tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29868932.post4469375678146939962..comments2024-02-14T22:50:48.749+10:30Comments on Bill Kerr: australian bushfires analysisBill Kerrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00206808014093631762noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29868932.post-23865335189368428632009-03-21T14:06:00.000+10:302009-03-21T14:06:00.000+10:30Anyone who believes there are no green groups oppo...Anyone who believes there are no green groups opposed to fuel reduction burning is living in fantasyland. I know of a green group in the Wombat Forest area which put in a submission opposing FRB to a Victorian Government enquiry.<BR/><BR/>As well Federal Environment Minister Peter "Turtle" Garrett has recently accepted an application to investigate the possibilty of listing FRB as a threatening process.<BR/><BR/>Mark Miller's "realistic philosophy has been the traditional Australian approach. We fight fire with fire. The green approach would see us dominated and cowed by fires over which we would have no control and would make the bush a more dangerous place than it has been in the history of human habitation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29868932.post-39330861838738877132009-03-18T20:15:00.000+10:302009-03-18T20:15:00.000+10:30Bill Kerr said:"This article by Miranda Devine li...Bill Kerr said:<BR/>"This article by Miranda Devine lists many green groups that oppose prescribed burning whilst paying some sort of lip service to it :-<BR/>Wilderness Society<BR/>WA Forest Alliance<BR/>WWF Australia<BR/>NSW Greens<BR/>NSW Nature Conservation<BR/>Threatened Species Scientific Committee<BR/>NSW Department of Environment and Conservation"<BR/><BR/>The article says no such thing. It mentions FotE, who publicly state they are not opposed to prescribed burning. It mentions the Wilderness Soc, who are also not opposed to appropriate burns. It mentions Rob Pallin, then chairman of NCCNSW. That organisation does not oppose appropriate burning. The NSW Greens do not oppose approriate burning. The NSW TSSC listed "high frequency fire regimes" as a key threatening process which impacts on many ecological communities. It has not listed appropriate prescribed burning as a key threatening process.<BR/><BR/>Facts, you see, not more misleading misrepresentation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29868932.post-60734014472076272692009-02-19T23:05:00.000+10:302009-02-19T23:05:00.000+10:30hi squid,This article by Miranda Devine lists man...hi squid,<BR/><BR/>This <A HREF="http://www.smh.com.au/environment/this-burning-issue-of-life-and-death-20090218-8bee.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1" REL="nofollow">article </A> by Miranda Devine lists many green groups that oppose prescribed burning whilst paying some sort of lip service to it :-<BR/>Wilderness Society<BR/>WA Forest Alliance<BR/>WWF Australia<BR/>NSW Greens<BR/>NSW Nature Conservation<BR/>Threatened Species Scientific Committee<BR/>NSW Department of Environment and Conservation<BR/><BR/>Moreover people have received very large fines for cutting trees down on their properties. There is a now famous case from the recent Victorian fires of the home owner. Liam Sheahan, who was fined $50,000 for removing 247 trees from his property. His was the only house to survive the fires in a 2 km area.<BR/><BR/>It is true that some prescribed burns will get out of control. The point is that this policy will overall lead to less destruction of life, property and the environment. <BR/><BR/>It is also true that some Greens are genuine in their support for prescribed burning. eg. Tim Flannery recognises that Australian plants are fire loving and that the optimal conditions for them is a regular fire regime. See Ch. 21 of 'The Future Eaters'. btw Tim Flannery lost his house in a bushfire a few years ago.Bill Kerrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00206808014093631762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29868932.post-82097052594628478732009-02-19T14:44:00.000+10:302009-02-19T14:44:00.000+10:30@squidinkcalligraphy:You are right that even with ...@squidinkcalligraphy:<BR/><BR/>You are right that even with controlled burns and thinning fires will still happen. The idea is to reduce the fuel load so that when fires do occur they are less intense and thereby less dangerous to the ecosystem.<BR/><BR/>The realistic philosophy is to "live with fire" in fire-prone areas rather than try to eliminate it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29868932.post-67223270091921893402009-02-19T14:02:00.000+10:302009-02-19T14:02:00.000+10:30What worries me is people jumping on the bandwagon...What worries me is people jumping on the bandwagon to blame green groups for accumulated fuel. No green groups that I know of (and I know many) are against controlled burning. Many oppose logging, and somewhere in the minds of some people (some with other agendas) they connect the two - logging reduces fuel, so anti-logging groups are responsible for the build up of fuel, hence the fires. There is a similar argument with highland cattle grazing. Everyone will try to hijack this event to push for particular policy changes. Yes, we need more fuel-reduction burning. But the weather doesn't always allow for this, and the increasing number of houses in the bush makes this difficult in some areas - sometimes the wind changes and a controlled burn becomes an out-of-control fire. And in some conditions forests will burn even without fuel on the ground. The upshot of my argument is that fires will happen regardless of anything we can do. Fuel reduction burning is great and more needs to happen, but there will still be fires that will destroy property and lives. People need to accept this or get out of the bush.squidinkcalligraphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02697605450335182088noreply@blogger.com