The Non Climate Change Bushfire Discussion

[flutch]

I admit freely to being a skeptic about aboriginal practices. I dont think they have helped themselves with such things as The Secret Women's Business Scam not to mention a raft of other money garbing scams. Call me a racist and get back to the bush fire topic.

hahahaha I for one think you are right to be sceptical, we had naidoc week at school, and a lot of Aborigines when I was a kid, and every year their rhetoric changed and words were different for different things, stories always changed and nothing was ever consistent. reason? they dont know anything about their past at all, why? cos no literacy, no written text, no empirical records.

That and they were far from good for the environment, they had a very poor and negative effect on flora and fauna here in Australia, being severely low tech as a ethnicity they were always going to low hanging fruit/easy targets, this means all the slow, big, and stupid animals were wiped out by them shortly after they arrived here, then the vegetation and habitats took a turn for the worst, most of Australia's forest was degraded severely, and Eucalypts became the dominant plant life, with this came fires, which further drove desertification and the extinction of a lot of plant life. None of this was natural, it was all the negligence of aboriginal activity. there is nothing noble/heroic or helpful about their practices. even prescribed burns here in the west are done when the majority of marsupials and birds and other animals are mating/nesting and the result is localised extinctions and thousands of species on the endangered and threatened list including numbats.

[wanneroo]

I wonder if Australia should start looking at seeding some American varieties of oaks and maples in certain areas as the eucalyptus trees seem quiet explosive in fires.

[Stix]

I wonder if Australia should start looking at seeding some American varieties of oaks and maples in certain areas as the eucalyptus trees seem quiet explosive in fires.

I could be wrong here, but i dont think they're much good for our water ways wanneroo...
(Not that there's a lot water in them these days)

Not to mention i dont know how the magpies & koalas would feel about them as a new home...

[Bruiser64]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ucn_NE1Zac . This video presentation from Kevin Tollhurst is interesting. He discusses how bushfires behave. In the video he also talks about how the extreme fires like on Black Saturday play out. A comment he makes is that whilst hazard reduction strategies are useful, they have minimal impact on mitigating against the extreme fire events. These are the events in which most property loss and loss of life occurs.

[trekin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ucn_NE1Zac . This video presentation from Kevin Tollhurst is interesting. He discusses how bushfires behave. In the video he also talks about how the extreme fires like on Black Saturday play out. A comment he makes is that whilst hazard reduction strategies are useful, they have minimal impact on mitigating against the extreme fire events. These are the events in which most property loss and loss of life occurs.

Do you actually know what "hazard reduction strategies " are? What they entail? Hopefully you can answer this without going into meltdown like the last person who was asked this.

[perentie]

Do you actually know what "hazard reduction strategies " are? What they entail? Hopefully you can answer this without going into meltdown like the last person who was asked this.[/quote]

Bruiser64 was just repeating a comment of Kevin Tollhurst in the video. He himself did not claim to know anything about hazard reduction.

[Member-Deleted]

Exactly right Trekin. Seems to me some people think that cleaning around their house is the only hazard reduction or just one dozer track along a fence line is hazard reduction and politicians play on that . Proper hazard reduction has to be done properly and often for example some of the things are wide breaks maybe 2-3 blade widths on major breaks not just a 2 wheel track, regular burn offs not just light a patch here and there to keep people happy it has to be coordinated and extensive, national parks have to be grazed or kept under control not let go as I see up here where they buy up properties then lock them up to revert back to scrub and no fire breaks . these only touch on the edge of hazard reduction so people saying hazard reduction does only marginal good to reduce the fire problem are ignorant of the fact of how hazard reduction actually works and are doing a misjustice to the problem and fire fighters. Note , A council area has a block say 20 acres privately owned, the owner was made to put fire reductions in place the action given to him was , Break the block into 4 sections with fire breaks no narrower than1/2 a chain ie 11mtrs or there about wide then extend it to the whole perimeter or boundary. The other alternative was keep it mowed reason given was '' The land was a fire risk to other properties'' now if this goes for private owners hazard reducing their properties then why doesn't it carry to national parks or other government land ? We live in a land of ''FLOOD'' ''FAMINE'' and ''FIRES'' of which none are going away soon the only safeguard against these ( not a remedy) is to preplan for them find the preventive ways of easing the problem and with fire it's is remove the combustibles as much as possible because without it there is no fire. I'd like to hear what the alternative are from these people, my opinion is this is why there is a problem like now ,is because of people like these ,who don't believe that burn off's and such don't help extreme temperatures and act as a fire retardant when fires get under way .

[trekin]

Exactly right Trekin. Seems to me some people think that cleaning around their house is the only hazard reduction or just one dozer track along a fence line is hazard reduction and politicians play on that . Proper hazard reduction has to be done properly and often for example some of the things are wide breaks maybe 2-3 blade widths on major breaks not just a 2 wheel track, regular burn offs not just light a patch here and there to keep people happy it has to be coordinated and extensive, national parks have to be grazed or kept under control not let go as I see up here where they buy up properties then lock them up to revert back to scrub and no fire breaks . these only touch on the edge of hazard reduction so people saying hazard reduction does only marginal good to reduce the fire problem are ignorant of the fact of how hazard reduction actually works and are doing a misjustice to the problem and fire fighters. Note , A council area has a block say 20 acres privately owned, the owner was made to put fire reductions in place the action given to him was , Break the block into 4 sections with fire breaks no narrower than1/2 a chain ie 11mtrs or there about wide then extend it to the whole perimeter or boundary. The other alternative was keep it mowed reason given was '' The land was a fire risk to other properties'' now if this goes for private owners hazard reducing their properties then why doesn't it carry to national parks or other government land ? We live in a land of ''FLOOD'' ''FAMINE'' and ''FIRES'' of which none are going away soon the only safeguard against these ( not a remedy) is to preplan for them find the preventive ways of easing the problem and with fire it's is remove the combustibles as much as possible because without it there is no fire. I'd like to hear what the alternative are from these people, my opinion is this is why there is a problem like now ,is because of people like these ,who don't believe that burn off's and such don't help extreme temperatures and act as a fire retardant when fires get under way .

Yeah old mate, and you don't need to be an 'Associate Professor' in Fire Ecology and Management in the Department of Forest and Ecosystem Science to understand the simple science of fire;

triangle.JPG (22.17 KiB) Viewed 3743 times

Remove any side of the triangle:- no fire!
Reduce any side of the triangle:- reduction in the intensity of the fire!
I have watched a number of videos, and read a number of papers and articles by this 'Associate Professor', and get the same feeling in my gut as when reading or watching anything by that other 'Associate Professor' who is the bane of LAFO.

[Bruiser64]

Do you actually know what "hazard reduction strategies " are? What they entail? Hopefully you can answer this without going into meltdown like the last person who was asked this.

Bruiser64 was just repeating a comment of Kevin Tollhurst in the video. He himself did not claim to know anything about hazard reduction.[/quote]

That is correct Perentie. I have zero expertise in respect of fire risk mitigation. Kevin Tollhurst is, however, an expert in bushfire behaviour. I thought it may be useful for people to look at this video. I also found this video by another bushfire expert interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEf1UDKvxs8 .

Yet another interesting thing to read is the report from the 1939 Victorian Bushfire Royal Commission which can be found here:
http://www.voltscommissar.net/docs/Leon ... Report.pdf

What I have learned in life is that complex problems have complex solutions, if indeed there even are any solutions. I am a big believer in evidence based decision making. So to do that, I think it is useful to find out what experts have to say on the subject. I don’t think the polarised discourse around the bushfires is particularly useful. To quote Ben Shapiro “facts don’t care about your feelings “. Having said that, if any of us in the world want to make sound decisions, we are more likely to do so if we turn off our ideological filters and gather the facts. Which is why I thought it might be helpful for people to have a look at what experts on the matter have to say.

What I have noticed about people is they get quite wedded to their preferred solution to a problem. They do so to such an extent that they will not even consider other ideas. I find that interesting. I personally am more interested in getting outcomes, and I don’t particularly care what the solution is as long as it gets me to the result I am looking for. Which is why gathering ALL the evidence is a useful tool to arrive at sound decisions.

[Member-Deleted]

Yes Bruiser64 mate you have no argument there from me .I don't know whether your insinuating I am set in my ways of thinking and don't listen to facts so maybe I should say everything I've said is fact as many experts have said. if you want a good speech from an expert then google PAUL HESSBURG on ''Why wild fires have gotten worse'' he speaks of many things . That site you put up was very interesting but still didn't address the benefits of grid burn offs and fire breaks it mainly showed how a fire acts once out of control and yes it was interesting but the whole argument is about stopping fires from getting to that level we all know once a fire gets to a certain stage and out of control it can lift to tree tops and swoop over ground cover for some distance all fact I've seen fires start 2klm away from the parent fire . wind temperature and humidity play a large part it this happening but it needs fuel when the spark lands .''fact'' ,some people would get a false sense of safety when seeing the fire at a distance supposedly gone but they are actually in the middle of it and then all of a sudden it will draw itself and burn with twice the intensity , usually with usually fatal effect . Nobody disputes the fact on how fires can react to weather, temperature, climate ,drought and many other things. where the dispute is as I see it is the argument to why isn't more done in preplanning such as more breaks, burn off, grazing of national parks there are many things to prevent these fires to develop into these mega fires .as Trekin said it's not rocket science it just needs government to put their hands into their pockets and spend some money to get things under way

[trekin]

That is correct Perentie. I have zero expertise in respect of fire risk mitigation. Kevin Tollhurst is, however, an expert in bushfire behaviour. I thought it may be useful for people to look at this video. I also found this video by another bushfire expert interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEf1UDKvxs8 .

Yet another interesting thing to read is the report from the 1939 Victorian Bushfire Royal Commission which can be found here:
http://www.voltscommissar.net/docs/Leon ... Report.pdf

What I have learned in life is that complex problems have complex solutions, if indeed there even are any solutions. I am a big believer in evidence based decision making. So to do that, I think it is useful to find out what experts have to say on the subject. I don’t think the polarised discourse around the bushfires is particularly useful. To quote Ben Shapiro “facts don’t care about your feelings “. Having said that, if any of us in the world want to make sound decisions, we are more likely to do so if we turn off our ideological filters and gather the facts. Which is why I thought it might be helpful for people to have a look at what experts on the matter have to say.

What I have noticed about people is they get quite wedded to their preferred solution to a problem. They do so to such an extent that they will not even consider other ideas. I find that interesting. I personally am more interested in getting outcomes, and I don’t particularly care what the solution is as long as it gets me to the result I am looking for. Which is why gathering ALL the evidence is a useful tool to arrive at sound decisions.[/quote]

Thank you for the reply without the meltdown. As said "you have no argument there from me", but I would like to add some advise on your research methods. Research of the subject matter is good, but you also need to research the person presenting the subject matter. Appy some filters, ask yourself:
What makes this person an expert?,
What expierience does this person have in the field of the subject?
Now as to my question of you, I asked if you know and/or understand what hazard reduction is, not if you had any expertise on the matter. If the answer is still 'no' then I suggest a good place to start your education would be to read the whole document in the link you posted in your comment, the link to the "1939 Stretton report". You may think of some of people as 'welded on' to a single course of action as a solution to the problem, but I am willing to bet the farm that everyone of them are in full agreement with all the recomendation set out in the report, especially the bit that says;
"Policy.—All fire prevention and protection measures are progressive and recurrent. No step in field operations can be done once and for all time. There must be, over the years a turning back to and repeating of the operation already done. The forest is not static and the protecting hand of man can never be idle. It is therefore necessary that a general plan must beformulated, and, with modifications to suit each district, pursued."
This is a fact that you can take to the bank.

[Bruiser64]

Hi Trekin, iI am also a big fan of having a civil discourse. As, I can see, are you. My principle purpose in making my posts is to encourage people to draw conclusions based an evidence. My point was not to argue one point over another. What I have observed is that people are taking polarised views. Some seem to want to argue that the fires are all because of climate change and is Scomo’s fault because he hasn’t banned the use of coal. Others want to argue its all the greenies fault because they stop hazard reduction burns. I am of course exaggerating to illustrate the point.

My observation is problems are rarely this clear cut. If people can dispassionately gather evidence, they are more likely to make better decisions. It is very obvious from the 1939 Royal Commission report that mismanagement of excess fuel loads was a huge problem. One of the observations I made in reading this report was that short term political considerations acted as a significant impediment to the development of good long term risk management. Another issue was trying to reconcile the conflicting interest of various groups. Not a hell of a lot seems to have changed in the last 80 years.

On a personal note, I have family on the South coast of NSW who were directly affected by the fires. I have travelled through that area as well. A thing I observed was how many households seemed to have no appreciation of the risks of fire. I can still not understand why on earth you would allow the fuel load to build up around your home like these people did. I discussed it with my brother who was involved in encouraging people to be more fire aware as part of his job He said people just would not listen. They have now found out what happens to a tinder dry fuel load on your roof when a bushfire hits. I personally am very much in favour of hazard reduction burning. I think it makes sense. However it is just part of a risk managent approach. An important part in my view.

[Bill]

Bruiser64 I'm down at Batemans Bay supporting the local tourism industry despite being offered a refund on 2.5k of accommodation and its clear to me that the fire showed little mercy to those without a plan and in some areas you can clearly see that the fires ran thru the crown not even touching the ground. Cobargo and Mogo never stood a chance.

Trekin I see ya still harpin on about HR, one of the things a local pointed out is that HR has changed the plant life and faster growing heavier seed ladden weeds have replaced native plants make fire intensity on the ground an even bigger issue.

[Bruiser64]

Bruiser64 I'm down at Batemans Bay supporting the local tourism industry despite being offered a refund on 2.5k of accommodation and its clear to me that the fire showed little mercy to those without a plan and in some areas you can clearly see that the fires ran thru the crown not even touching the ground. Cobargo and Mogo never stood a chance.

Trekin I see ya still harpin on about HR, one of the things a local pointed out is that HR has changed the plant life and faster growing heavier seed ladden weeds have replaced native plants make fire intensity on the ground an even bigger issue.

My family members live in Malua Bay and are very relieved not to have lost their home. They suffered some damage, but nowhere near as bad as it could be. Unfortunately there will be people who are uninsured or underinsured who will be regretting their sub optimal risk management strategies. At the end of the day, why fires happen and what “the authorities” should or shouldn’t do to reduce risks are really outside the control of individuals like those of us commenting here.

What is in our control is how we choose to protect our wealth. Note I don’t say assets, or home, or property. From what my brother has shared about his experience is that no human agency could control this fire or save a lot of the properties. He told me about a person he knows who had taken all reasonable steps to protect his home. This included clearing vegetation for a hundred or so metres around his home. Having double glazed windows with fire screens, a sprinkler system on his roof that he deployed during the fire and two firefighter water pumps and thousands of gallons of water storage to fight the ember attack. All to no avail. The fire was just too extreme apparently.

So on that basis it is prudent to ensure that you have adequate insurance. People on the south coast looking to rebuild will need to do so under the current building codes. In addition to that they may find the Bushfire Attack Levels assessed for their blocks may increase, further increasing rebuilding costs. None of this should come as a surprise if people have done their due diligence. Which I am sure we will find out that many haven’t.

Where I live is classed as being in a high fire risk area. My risk management strategy is to leave and go somewhere safer. Make sure I have non-perishable food, and water to last my family at least a week. Plus have a large amount of home and contents insurance. I don’t want to turn a natural disaster into a financial catastrophe.

[trekin]

Bruiser64 I'm down at Batemans Bay supporting the local tourism industry despite being offered a refund on 2.5k of accommodation and its clear to me that the fire showed little mercy to those without a plan and in some areas you can clearly see that the fires ran thru the crown not even touching the ground. Cobargo and Mogo never stood a chance.

Trekin I see ya still harpin on about HR, one of the things a local pointed out is that HR has changed the plant life and faster growing heavier seed ladden weeds have replaced native plants make fire intensity on the ground an even bigger issue.

And yet you feel you have to criticise me for "harpin on about HR". Hey, be a nice fellow and nip outside and take some photos of the areas you can clearly see that the fires crowned and post them up, or PM them to me.

[Bill]

You certainly are a thin skinned chap Trekin, take a chill pill mate and enjoy Australia day