The Non Climate Change Bushfire Discussion

[trekin]

Gee bill you sound like we QLD people know nothing about fires well mate something I must point out is Fire does not discriminate QLD,NSW, SA, VIC, NT and if you come from the land you of all people should know that all over Australia lower ground cover will and does help reduce the intensity of a fire nobody was having a go at you it is a known fact. all and I say all fire fighters around Australia know that lower ground cover is better than heavy cover ,heat, wind and drought are just extra liabilities they have to deal with when fighting fires .Yes it's true I've never fought Victorian or NSW fires but like I said your best bet of controlling them is remove what cover you can prior to the blaze then it takes local knowledge ,guts and machinery . why do you try and tear a new one for those who don't think along your lines ? it doesn't make your case any better mate you make big statements about me being only a QLD'er and knowing SFA about the southern fires well mate fires are fires and if you don't know , In all states fires are fought in similar ways depending on intensity and access . so in summing up on your statements well if your fires are so different down there, then are they wasting tax payers money by sending QLD'ers down to fight your fires and also bringing over American fire fighters to fight them also ? Your wrong about one thing anyway I've been through fires similar to yours mate and fought them day and night for weeks ,( Have you) I have felt the peoples loss when this tragic thing happens ,I've seen the dead animals and charred country that was crops ,I've seen the Anguish on peoples faces that have lost everything so mate before you write me off just as a QLD'er that knows SFA about your fires take some of your own advice and get your facts right and stop pretending that you are the only one that knows anything .And tearing Trekin a new one to me sounds like someone who has lost his lollies , mate lighten up for Christ sake

The question asked of Bill has been answered to the satisfaction (and bemusement) of me and the boys up at the shed, by his deflection of the question and his assumption that he is speaking to people in the city, who he believes, are too young or have no experience, or have no connection to the bush.
As for a new one, I could really use a new one after the old one got reamed by a dose of the liquid ****** the other day.

[Bill]

I guess if your bemused by the southern fires then you win Trekin and if you think kind words on the internet is having you back then you are strange fellow indeed.

[marksman]

No sungazer you're not racist mate there is not a race of people on earth that won't take an opportunity to gain some thing if the chance arises the indigenous are no exception but on saying that they do have very complex ways in the old way of life burning is one of them . and I agree their system should be incorporated into the way fires are managed throughout Australia. most graziers patch burn to get green feed growing back for the cattle this was learnt years ago from the old people and many trees and grasses have evolved to needing fire for germination or regrowth

+1 your not racist for having a view

l must be racist about politicians then because l am very skeptical giving them control of money for anything

[Stix]

Well i understand what you guys are saying...(Aboriginals land management)

I dont for a moment think they werent connected to the land that sustained them, but i dont think its right to clasify them as some lot of gods who didnt make any mistakes...and any doco's ive seen, whether that be of full blood old school tribes, or the ones carrying on tradition with modern tools, i havent seen anything in the way of empathy for the animals they hunt either...so they may preech respect for the land & how it sustained them, but contradict that in many ways also...
And no im not trying to be divisive...

I have no doubt that in a lot of cases, they couldnt controll the fires they lit, not like we have the capability of doing, & so many of them wouldhave got out of controll...i cant help but wonder how many had a far greater adverse effect than they had anticipated.
Having said that, as i first said here, i dont mean for thet to suggest they had no connection to the land, or any idea on how to manage it for themselves either...


But all that aside,the land is completely different now, so i dont think using just "their way" will help at all when it comes to fires...

I think some of the principles they used are most valid, but we know & understand them anyway, yet we dont use them in a lot of cases...

Look at the fire breaks we have as compared to what they had...by that i mean how much land white fellas have cleared for grazing & cropping...look at all the mallee regions of SA & Vic...the cypress forrests felled & cleared in NSW...all the open wooded forrest accros the country now all stubble fields...

We have domestic dogs gone feral, & with this & grazing meaning no dingoes, we have removed the kangaroo's natural population stabeliser...

The land is completely different to what it was before white man invaded & settled...using some principles of the native's would be a good thing, but to let them manage the land in regard to bushfire mitigation, based on what it was then wouldnt do any good.

We have the knowledge to better manage it, utilising experience gained from all areas & cultures, yet we let ego's & opinion get in the way & choose to lay blame on whoever we want--regardless of it being their fault or not -(aka--its all scomo's fault because he was on a holiday-- )...

Anyway, im not trying to dismiss the Indigenous ways at all... just saying the land is different now--very different indeed...!!...whether it be bushfires or Aboriginal affairs, we need to better manage it, & manage it for what it is, not for who is right based opinions...get off our arses & be proactive, rather than sit around pandering to the popular vote & the offended minority groups...!!

[Member-Deleted]

Yeah stix a little of everything would be better than whats happening now

[Member-Deleted]

Well Bill , ''nice try Trekin but the only deflection I can see is coming from a QLD'er who clearly knows SFA about NSW and Vic fires get off the internet and go visit a region that has been burnt then get back to me '' not a crack bill .Not questioning my experience just having a crack hey, YES you're right having a crack at someone is low and frankly disgusting so Bill ''DON'T do it

[Sergeant Hartman]

Awww look, people are getting their bikini bottoms in a tight knot. How about everyone have a chill pill.

While the country is the same, and fire is same. Same way i being in VIC might not understand all the intricacies hunting in QLD, or those hidden spots. I would say probably the topology of east Gippsland might be different than say northern QLD.

[Member-Deleted]

Nobody said any different ziad but you're off the mark i'm talking ''FIRE'' and fire needs 3 major ingredients no matter where in the world you put it and they are , OXYGEN ,FUEL and HEAT given the right amounts it is lethal . You hunt dogs the same way in NSW, VIC, WA in all the states same goes for Deer, goats any other animal just select one and hunt. it's the traits of individual people that is different not the hunting.

[marksman]

Awww look, people are getting their bikini bottoms in a tight knot. How about everyone have a chill pill.

While the country is the same, and fire is same. Same way i being in VIC might not understand all the intricacies hunting in QLD, or those hidden spots. I would say probably the topology of east Gippsland might be different than say northern QLD.

ziad no different than what l said "l dont understand why a NSW/VIC bushfire hazard reduction would be any different to a QLD bushfire hazard reduction "

l dont understand why the hunting intricacies would be different from VIC to QLD

having been lucky enough to hunt deer and pigs in both states l found it to be no different
l dont know why maths has anything to do with it topology

[Stix]

[sungazer]

I just read an article by Ron Owen on ozgunsales http://www.ozgunsales.com/listing/77581 ... _owen.html He makes some good points about the things we have discussed such as fire breaks, fire access roads, dams built in the bush for fire trucks which are all good points.

However like it seems all media he goes way to far especially in the opening paragraphs about people affected by the fires not getting any money from the government and insurance companies taking to long to pay out ect. All doom and Gloom type stuff. I can say from first hand experience from the Black Saturday fires which this was not the case. Within two days the Government relief agencies had given out $1000 to all those effected that turned up to the relief centers on the spot. This was really welcome as there were immediate needs and personally I didnt have power for three weeks. We we loaned a generator to aid with essentials such as making ice for the fridge and more importantly just runing the pump on the water tank so we could shower.

The insurance companies all had tents at the relief centres and although traffic was controlled to locals only on some major roads for about two weeks for security purposes the insurance assessors were there in that period and claims processed very quickly to get you on your feet. There were special circumstances made to allow for initial payments and then as you discovered things that were lost could make additional claims.

I can only speculate but from each fire these type of support centres and organizations have learnt to help people and to know what to expect as well.

There are certainly issues that have been raised here like the fire access tracks, breaks and reversing the closing up of crown land to people that will lessen and help fight fire in the future. But to completely slander the good work that is done by so many and give misinformation to further any cause is inexcusable in my book.

[marksman]

a couple of points you have bought up sungazer that l think need looking at are the locking up of crown land, national parks, the closing of fire tracks and water points in the bush for the fire trucks

IMHO l dont like public land being locked up, all it does is create a rubbish dump of tree litter making fuel for a bushfire
been hearing this for years especially from fireys who put themselves on the line and cockys who have to live next to it
but of course the greenys think its wonderful

a hell of a lot of bush tracks end up having trees dropped over them by lefty/greeny types to stop access in victoria and need to be maintained
be a good way of giving someone a job

water points are very important in the bush but there are not enough of them, they are not maintained, usually overgrown so the fire trucks cant get to them
l know this because they are also used by the animals l hunt and see the state of them, a fire truck will empty them in one go

as to what Ron Owens views are, all l can say is that his experiences may not have been the same as yours
at the moment people are pretty raw about the fires

[sungazer]

All those points you make Marksman I totally agree with. It may not have been clear as I was a little pissed reading his rants.

I was very involved in the community recovery from Kinglake to Yea and Marysville. It was not just my personal experience. I saw a lot of stuff. There was a temporary town set up very quickly in the Flowerdale Recreation Park cant remember the exact number of temporary houses that were put up and were available to people for about a year while they could rebuild there own homes. There were volunteers helping with fencing, fixing peoples gardens, agisting animals, food for cattle it really was of a grand scale. I can already see the same things happening for the people of this fire and even more as it has attracted more attention being over a larger Land mass.

These Volunteers and the Government no matter what side is in or your political view point. It should be acknowledged that it is being done and done as well as the people can possibly do. It is times like this that even the government desk clerk goes that little bit beyond to help. Trying to score Political points is a cheap shot IMHO.

[marksman]

l agree

[Sergeant Hartman]

Lol i can't even blame the phone for this one. I meant topography. Glad none of my ex workmates saw this as i would get hung (have experience with both)

[doc]

a couple of points you have bought up sungazer that l think need looking at are the locking up of crown land, national parks, the closing of fire tracks and water points in the bush for the fire trucks

IMHO l dont like public land being locked up, all it does is create a rubbish dump of tree litter making fuel for a bushfire
been hearing this for years especially from fireys who put themselves on the line and cockys who have to live next to it
but of course the greenys think its wonderful

a hell of a lot of bush tracks end up having trees dropped over them by lefty/greeny types to stop access in victoria and need to be maintained
be a good way of giving someone a job

water points are very important in the bush but there are not enough of them, they are not maintained, usually overgrown so the fire trucks cant get to them
l know this because they are also used by the animals l hunt and see the state of them, a fire truck will empty them in one go

as to what Ron Owens views are, all l can say is that his experiences may not have been the same as yours
at the moment people are pretty raw about the fires

[flutch]

haven't read the rest but arsonists need life in prison.

[flutch]

on a side note all the mongs having a sad about scomo being on holidays during the fires cracks me up, if its the guys allotted holiday then thats that, last time I checked he doesnt have any fire fighting credentials. him being here makes absolutely 0 difference to the outcome, just illustrates how retardedly programmed and socially and logically illiterate people who watch tv/read the papers are.

[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 2669 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.