
"Gammage cites explorers and early settlers who commonly remarked how much of Australia looked like a "park", with plenty of grass, open forest and little undergrowth. They saw chains of plains unexplained by soil type and corridors of pasture edged by tall forest.

James Cook had made a similar observation as he sailed HMS Endeavour down the east coast in 1770, noting "mountains chequered with woods and lawns".

Every part of the continent had been visited by firestick at some time or other to create genius mosaics: green pasture on the best soils to attract game, the worst soil left for forest; regular low-level burns to keep edges and promote grain and yam.

One conclusion reached is that there are more trees in national parks now than there were in 1788."

Select to expand quote

Mobydisc said..

Tonz said..
www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-14/traditional-owners-predicted-bushfire-disaster/11700320

very interesting article, of course the government know it-alls wont give it any credibility. the these guys have been surviving than we been around, perhaps they do know something.

I'm not keen on burning off land to manage it. Burning off gradually dries the soil out and kills organisms in the soil. I think its better to use machines with blades and hammers to cut back and mulch the bush and weeds. Machines can reduce the risk of bushfires as well as burning off can, with the benefit organic material decomposes into the soil instead of floating away into the air when burned. Mulching the brush effectively locks up carbon into the soil where its used by fungi and microorganisms as food.

We have the technology and resources to improve the land and reduce fire risk through cutting and crushing vegetation. Fire risk can't be eliminated but we can reduce it, especially around property. Fire is a good way to clear land if you have few resources besides fire. However if you have a tractor with a slasher then its a better way to clear and improve the land.

I'm not completely disagreeing, but it seems like a very modern way of dealing with a problem that the original owners had a hold of. A lot of seeds in the aussie environment won't germinate unless they are burnt in a small fire. (Large ones just kills everything). Firebreaks need to be done, soil improvement sure, but all this is science, is it not?
When will the govt start to listen to someone who is obviously more researched than them?

Was watching the news on various Channels tonight and frankly it's become a ratings war on who can sensationalise these unprecdented fires . One weather presenter was almost breathless to create the panic feel. Give me a break FGS.
Its bad in regard to the area burnt but not the worse .Its no where near as bad as previous as far as lives lost and buildings destroyed.
*See below.
One fire up here has been going since Sept.. With all we know about bush fires we should be ashamed ( local,state and federal) but hey it costs money to fix and let's not get in the way of all our perks , appeasing minorities for votes and good times. Eg. The dispute in Vic after the 2009 fires on who is boss of fires or the disgrace of Qld Rail doing nothing for years hence the crises for the last two years. Perhaps there are too many 'mates 'and old cronies running the show in all areas and it's time to drain the swamp. Who said that?
What did the Railways boss say before he was sacked for creating the mess . " Only a railway man knows best"
We all knew the drought and extreme weather (climate change!) could make things worse however we did little, especially it seems in NSW .
I don't believe the crap about not having the windows to do reductions.
What ! Not this year or last year or the year before or etc. Thats just a cover up and we see lots of that from various depts.
The one thing Qld. did over the years is have regular fuel reductions and I believe hopefully it's showing in our good managed fortune in saving lives.
Lived in NT for a while and saw lots of natural reductions by the locals and Mother Nature that went for months. It was called regeneration.
* 1967 Tasmania.
My wife's BFF ,my ex girlfriend's (my god she was a stunner) husband was an abalone diver over there and tried to drive through fires to home. ,crashed, and was first person evacuated by ADF back to Royal Melb. Hosp. He was lucky ,only brain damage. 62 dead ,900 injured,7000 homeless. Climate change?
1968 Lara ,Geelong
Brother was working in Geelong when grass fires at Lara, Dad told him not to try and drive back to Melb.as he well knew about grass fires.
23 dead of which 17 died in their cars on the Geelong /Melb road.
So much for the advice back then of lying on the floor under a blanket and the fire will roar across the top of the car. Climate Change?
2009 Black Saturday fires Victoria. I lived 20 kms. from King Lake .
....... ah stuff it no one listens it's all a good excuse to blame it on climate change and I'm sure if we stop using coal tomorrow in Aust. we will not have natural disasters anymore and the Barrier reef will blossom. Hang on, according to Flannery ex years ago the seas will have risen by 5 metres by now.
Theres no doubt climate change is happening but please whatever we do will have little effect until the likes of China ,USA etc do something constructive so stop flipping up our country to feel good .
All sounds like chicken Little.

Select to expand quote

pepe47 said..

Mobydisc said..

Tonz said..
www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-14/traditional-owners-predicted-bushfire-disaster/11700320

very interesting article, of course the government know it-alls wont give it any credibility. the these guys have been surviving than we been around, perhaps they do know something.

I'm not keen on burning off land to manage it. Burning off gradually dries the soil out and kills organisms in the soil. I think its better to use machines with blades and hammers to cut back and mulch the bush and weeds. Machines can reduce the risk of bushfires as well as burning off can, with the benefit organic material decomposes into the soil instead of floating away into the air when burned. Mulching the brush effectively locks up carbon into the soil where its used by fungi and microorganisms as food.

We have the technology and resources to improve the land and reduce fire risk through cutting and crushing vegetation. Fire risk can't be eliminated but we can reduce it, especially around property. Fire is a good way to clear land if you have few resources besides fire. However if you have a tractor with a slasher then its a better way to clear and improve the land.

I'm not completely disagreeing, but it seems like a very modern way of dealing with a problem that the original owners had a hold of. A lot of seeds in the aussie environment won't germinate unless they are burnt in a small fire. (Large ones just kills everything). Firebreaks need to be done, soil improvement sure, but all this is science, is it not?
When will the govt start to listen to someone who is obviously more researched than them?

If the brush and bush is cut back mechanically it will not eliminate bush fires. When the fires go through they would be of much lower intensity as the soil would be moist under decomposing vegetable matter. The vegetable matter will retain moisture and build up soil. This is how nature works in a forest. We should try to mimic nature.

Burning off is the opposite and dries out the soil. The soil then turns into dirt which is good for nothing.

I have see this from from first hand experience. Mowing the grass in paddocks over times slowly builds up the soil. Burning grass in a paddock slowly turns a paddock into a waste land.

Select to expand quote

Mobydisc said..

pepe47 said..

Mobydisc said..

Tonz said..
www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-14/traditional-owners-predicted-bushfire-disaster/11700320

very interesting article, of course the government know it-alls wont give it any credibility. the these guys have been surviving than we been around, perhaps they do know something.

I'm not keen on burning off land to manage it. Burning off gradually dries the soil out and kills organisms in the soil. I think its better to use machines with blades and hammers to cut back and mulch the bush and weeds. Machines can reduce the risk of bushfires as well as burning off can, with the benefit organic material decomposes into the soil instead of floating away into the air when burned. Mulching the brush effectively locks up carbon into the soil where its used by fungi and microorganisms as food.

We have the technology and resources to improve the land and reduce fire risk through cutting and crushing vegetation. Fire risk can't be eliminated but we can reduce it, especially around property. Fire is a good way to clear land if you have few resources besides fire. However if you have a tractor with a slasher then its a better way to clear and improve the land.

I'm not completely disagreeing, but it seems like a very modern way of dealing with a problem that the original owners had a hold of. A lot of seeds in the aussie environment won't germinate unless they are burnt in a small fire. (Large ones just kills everything). Firebreaks need to be done, soil improvement sure, but all this is science, is it not?
When will the govt start to listen to someone who is obviously more researched than them?

If the brush and bush is cut back mechanically it will not eliminate bush fires. When the fires go through they would be of much lower intensity as the soil would be moist under decomposing vegetable matter. The vegetable matter will retain moisture and build up soil. This is how nature works in a forest. We should try to mimic nature.

Burning off is the opposite and dries out the soil. The soil then turns into dirt which is good for nothing.

I have see this from from first hand experience. Mowing the grass in paddocks over times slowly builds up the soil. Burning grass in a paddock slowly turns a paddock into a waste land.

Agreed, but we're not talking about paddocks are we.

Select to expand quote

pepe47 said..

Mobydisc said..

pepe47 said..

Mobydisc said..

Tonz said..
www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-14/traditional-owners-predicted-bushfire-disaster/11700320

very interesting article, of course the government know it-alls wont give it any credibility. the these guys have been surviving than we been around, perhaps they do know something.

I'm not keen on burning off land to manage it. Burning off gradually dries the soil out and kills organisms in the soil. I think its better to use machines with blades and hammers to cut back and mulch the bush and weeds. Machines can reduce the risk of bushfires as well as burning off can, with the benefit organic material decomposes into the soil instead of floating away into the air when burned. Mulching the brush effectively locks up carbon into the soil where its used by fungi and microorganisms as food.

We have the technology and resources to improve the land and reduce fire risk through cutting and crushing vegetation. Fire risk can't be eliminated but we can reduce it, especially around property. Fire is a good way to clear land if you have few resources besides fire. However if you have a tractor with a slasher then its a better way to clear and improve the land.

I'm not completely disagreeing, but it seems like a very modern way of dealing with a problem that the original owners had a hold of. A lot of seeds in the aussie environment won't germinate unless they are burnt in a small fire. (Large ones just kills everything). Firebreaks need to be done, soil improvement sure, but all this is science, is it not?
When will the govt start to listen to someone who is obviously more researched than them?

If the brush and bush is cut back mechanically it will not eliminate bush fires. When the fires go through they would be of much lower intensity as the soil would be moist under decomposing vegetable matter. The vegetable matter will retain moisture and build up soil. This is how nature works in a forest. We should try to mimic nature.

Burning off is the opposite and dries out the soil. The soil then turns into dirt which is good for nothing.

I have see this from from first hand experience. Mowing the grass in paddocks over times slowly builds up the soil. Burning grass in a paddock slowly turns a paddock into a waste land.

Agreed, but we're not talking about paddocks are we.

Paddocks and forests are really more similar than one would assume. Forests naturally recycle the dead vegetable matter. Paddocks also recycle dead vegetable matter. Both can be helped by humans whether farmer or forester. NSW and Queensland used to have big timber industries. A town close to where I grew up once had three timber mills. Today there is one.

I'd love to ask if they ran out of trees, but I'm not going to.

volunteerfirefighters.org.au/sorry-mr-mullins-what-about-fuel

The ex fire chief is an activist even the VFFA called him out back in january.
Say what you like about climate change but decades of mismanagement is undeniable now we're paying the price during extreme weather events.

Select to expand quote

pepe47 said..
I'd love to ask if they ran out of trees, but I'm not going to.

A few years ago I got told by one of the renovators working on the old folks' house that it's really hard to get good straight grained timber these days.
On Moby's point, at one time, maybe late 80's there were about 20 odd windsurfing retailers in Sydney. Now there is one despite there being a bigger population. That's how capitalism works

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..

pepe47 said..
I'd love to ask if they ran out of trees, but I'm not going to.

A few years ago I got told by one of the renovators working on the old folks' house that it's really hard to get good straight grained timber these days.
On Moby's point, at one time, maybe late 80's there were about 20 odd windsurfing retailers in Sydney. Now there is one despite there being a bigger population. That's how capitalism works

It would be relevant if back in the 80s there were say ten places to go windsurfing around Sydney and today there is only one, due to Government restriction. This is what happened along the coastal ranges. Over the last 30 years and especially in the 90s, what were State Forests, managed by the Forestry Service for the public and timber industry, were transformed into National Parks where logging and access by motor vehicle is prohibited. Not many people visit these National Parks as they are remote and accessible by bad roads. When you get there there really isn't all that much to see besides steep hills & gullies covered with trees and weeds and you have to walk. Bob Carr, the premier who pushed this policy, enjoyed looking at the newly created national parks from a government helicopter.

The supply of timber logs declined as the forests were no longer available. Logging trails were no longer maintained. Weeds, especially lantana, began to infest the forests. As these forests cover many headwaters of streams and rivers, slowly but surely, lantana seeds spread downriver. As a result huge amounts of land are covered and rendered useless by this weed.

More recently the supply of trees has diminished further with laws coming in regulating timber felling on private land. This has further reduced the supply of trees.

There is no lack of trees along the east coast ranges. Just go on Google Earth and have a look at the land between the coastal valleys and the inland plains. It's a huge amount of land and right now a lot of it is either burning or has burned,

Select to expand quote

Mobydisc said..
The supply of timber logs declined as the forests were no longer available. Logging trails were no longer maintained. Weeds, especially lantana, began to infest the forests. As these forests cover many headwaters of streams and rivers, slowly but surely, lantana seeds spread downriver. As a result huge amounts of land are covered and rendered useless by this weed.

More recently the supply of trees has diminished further with laws coming in regulating timber felling on private land. This has further reduced the supply of trees.

There is no lack of trees along the east coast ranges. Just go on Google Earth and have a look at the land between the coastal valleys and the inland plains. It's a huge amount of land and right now a lot of it is either burning or has burned,

This sounds like a good idea. Selective logging seems to have advanced a bit these days, so maybe that's an option?

I think if a national park is so remote and unvisited, it makes sense to at least have logging in there as it keep the access open and as you are suggesting, may keep these forests a bit better protected.

Why do you think these forests were turned into national parks? Did people see logging as too invasive?

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

Mobydisc said..
The supply of timber logs declined as the forests were no longer available. Logging trails were no longer maintained. Weeds, especially lantana, began to infest the forests. As these forests cover many headwaters of streams and rivers, slowly but surely, lantana seeds spread downriver. As a result huge amounts of land are covered and rendered useless by this weed.

More recently the supply of trees has diminished further with laws coming in regulating timber felling on private land. This has further reduced the supply of trees.

There is no lack of trees along the east coast ranges. Just go on Google Earth and have a look at the land between the coastal valleys and the inland plains. It's a huge amount of land and right now a lot of it is either burning or has burned,

This sounds like a good idea. Selective logging seems to have advanced a bit these days, so maybe that's an option?

I think if a national park is so remote and unvisited, it makes sense to at least have logging in there as it keep the access open and as you are suggesting, may keep these forests a bit better protected.

Why do you think these forests were turned into national parks? Did people see logging as too invasive?

There was a political push at the time to reduce logging in the 90s. Conservationists were anti logging and in NSW at least the ALP government took up the challenge and converted State Forests in the National Parks. Logging generally on the coastal ranges forests was and is selective. The eucalypt forests are not plantation forests but are usually natural and wild forests. The issue is when a forest becomes a National Park, there is the feeling this means no one can touch it anymore. This is fine however what invariably happens is pest species invade and take over the park as no one can do anything about them.

Hopefully attitudes to logging will change and it will be seen as an industry that is reasonably environmentally friendly in that using wood to build effectively locks up the carbon that went into the wood. It would be good to review land management with selective logging.

A lot of people think trees grow by sucking nutrients and material out of the ground. A French scientist around 300 years ago disproved this idea by measuring the mass of a container of soil, planting a tree seed in the container, growing the tree for around ten years, cutting the tree from the container and measuring the mass of the tree and the soil. The soil mass slightly decreased but the loss of soil only made up a small fraction of the mass of the tree.

Select to expand quote

Mobydisc said..

Many of fires in NSW and Queensland are burning in areas infested with lantana.

Great observation. The same story on my own farm. But not many tools available to clean Lantana effectively.
Private operators ask 3,000 per work day of posi track and there is nothing available in the middle between big machinery, forestry mulchers and hand held brush cutters, unfortunately. Specifically for slightly hilly, uneven terrain, like mine. What even worse , that patches of government land adjustment to mine are completely overgrown with Lantana and nobody even try to do anything with that. So even if I clean my own land the fire will jump from state owned easily.My next project I am working on is some sort of self propelled , walk behind machinery to crunch lantana bushes.

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..

Mobydisc said..

Many of fires in NSW and Queensland are burning in areas infested with lantana.

Great observation. The same story on my own farm. But not many tools available to clean Lantana effectively.
Private operators ask 3,000 per work day of posi track and there is nothing available in the middle between big machinery, forestry mulchers and hand held brush cutters, unfortunately. Specifically for slightly hilly, uneven terrain, like mine. What even worse , that patches of government land adjustment to mine are completely overgrown with Lantana and nobody even try to do anything with that. So even if I clean my own land the fire will jump from state owned easily.My next project I am working on is some sort of self propelled , walk behind machinery to crunch lantana bushes.

Get a few quotes from posi track operators. I know things are a bit more expensive over there but it should be around $1,000 per day. The going rate here is $720-$900.

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..


Great observation. The same story on my own farm. But not many tools available to clean Lantana effectively.
Private operators ask 3,000 per work day of posi track and there is nothing available in the middle between big machinery, forestry mulchers and hand held brush cutters, unfortunately. Specifically for slightly hilly, uneven terrain, like mine. What even worse , that patches of government land adjustment to mine are completely overgrown with Lantana and nobody even try to do anything with that. So even if I clean my own land the fire will jump from state owned easily.My next project I am working on is some sort of self propelled , walk behind machinery to crunch lantana bushes.

I'm currently looking at buying some form of tractor or similar machine for my farm. I have an Iseki front end mower which is kind of a tractor in reverse with the little wheels at the back to steer with and big wheels at the front along with the PTO and mower deck. Its a great mower with a rating of 33 HP though its a bit old so perhaps actual power is a bit less. It's more of a finishing mower and isn't designed to cut back brush. Fortunately for me my farm has fairly well defined bush and paddocks. So as long as the border between the two is kept under control the Iseki should not need to cut back brush and thick weeds.

Anyway there are some great machines out there to eat lantana. My favourite is the Carraro tractor with a mulcher at the front/back. They are a bit expensive though plus I've talked to a few farmers about them and they may not be super reliable. However this sort of machine would be great in rough and steep country as its low profile and articulated. Here is a video of one of these machines in action.

Select to expand quote

Mobydisc said..

Macroscien said..


Great observation. The same story on my own farm. But not many tools available to clean Lantana effectively.
Private operators ask 3,000 per work day of posi track and there is nothing available in the middle between big machinery, forestry mulchers and hand held brush cutters, unfortunately. Specifically for slightly hilly, uneven terrain, like mine. What even worse , that patches of government land adjustment to mine are completely overgrown with Lantana and nobody even try to do anything with that. So even if I clean my own land the fire will jump from state owned easily.My next project I am working on is some sort of self propelled , walk behind machinery to crunch lantana bushes.

I'm currently looking at buying some form of tractor or similar machine for my farm. I have an Iseki front end mower which is kind of a tractor in reverse with the little wheels at the back to steer with and big wheels at the front along with the PTO and mower deck. Its a great mower with a rating of 33 HP though its a bit old so perhaps actual power is a bit less. It's more of a finishing mower and isn't designed to cut back brush. Fortunately for me my farm has fairly well defined bush and paddocks. So as long as the border between the two is kept under control the Iseki should not need to cut back brush and thick weeds.

Anyway there are some great machines out there to eat lantana. My favourite is the Carraro tractor with a mulcher at the front/back. They are a bit expensive though plus I've talked to a few farmers about them and they may not be super reliable. However this sort of machine would be great in rough and steep country as its low profile and articulated. Here is a video of one of these machines in action.

Nice device. I have 50HP 4WD tractor with front loader bucket 1 in 4. In the plain terrain works beautifully.But now I am trying to convert fail mulcher into front lantana cutter. Not proper forestry mulcher attachment as those are terribly expensive.

Maybe something like that could help to save our forest from overgrowth? Now councils should buy some of those and rent]/ hire at reasonable low cost to all willing to clean bushes from Lantana.
Farmers can not afford to pay $3000 or even $1000 per day, if need to buy food for animals now.

Select to expand quote

southace said..
I'm watching the live media crap now 7 is lapping it up. My conclusion is these people choice or decide the want to live in around the gumtrees and bush. It's never concrete suburbin burning.

I just saw this and I cannot believe how you can forget 400 houses burning in Canberra's suburbs 16 years ago. You have also ignored the fatal Como fires and others, where the suburbs did burn. You've ignored the suburbs - and yes they are suburbs - in places like the Blue Mountains that have lost every single house in a normal looking street in recent history.

People are dying or losing houses and you are making smiley faces. Revolting.

Select to expand quote

Foghorn said..
volunteerfirefighters.org.au/sorry-mr-mullins-what-about-fuel

The ex fire chief is an activist even the VFFA called him out back in january.
Say what you like about climate change but decades of mismanagement is undeniable now we're paying the price during extreme weather events.

Calling someone an "activist" is being used as if it's a way to ignore what they say. The fact that he passionately believes something and tries to do something about it is not a reason to stick a label on him and ignore him.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

Great post.

Do you reckon it's worth writing to that idiot deputy PM McCormack and relay your thoughts on climate change?

He seems to think anyone who links the persistent drought and wildfire threat to human induced climate change is an inner city WOKE greenie.

The weird thing is that around me (New England NSW) veteran RFS guys and farmers are quite open about the fact that the climate has changed, as is our state member, but at federal level the Nats are saying it hasn't.

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..

southace said..
It's never concrete suburbin burning

400 houses burning in Canberra's suburbs 16 years ago.

Houses on the suburban fringes, in proximity to bushland, can burn but suburbs themselves don't constitute a sufficiently continuous fuel bed to carry a fire any distance.

The fire of London in 1666 however did propagate through the tightly packed wooden structures.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_London

NSW slashing atleast 100 parks and wildlife jobs over the last 8yrs would have nothing to do with it.
Bad inefficient hazard reduction burns for half a century.
Yes the seasons have changed a bit but the 7:30 reports angle was that its all due to climate change thats why they chose Mullins as there go to expert.

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

Chris 249 said..

southace said..
It's never concrete suburbin burning

400 houses burning in Canberra's suburbs 16 years ago.

Houses on the suburban fringes, in proximity to bushland, can burn but suburbs themselves don't constitute a sufficiently continuous fuel bed to carry a fire any distance.

The fire of London in 1666 however did propagate through the tightly packed wooden structures.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_London

Places like Hughes in Canberra, 6km or more inside the edge of the suburbs, lost houses in 1993. In 1967, the Hobart fires got within 2km of the CBD.

When fires can spot 12km or more and land in suburban parks (as in Sydney 1994) and ignite fires, then suburbs can burn.

The national parks in NSW which I frequented around Bathurst in the days before I reached the conclusion that harvesting trout by hooking them in the mouth was cruel were all basically pretty much human no go areas other than intrepid fishermen. pig hunters willing to take the slight risk of being bust and dope growers aplenty,

I could almost guarantee that I would run across either pigs or goats, often both. The valleys were choked with blackberry and the creeks with willow. I don't know that much about botany but I would venture to suggest that they were not the only invasive species.

The pigs literally plow areas where native earth worms can be found. The willows change the course of streams and cause massive erosion. The Fish River was listed as a grade three white water canoeing river back in the 70's. When my son and I tried to canoe it in 1990 it was impossible to canoe down. Literally.

The dams have been overtaken by European Perch, Redfin, whose numbers are such that they are the root cause of algal blooms.

It is a flipping disaster area. Any land where government has responsibility is subject to abject neglect at best.

A friend of mine used to fish the top end of the Waragamba Dam, One of Sydney's main water supplies. It is a human no go area. On one occasion he was walking down the Cox's river and came across scores of horses and cow in the river bed. They had been shot and left where they fell. This was during the same period that the ecoli scare was taking place.

He phoned up the water authority to tell them. Their response was that he should not have been in there. His response was rude.

Fires will continue to plague us as long as government has responsibility for the land.

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..

Ian K said..

Chris 249 said..

southace said..
It's never concrete suburbin burning

400 houses burning in Canberra's suburbs 16 years ago.

Houses on the suburban fringes, in proximity to bushland, can burn but suburbs themselves don't constitute a sufficiently continuous fuel bed to carry a fire any distance.

The fire of London in 1666 however did propagate through the tightly packed wooden structures.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_London

Places like Hughes in Canberra, 6km or more inside the edge of the suburbs, lost houses in 1993. In 1967, the Hobart fires got within 2km of the CBD.

When fires can spot 12km or more and land in suburban parks (as in Sydney 1994) and ignite fires, then suburbs can burn.

You're being political, you've re-interpreted Southace's meaning of "suburbia". (do you come from Canberra?) The odd house within a suburb, mostly next to a bushland reserve, and the odd insurance job. But suburbia, as Southace was referring to doesn't burn. He was making the point that If you choose to live on a rural "lifestyle" block you know the risk. 99% of suburbia is very low risk.

Select to expand quote

japie said..
The national parks in NSW which I frequented around Bathurst in the days before I reached the conclusion that harvesting trout by hooking them in the mouth was cruel were all basically pretty much human no go areas other than intrepid fishermen. pig hunters willing to take the slight risk of being bust and dope growers aplenty,

I could almost guarantee that I would run across either pigs or goats, often both. The valleys were choked with blackberry and the creeks with willow. I don't know that much about botany but I would venture to suggest that they were not the only invasive species.

The pigs literally plow areas where native earth worms can be found. The willows change the course of streams and cause massive erosion. The Fish River was listed as a grade three white water canoeing river back in the 70's. When my son and I tried to canoe it in 1990 it was impossible to canoe down. Literally.

The dams have been overtaken by European Perch, Redfin, whose numbers are such that they are the root cause of algal blooms.

It is a flipping disaster area. Any land where government has responsibility is subject to abject neglect at best.

A friend of mine used to fish the top end of the Waragamba Dam, One of Sydney's main water supplies. It is a human no go area. On one occasion he was walking down the Cox's river and came across scores of horses and cow in the river bed. They had been shot and left where they fell. This was during the same period that the ecoli scare was taking place.

He phoned up the water authority to tell them. Their response was that he should not have been in there. His response was rude.

Fires will continue to plague us as long as government has responsibility for the land.

Interestingly all those things that you have mentioned all were bought in by private citizens!!!!!
NOT GOVERNMENT


Back to fire stuff
Being doing this fire stuff for awhile and my year used to go like this.
October to December , burn prep planning, slashing and a few fuel reduction burns.
January to February, wildfires
March to April fuel reduction burns

The last three years have been this
August to April wildfires
Burn prep and slashing jammed in between fires over December
May last year was still wildfires and we got very few fuel reduction burns as it went from to dry to too wet in a month. We can only burn we the moisture levels are between 12- -17% and the winds are light to moderate and in the right direction and all the paper work has been signed off and all the personal are available and equipment and there's not another 20/50 burns that are a higher priority than yours. And if it goes wrong you might end up with no job and the media calling for you're heads.

See it's easy to control fires and reduce the hazards.

Select to expand quote

kato said..

The last three years have been this
August to April wildfires

Since there are facts we have to go over that and instead of back burning do try another methods of fuel reduction.I firefighters in the time where is quiet could jump into Posi track , they could clean that area mechanically instead of just burning. The point to provide adequate equipment to do so comfortably , with air con and safety etc. Eventually when things are done correctly bush firefighters could remain without any job left.Eventually job in posi track is healthier then breathing/inhaling smoke.Another interesting option for government to consider could be : big planes vs small.
To use effectively bit fire fighting water bombing planes like Boeing 737 we need big fires. But if we could effectively extinguish quickly those small. will never becomes big in first place. So my advice for government bodies could be - invest more into mechanical cleaning , logging because that could be done whole year long, unlike back burning that could happen sporadically and always carry risk.Additional advantage for the rest of the public is such that councils do sell theri equipment quickly on auctions after few years of use.Then public has a chance to buy something at reasonable price.

Select to expand quote

kato said..

japie said..
The national parks in NSW which I frequented around Bathurst in the days before I reached the conclusion that harvesting trout by hooking them in the mouth was cruel were all basically pretty much human no go areas other than intrepid fishermen. pig hunters willing to take the slight risk of being bust and dope growers aplenty,

I could almost guarantee that I would run across either pigs or goats, often both. The valleys were choked with blackberry and the creeks with willow. I don't know that much about botany but I would venture to suggest that they were not the only invasive species.

The pigs literally plow areas where native earth worms can be found. The willows change the course of streams and cause massive erosion. The Fish River was listed as a grade three white water canoeing river back in the 70's. When my son and I tried to canoe it in 1990 it was impossible to canoe down. Literally.

The dams have been overtaken by European Perch, Redfin, whose numbers are such that they are the root cause of algal blooms.

It is a flipping disaster area. Any land where government has responsibility is subject to abject neglect at best.

A friend of mine used to fish the top end of the Waragamba Dam, One of Sydney's main water supplies. It is a human no go area. On one occasion he was walking down the Cox's river and came across scores of horses and cow in the river bed. They had been shot and left where they fell. This was during the same period that the ecoli scare was taking place.

He phoned up the water authority to tell them. Their response was that he should not have been in there. His response was rude.

Fires will continue to plague us as long as government has responsibility for the land.

Interestingly all those things that you have mentioned all were bought in by private citizens!!!!!
NOT GOVERNMENT


Back to fire stuff
Being doing this fire stuff for awhile and my year used to go like this.
October to December , burn prep planning, slashing and a few fuel reduction burns.
January to February, wildfires
March to April fuel reduction burns

The last three years have been this
August to April wildfires
Burn prep and slashing jammed in between fires over December
May last year was still wildfires and we got very few fuel reduction burns as it went from to dry to too wet in a month. We can only burn we the moisture levels are between 12- -17% and the winds are light to moderate and in the right direction and all the paper work has been signed off and all the personal are available and equipment and there's not another 20/50 burns that are a higher priority than yours. And if it goes wrong you might end up with no job and the media calling for you're heads.

See it's easy to control fires and reduce the hazards.

I do not recall saying that government was responsible for any of the introduced species.

What I did say was that government had assumed responsibility for the National Parks,

And that their efforts at husbandry of those National Parks was nothing short of abysmal.

Which is evident by the concentration of invasive species within the parks.

Which goes to back up the arguments made with regard to fuel reduction responsibilities not being met.

By the authorities who assumed responsibility.

Ok, I thought that I could give you an insight into the real world of what we do when it come to fires and control. Peter we do use positrack but they are very very limited in where and what they can do.

Looks like some just refuse to listen or are incapable of that.

See ya on the water , I give up