NSW burns but where is the 737?
refrain from putting out "natural" fires in wilderness areas caused by lightening strikes
Thanks Bankrunner. I was up Kempsey way and only saw the older RFS trucks which seem to work pretty well in the action around Temagog.
As for hazard burning, once it’s been done once and properly, it should be relatively simple to do a cool burn every few years. If we don’t do that, then it’s catastrophic fires every 20+ years.
The whole greeny argument about not burning and trying to put fires out in wilderness areas is just totally counterproductive. From my front gate I can see the millions of grey dead trees on our nearest mountains - victims of the “no burn” policy right up until the bad fires we had around 2012. They produced “full thickness burns” in that forest that will take hundreds of years to recover. Burn early and often for the sake of the forest.
My job at home today is to get the slasher going and finish off the grass that hasn’t already been made into hay. The fire pump is already set up, as is our back up generator. Our fire season hasn’t really started yet, but no one thinks it’s going to be an easy time.
One of our major concerns is the thousands of campers that visit this area. They are generally unprepared, pleas to councils about sealing access roads and creating safe refuge areas fall on deaf ears. We are setting up for a major tragedy if things get out of hand because access is poor and the trailers and caravans these people use will block the roads.
As for hazard burning, once it’s been done once and properly, it should be relatively simple to do a cool burn every few years. If we don’t do that, then it’s catastrophic fires every 20+ years.
The whole greeny argument about not burning and trying to put fires out in wilderness areas is just totally counterproductive. From my front gate I can see the millions of grey dead trees on our nearest mountains - victims of the “no burn” policy right up until the bad fires we had around 2012. They produced “full thickness burns” in that forest that will take hundreds of years to recover. Burn early and often for the sake of the forest.
My job at home today is to get the slasher going and finish off the grass that hasn’t already been made into hay. The fire pump is already set up, as is our back up generator. Our fire season hasn’t really started yet, but no one thinks it’s going to be an easy time.
One of our major concerns is the thousands of campers that visit this area. They are generally unprepared, pleas to councils about sealing access roads and creating safe refuge areas fall on deaf ears. We are setting up for a major tragedy if things get out of hand because access is poor and the trailers and caravans these people use will block the roads.
Last edited by Sunfish; 11th Dec 2019 at 21:03.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now did I just hear on the radio that the PM just sent $12M to invest in increased air tanker support as a response to the request he received several months ago and ignored?
Maybe Lachie Murdoch ordered him to during the backlash over Xmas drinks while the state burned...
Lachie: “... ‘Struth Scomo! 12 million? My suit cost more than that!”
Maybe Lachie Murdoch ordered him to during the backlash over Xmas drinks while the state burned...
Lachie: “... ‘Struth Scomo! 12 million? My suit cost more than that!”
Last edited by Derfred; 12th Dec 2019 at 08:13.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for hazard burning, once it’s been done once and properly, it should be relatively simple to do a cool burn every few years. If we don’t do that, then it’s catastrophic fires every 20+ years.
The whole greeny argument about not burning and trying to put fires out in wilderness areas is just totally counterproductive. From my front gate I can see the millions of grey dead trees on our nearest mountains - victims of the “no burn” policy right up until the bad fires we had around 2012. They produced “full thickness burns” in that forest that will take hundreds of years to recover. Burn early and often for the sake of the forest.
The whole greeny argument about not burning and trying to put fires out in wilderness areas is just totally counterproductive. From my front gate I can see the millions of grey dead trees on our nearest mountains - victims of the “no burn” policy right up until the bad fires we had around 2012. They produced “full thickness burns” in that forest that will take hundreds of years to recover. Burn early and often for the sake of the forest.
You are mostly on the money, but the policy of the Greens is not counterproductive at all in my opinion:
https://greens.org.au/nsw/policies/b...isk-management
Now, I have never voted Greens, but I think their policy linked above is pretty much on the money - and for what it’s worth is one of the few areas I agree with them. It would cost more than current practice, which the current government would be wholly against.
The Greens are in fact in favour of control burning, but not just a blatant “light a match everywhere every 5 years” which was your suggestion. They want to put some science to it. Some areas benefit from regular burns, and others don’t. Some species of vegetation benefit from regular burns, and some don’t. Some areas pose a risk to society, others don’t. If there were sufficient resources, that approach might work, but it might not be economically viable according to some. But don’t let me paraphrase it, read it - unless your finger would catch fire if you pressed on the link. Mine didn’t.
They even suggest looking at the past practice of indigenous Australians, which is exactly what you suggested earlier.
There has also been a problem in recent years that planned control burning could not go ahead because it became too dangerous in the conditions, and indeed many control burns have gone out of control because of these conditions. I don’t think it’s the greenies supposedly preventing control burns that have put us in the fire conditions we have experienced over the past several years - I would be more inclined to point the finger at lack of funding of the incumbent governments.
The various state agencies in charge of control burning have limited resources and limited windows of opportunity. They would do more if better funded.
The funding for properly maintaining our public lands, forests and rivers by Australian governments over history has been, quite frankly, appalling, and it is not improving. We pay for it in the long run, but it just doesn’t show up in the annual budget, so it is invisible to the economists.
And when voters find themselves in “Vote for the Economy” election campaigns, who can blame them?
We supposedly model our economy on our sister nations such as the UK, USA and Canada, but when you travel to these countries you see that they try to look after their lands, and we don’t.
I’m getting a little distracted here but I’m making a point - looking after the forests requires money, and our Government chooses not to spend it. Maybe we don’t have enough money, unless of course it’s a railway track for an Indian coal mine, then oh suddenly here’s a billion dollars we happen to have lying around.
But that coal mine will support the economy. Control burning the forest that Sunny sees from his yard won’t. Until disaster strikes.
I pay a lot of tax. I would certainly support diverting some of my tax revenue from social welfare to our lands, forests and rivers, but I can’t find a single political party in Australia who agrees with that. I am an army of one.
So, don’t blame the greenies. Blame the current and recent governments that have been in charge of the resources allocated to control burning. But as I alluded to earlier, it’s not their fault, we voted for them. For the Economy. They are acting out a mandate of the majority of Australians, apparently.
Last edited by Derfred; 12th Dec 2019 at 08:36.
We supposedly model our economy on our sister nations such as the UK, USA and Canada, but when you travel to these countries you see that they try to look after their lands, and we don’t.
When we have vast areas locked up in State forests and National Parks without any proper form of fire, weed or feral animal control, we have disasters waiting on several fronts.
What % of the fires burning now are in or have started in State forests or National Parks?
What % of the rest have been deliberated started?
When you live....
Well said Derfred. I also have never voted green but those of the 'blame the greens' mindset, please can feel free to list all the governments of which the greens were either a coalition to or guaranteeing supply to which implemented a restriction on hazard reduction burns?
Nothing to do with aerial tankers (don’t think there were any around way back when).
Interesting reading - https://www.creativespirits.info/abo...ire-management
Yes it’s debated often.
Interesting reading - https://www.creativespirits.info/abo...ire-management
Yes it’s debated often.
I would put my money on the fact that many Australian fires were lit to cause intentional damage - either for land clearing or maliciously. There are many isolated intense agriculture businesses in close proximity to native forest in 200nm corridor along the east coast of NSW. They are putting huge stress on the remaining native forests.
If you fly the east coast regularly have a close look and see how the small scars of land clearing are starting in the once large and pristine areas. Notice how its close to the agribusinesses. And remember that many of these businesses are NOT Australian.
The Australian Amazon burning experience.
The government should respond with a nationalised squadron of water bombers and increase the national park expanse so that nature can recover.
Many land developers will be licking their lips in an effort to get in while the damage is done.
If you fly the east coast regularly have a close look and see how the small scars of land clearing are starting in the once large and pristine areas. Notice how its close to the agribusinesses. And remember that many of these businesses are NOT Australian.
The Australian Amazon burning experience.
The government should respond with a nationalised squadron of water bombers and increase the national park expanse so that nature can recover.
Many land developers will be licking their lips in an effort to get in while the damage is done.
Yes the PM was told about this in April when 23 former Fire and Emergency Services Chiefs tried to warn him that with the Northern and Southern hemisphere fire seasons now overlapping we can’t continue to rely on overseas assets. It’s time for investment to provide for an adequate defence against the risks of bushfires that exist now, and more aircraft should be permanently based here.
With total fire and emergency services budgets nationwide around $4 billion compared to the military budget around $40 billion it would be justified to increase spending on emergency services. At least so some firefighters don’t have to ask for donations to buy protective equipment.
Now did I just hear on the radio that the PM just sent $12M to invest in increased air tanker support as a response to the request he received several months ago and ignored?
But a 737 Lat is 23 million to buy and cheaper to run
Yes the PM was told about this in April when 23 former Fire and Emergency Services Chiefs
The Federal Govt do not own or leases the aerial assets. But the Feds do supply funding, but it is a state responsibility on what assets they have.
I can imagine the hue and cry if the Feds tried to take over a State based asset.
So irrespective if these former did get to see the PM, they are barking up the wrong tree. They should be directing their time and effort at their former bosses, the States.
I've done just that. Knocked off work at 5pm, jumped in the RFS tanker at 7pm and driven towards Sydney. Got to Springwood around midnight, and went into property protection until around 7am. I didn't go straight back to work though, I kept at it for 14 hours a day for the next four days, before being relieved by another crew.
The average volunteer has a job and a family. Their annual leave will run out eventually, and while they're protected against reprisals from their employer for going off to fight fires, they don't get paid when their leave runs out. Strangely enough, the kids still want to eat and the bank still wants their mortgage payments every month whether there are bushfires or not.
The Studmistress and I were discussing this a couple of nights ago.
She was a local CFA member until her health precluded it recently.
Her suggestion was that volunteer fire fighters receive a payment similar to jury duty payment.
You won’t get rich but it might just pay the rent.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amberale, whole heartedly agree,
seems incongruous to me that the Qld Government can pay lollypop workers 180 grand a year
yet people who volunteer to risk their necks to save lives and property get SFA in support.
It has been suggested to me that a lot of funding from governments and donations from the
public gets sucked up by bureaucrats in "administration" fees, a tad like some of these charities
where only a few cents per dollar donated actually goes to the people who matter.
seems incongruous to me that the Qld Government can pay lollypop workers 180 grand a year
yet people who volunteer to risk their necks to save lives and property get SFA in support.
It has been suggested to me that a lot of funding from governments and donations from the
public gets sucked up by bureaucrats in "administration" fees, a tad like some of these charities
where only a few cents per dollar donated actually goes to the people who matter.
Rural volunteers have traditionally wanted fires out as quickly as possible and with minimal damage if possible. Paid staff have less, or no, incentive when on double money and the like. Good money to be made in the fire industry these days. 
Congratulations for making the dumbest comment in history 👏👏👏