This story is an attachment to "SOS-NEWS" and may be downloaded for the purpose of ditribution or printing. The article must contain the banner and complete content at all times.
By
SOS-Investigator
The Land Thurs, March, 2, 2006 published an article in the Comment section, "Counterpoint by John Carter refuting controlled burning as a sound methodology".
Tut tut. Such a story as written left many of us wondering just what tune the author was playing to.
"I disagree strongly with using fire as a tool of nature for returning the environment to what is correct."
Well at least we have recognition that the environment as it stands needs to be returned to its correct condition and not as it has been allowed to become.
"I regard wildfire as the enemy of most that I stand for - improved soil, worms, dung beetles, pasture, livestock and trees - to say nothing of lives, homes and gardens." Well at least we again agree. WILDFIRE is the very reason that controlled burning is carried out [or should we say was, pre empirical days] on a regular basis across the nation. A cool burn is what is achieved by controlled burning and this style of land management protects the very environment that we all cherish, including all those critters and plants and infrastructure mentioned above.
"A UK Garden Lecturer said: "we don't live long enough to contemplate replacing a garden every 10 years". In fact, once every 100 years is too often, yet the past two centuries has seen most acreage in our district burnt at least once." Since when does a United Kingdom garden lecturer's skills have any bearing on Australian bushfires? If by our area it is meant the author's area [not Australia] has been burnt out by wild fires, then may we suggest cool burns to facilitate control of unwanted fires are in order.
"They [Aboriginals] burnt to hunt down animals (and fight other tribes), but they couldn't control what they started. We read nothing of the thousands who would have died each century as they were caught in rampaging fires without shelter." Well! Well! Perhaps our author should study up on the many and varied reasons that Aboriginal people used fire for land management purposes, as this statement is very indicative of his lack of understanding of the Aboriginal people and although their lifestyle in modern terms may have seemed primitive, for their environment they successfully existed for some many thousands of years, until white man came along and interceded. As for there being nothing written about the thousands who burnt to death from rampaging fires. It obviously is not written about, due to the fact that the Aboriginals were competent and as such, charred bodies across the savannah were not in existence. Good story though.
"The blackberries will spread even faster-" I though the author came from the land. Blackberries are destroyed by spraying if possible, but burning is an effective way to keep them in some sort of check where there is no other alternative. Goats, now there is a novel feral idea for this problem. The spreading of blackberries is carried out in the main by birds and foxes and other little critters that like the fruit and crap the seeds out as their bodily needs dictate. The perpetuation of the blackberry plague in the NSW Snowy Alpine areas and elsewhere can be almost directly attributable to the incredible uncontrolled growth of this plant within forestry and NPWS territory. Every rural person living in relative proximity to such terrain has a seriously expensive spraying program every year, not just for blackberry either, wort is also a protected species of flora within these areas, let alone dingoes.
"What about asthma suffers?" - Controlled burns are in the most part both small and mosaic in relative terms where as wild fire is horrendous and destructively uncontrollable. There would have been more smoke inhalation in the ACT, Vic and NSW and wider areas in the 2003 unnecessary holocaust that destroyed our beloved mountains, than all the controlled burning nationally over the last twenty years. We wonder if there are any figures available through the health department of the ACT alone on the cases of asthma attacks in comparison to the same time the previous year with no fire to exacerbate the medical problem?
"We worked to put fire out before it spread and our vehicles, pumps and communications networks improved." No! The old fellers attended to fires and put out that which was destructive, or potentially so and allowed the cool runners that were benign to both environment and property to continue, as long as there was no dangers posed. Local knowledge and experience was the key and this is not obtainable from any other source. It may be able to be enhanced by science, but nothing and we repeat nothing surpasses both experience and local knowledge. This is exactly where our Volunteer heroes on the ground arguments stem from. The interference of hierarchal figureheads expecting unquestioned fealty.
"Insurance, forestry and governments donated to help foot the bill." Of course they did. It made sound economical sense for Insurance companies to help fund those that in real terms were massively reducing their risk and hence the savings are far in excess of the 98 million dollars put in by insurance companies today. What is surprising that these same insurance companies are not demanding that cool burning be carried as the volunteers and rural folk want, but then we suppose if the system was too effective, premiums would have to drop and pigs may fly. The Forestry also have an extreme vested interest in such volunteer services as they stand to loose their entire stock, as happened in the ACT, so of course they donate, the returns are incredible. The Government of course donates a meager amount, as they have to be seen to supporting the slave labour of the volunteers whilst in reality ensuring the big end of town such as Insurance, Water and Forestry empires are protected, along with their green votes, this being either by legislation, or donation, all they need is spin and there is plenty of that at the tax payer's expense.
"I am disgusted at the move by some in the Canberra district to sue him [Commissioner Koperberg] personally for damage caused by the Brindabella National Park fire in 2003." Firstly, the suit is emanating from NSW territory not Canberra, even though the matter may be heard in the ACT courts. Secondly this particular fire that not only destroyed the property of the plaintiff, started in NSW and burnt for days in a state that could be considered as nothing other than relatively benign. Thirdly, there was no call for the local RFS Brigade to attend in the first instance, when this brigade not only had the capability, local knowledge and the desire to attend. Fourthly, there was an MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) between the ACT and NSW that NSW would do all that was possible to negate any impact on the ACT from bushfire, should such bushfire in the first instance emanate from NSW. This MOU failed to be effectively implemented. Fifthly, there were tracks available to experienced local brigades that allowed access to almost the very ignition point of this fire, in fact the ignition point of this fire was observed from across the river by a local, who then observed a spotter aircraft and rightly believed that response would be immediately forthcoming. Sixthly, the weather was in the favour of the fire crews for days and the serious strong winds to come were predicted by the experts and arrived almost on cue and from that time the fire was lost. Seventhly, incendiary drops were delayed to the point they became part of the problem, not the solution.
Eighthly, there is so much concern over the controllers methodology used in response to this fire and the subsequent disaster in the ACT that some saw fit to mount an incredibly expensive million dollar, tax payer funded law suit against the Coroner who has yet to hand down her findings. A supreme court action that failed, but did delay the outcome and this against a coroner that has the guts to stand by her convictions as a honest judicial officer with the intention of serving the public with the truth and not be pressured into hiding the facts.
This last point above, sniffing between the lines perhaps says it all. The courts will soon dismiss a case that has no foundation, but that is going to be a matter for the courts and the parties concerned. What we do believe is, that perhaps such a case may get to salient points of evidentiary matter, that in any other forum has been missed, or hidden and if you are the head of the biggest civil empire in the nation and paid a salary commensurate with the Prime Ministers, accountability for empirical leadership may only arise by such means.
The attempted spin in this story could have the top turning for years.