I’m no stranger to wildland fires. Longtime readers may recall that my own home had the threat of wildfires here in Chico, California this past summer, as did many Butte County residents who not only were threatened, but lost homes.
View from my home on June 16th, 2008
The recent fires in Australia and the loss of life and property were apparently compounded by a draconian policy that prevented people who lived in the fire threat zones from cutting trees and brush near their properties. We witnessed something equally tragic in Lake Tahoe fire in 2007, owing to similar eco driven government stupidity forcing heavy handed policies there. Residents couldn’t get permits to cut down brush and trees, the result was a firestorm of catastrophic proportions.
A family in Australia saw the threat, decided on civil disobedience, cleared a firebreak, and got fined $50,000. They feel vindicated now, because their house is one of the few in Reedy Creek, Victoria, still standing, the only one in a two kilometer radius. Good for them.
The quote from the homeowner that is the title of this entry really does say it all. Here’s the story from The Sydney Morning Herald.
Fined for illegal clearing, family now feel vindicated
Richard Baker and Nick McKenzie
February 12, 2009 – 12:03AM
They were labelled law breakers, fined $50,000 and left emotionally and financially drained.
But seven years after the Sheahans bulldozed trees to make a fire break — an act that got them dragged before a magistrate and penalised — they feel vindicated. Their house is one of the few in Reedy Creek, Victoria, still standing.
The Sheahans’ 2004 court battle with the Mitchell Shire Council for illegally clearing trees to guard against fire, as well as their decision to stay at home and battle the weekend blaze, encapsulate two of the biggest issues arising from the bushfire tragedy.
Do Victoria’s native vegetation management policies need a major overhaul? And should families risk injury or death by staying home to fight the fire rather than fleeing?
Anger at government policies stopping residents from cutting down trees and clearing scrub to protect their properties is already apparent. “We’ve lost two people in my family because you dickheads won’t cut trees down,” Warwick Spooner told Nillumbik Mayor Bo Bendtsen at a meeting on Tuesday night.
Although Liam Sheahan’s 2002 decision to disregard planning laws and bulldoze 250 trees on his hilltop property hurt his family financially and emotionally, he believes it helped save them and their home on the weekend.
“The house is safe because we did all that,” he said as he pointed out his kitchen window to the clear ground where tall gum trees once cast a shadow on his house.
“We have got proof right here. We are the only house standing in a two-kilometre area.”
At least seven houses and several sheds on neighbouring properties along Thompson-Spur road in Reedy Creek were destroyed by Saturday night’s blaze.
Saving their home was no easy task. At 2pm on Saturday, Mr Sheahan saw the nearby hills ablaze.
He knew what lay ahead when the predicted south-westerly change came.
The family of four had discussed evacuation but decided their property was defensible, due largely to their decision to clear a fire break. It also helped that Mr Sheahan, his son Rowan and daughter Kirsten were all experienced members of the local CFA.
“We prayed and we worked bloody hard. Our house was lit up eight times by the fire as the front passed,” Mr Sheahan said. “The elements off our TV antenna melted. We lost a Land Rover, two Subarus, a truck and trailer and two sheds.”
Mr Sheahan is still angry about his prosecution, which cost him $100,000 in fines and legal fees. The council’s planning laws allow trees to be cleared only when they are within six metres of a house. Mr Sheahan cleared trees up to 100 metres away from his house.
“The council stood up in court and made us to look like the worst, wanton environmental vandals on the earth. We’ve got thousands of trees on our property. We cleared about 247,” he said.
He said the royal commission on the fires must result in changes to planning laws to allow land owners to clear trees and vegetation that pose a fire risk.
“Both the major parties are pandering to the Greens for preferences and that is what is causing the problem. Common sense isn’t that common these days,” Mr Sheahan said.
Melbourne University bushfire expert Kevin Tolhurst gave evidence to help the Sheahan family in their legal battle with the council.
“Their fight went over nearly two years. The Sheahans were victimised. It wasn’t morally right,” he said yesterday.
Dr Tolhurst told the Seymour Magistrates court that Mr Sheahan’s clearing of the trees had reduced the fire risk to his house from extreme to moderate.
“That their house is still standing is some natural justice for the Sheahans,” he said.
He said council vegetation management rules required re-writing. He also called on the State Government to provide clearer guidelines about when families should stay and defend their property.
Houses in fire-prone areas should be audited by experts to advise owners whether their property is defensible, Dr Tolhurst said.
Mr Sheahan said he wanted others to learn from his experience and offered an invitation for Government ministers to visit his property.
He would also like his convictions overturned and fines repaid.
“It would go a long way to making us feel better about the system. But I don’t think it will happen.”
This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/national/fined-for-illegal-clearing-family-now-feel-vindicated-20090212-85bd.html
Pat (20:17:50) :
. . . How can I upload pictures?
You can’t on WUWT. A good way is to sign up with TinyPic for a free account, upload there, then link to the pictures.
http://tinypic.com/login.php
@ur momisugly Jeff B. (23:10:17)
Very well said.
Despite the guilt trip environmental activists try to lay at everyone’s feet, most folks would never want to rape and pillage the environment. Most seek a balance between their lives and the environment, they seek a small ‘footprint’; the overwrought activists want no footprint, as though mankind is to be viewed as unnatural.
don’t live out there if you no this could happen. & if you say you no that they did not even cut down the trees,,[snip],,
build a [snip] bunker on your propatey then..
but you did not like they did not cut down the trees,,, do you get that…
you did not think off that & they are flat out thinking of million of thing
Reply: I thought about deleting this one. I decided to clean it up instead. Please refrain from profanity (and maybe sober up) ~ charles the moderator
Then there was 48-year-old Gordon Timbs, of South Nowra, killed by a 25-metre gum tree which fell on his house while he slept one night in 1998. For two years, Timbs had begged Shoalhaven City Council for permission to cut down the tree, which he thought was unstable. But the council refused, with fatal consequences.
His wife sued Shoalhaven Council and eventually succeeded in winning. the award verdict “In lieu thereof in action 7547/01 verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $202,685 and in
action 7547/01 verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $541,091, each to date from 4 December 2002.
I live in the Shoalhaven NSW Australia and this verdict against them forced the council to change its tree preservation law. One can now cut down a tree if it could fall on a house, the so called 45 DEG rule.
I have lived in fire prone areas now for the last 35 years. There is only one way to stop these wildfires and that is to reduce the fuel by MANDATORY fuel reduction when the fuel load is high.
The situation in Victoria was made worse because the local council only granted building permission if the applicant PLANTED trees close to the house so as to make the district “more forest like” IMBECILES!!!!!!
Nancy (23:06:49)
Please say you are joking!
If these Greens don’t realise that nature’s used fires for millenia as a healthy part of the ecosystem lifecycle then they’re completely dippy doo.
I’d make a fairly strong bet that Aborigines moved away from the fire-threatened regions during fire seasons and spent their time there in the winter…..COMMON SENSE.
As the bloke said, common sense isn’t very common any more…….
Well done bringing this item to everone’s attention! My introduction to Australian bushfires was in 1952 and ever since then I have been very aware of fire risk. I have been a volunteer firefighter on many occasions, and I was one of the first outsiders to arrive in the razed township of Macedon on the day after the Ash Wednesday fires in 1983. I find it too emotional to talk about that, but let me say this- All my experience has shown me that houses in the ‘bush’ as the eucalypt forests of Australia are called, can be made fairly fire safe. The eucalyptus tree would be one of the most combustable of green vegetation in the world and that needs to be understood.
Firstly a house needs to have an area of cleared land around it. That does not mean absolute bare ground, a nice garden and non-native shrubs can be very attractive. Beyond the clear area, plant quick-growing deciduous trees. What happens is this- the fire will ‘crown’ in the native bush and travel at a tremendous pace, tree top to tree top, the ground fire follows it. Flying burning leaves and bark are filtered by the deciduous trees, so limiting spot fires beyond. It takes quite a while for their leaves to shrivel in the heat and they resist burning until most of their water has evaporated, unlike the gum trees. While this is going on, the deciduous trees also minimise the radiant heat impinging on anything beyond them, including the house.
Less radiant heat allows the householder to fight the small spot fires that will occur in any grass and weeds, or the garden if it has dried out, and also the house will not have absorbed a lot of heat, therefore reducing the chance of it catching.
Every home owner under those circumstances should also have a refuge of last resort. If all else fails, they need somewhere to shelter. On a farm, a dam is a good spot, years ago farmers would have a dugout made like an earth cave to shelter in, but if all else fails, then get into a clear area and cover yourself/selves with wet blankets.
Drive around some of our beautiful bushland and see how so many people build their houses- gum trees to the door. Partly due to the fact that they are not allowed to cut the trees. See the festoons of dried bark hanging from those trees, just waiting for the fire! Live in some of those areas and try to plant a ‘European Tree’ and the green element will destroy it.
I hope that current events make government and councils re-think the whole situation and that they realise that the ‘vocal green’ is certainly not a real concervationist. It is so sad, that it will have taken the death of so many people to make them see some sense.
Weve been warned for years that this would happen, yet those in positions of responsibility have been negligent to the point that the current disaster was sooner or later to be expected. We now have the possibility that what has happened in Victoria is likely under the right conditions to be replicated all across Australia.
………………………………
In 2006 the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) in Victoria indicated it needs extra funding to conduct more fuel reduction burns. “There is an auditor-general’s report which clearly states that fuel reduction burning targets are consistently not met, so this is a function of a failure on the part of those responsible to ensure there is this outcome that targets are met,”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/australia/vic/bendigo/200602/s1564272.htm
The Victorian disaster had its origins about a decade or so ago when so-called ‘environmentalism’,’sustainabi lity’ and fire protection became mixed.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/bushfires
Project Vesta demonstrated that hazard reduction by prescribed burning will reduce the rate of spread, flame height and intensity of a fire and reduce the potential for spotting. These effects may persist for a considerable time (up to 20 years) in forests containing rough-barked trees and shrubby understoreys
http://home.vicnet.net.au/~frstfire/docs/ProjectVestaBrochure.pdf
“Wildfire hazard abatement is one of the major reasons to use prescribed burning. Computer simulation, case studies, and analysis of the fire regime in the presence of active prescribed burning programs in forest and shrubland generally indicate that this fuel management tool facilitates fire suppression efforts by reducing the intensity, size and damage of wildfires”
http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/WF02042.htm
If you own the Fuel, you own The Fire.
Thanks Mike McMillan, here’s a few pictures….
http://feed2.tinypic.com/rss.php?ua=ipveXGhLfSLxIAJ%2FY48UMA%3D%3D
Source unknown…
In 1994 the area I live in Sydney (Sutherland Shire) came under threat of fire. I remember standing there watching a whole hillside of over 100 houses burning down. As I designed many of the new houses to replace the old I saw the terrible destruction – power tools liquefying and running down the footpath, houses turned to nothing but ash. Then as now many years of fuel buildup contributed to fire storms and yet now our governments are even more lax in reducing fire risks than what they were then.
ATTN: Joseph M
Vigorous fire supression in central BC since ca 1920-30’s have resulted in a vast mature lodgepole pine forest that has been recently destroyed by the mountain pine beetle, which has killed an area the size of Vancouver Island. If there is a dry spring and summer this year, this whole region will go up in flames and Yellowstone will look like a small campfire..
“Gerard (00:42:15) :
According to CSIRO and now being parroted by politicians the fires are the result of climate change and we need to be prepared for an increasing frequency regime of devasting fires as global warming increases our summer temperatures.”
Yup! The media are now milking it for all they can.
Dane: To a true believer, the fact that his ideology has caused hundreds of deaths proves nothing. It just goes to show that people have yet to do it right — it’s always the fault of the imperfect followers, never the fault of the ideology itself.
A former friend of mine once insisted to me that the death tolls of the USSR and the PRC proved only that they weren’t real communists… hence the term “former”.
There are odd aspects of this case, Here is the original newspaper report. They actually cleared 100 metres around their house, which is certainly a large firebreak. They may have had other motives. You can see from the photo that after the clearing, there are still a number of large eucalypts around the house.
I normally comment with my full name, but in this case I wish to avoid involving others. My land is on the mid-north coast of NSW. Earlier this year, an accidental burn in nearby state forest was maintained using aviation fuel until two compartments were burnt out.
In the peculiar conditions of the last few weeks, we experienced wind, heat and humidity without rain while fires were raging in the south of the continent. (I say peculiar, because the wind was constantly from the north and north-east, unlike heat-wave conditions experienced in recent decades, which have been dominated by inland westerlies. PDO? Back to the fifties?)
The burning of those two compartments meant I was relatively safe through the dangerous period. It also replicated in a rough way the kind of systematic burn that aborigines used for millennia. The notion that eucalypts could be protected beyond six metres is startling, especially in southern states where crown-fires have an unimaginable potential for destruction. There is nothing “natural” about unfired bushland, as certain of my aboriginal neighbours would confirm. These massive “hot” burns are tragedies for humans, flora and fauna, and have no place in any natural scheme.
The disaster of the Canberra fires some years back should have taught us that our green masters are self-hating leftists without a clue or a conscience.
Let’s roll these mullahs.
twawki, I too, saw those houses burning from my verandah at Woronora Heights! Many of them burnt from the inside because of the radiant heat through the windows set the furnishings alight.
A firefighter has just stated on the ABC television that it can take up to 2 years to receive permission to hazard reduce. 2 bloody years! Words fail me.
[vandalism how to’s are not allowed here] ~ charles the moderator
I don’t remember any other comments section on WUWT with this much raw emotion, and well deserved.
There is no “other side”. The “greens” are wrong. Period.
People who live in an area prone to burning should be able to defend their lives and property. Telling them not to live there is just…. retarded. I’ve never heard anyone tell city dwellers that they’re responsible for UHI and they should move, or farmers in tornado prone areas they should move (that would pretty much include most of North America).
We have opposable thumbs and are tool users. We adapt our immediate environment to make ourselves comfortable and safe. We cut down trees around our property to protect our lives and our homes. Why is this difficult?
I also have heard some of my “green” leaning acquaintances spouting their opinions, and they disgust me. Not using firefighting equipment because of emissions? For crying out loud, how much CO2 was emitted getting REPORTERS to and around the scenes?
The insanity of the last 20 years of “green” crap will have to get worse before the mainstream realizes it was a failed idealism. I hope enough of us survive.
VG (19:56:06) :
This is only the tip of the iceberg re this story. If you read today’s Australian they (green’s) also banned controlled fire clearing in 2007. Also another Australian put up a recent post at WUWT that his boss had offered various aircraft to water down the fires (before the fires) but the Victorian Government (or greens in parliament refused because “those planes” contributed to too many emissions….There you go… very very sad and very very stupid
I asked an australian friend about that. His response was:
“The real problem with this sort of large aeroplane is the huge recycle time. It has to land on a proper airstrip, fill with water, take off, then fly CONSIDERABLE distance to the fire. You could be talking a 15 – 30 minute cycle. That’s futile.
The heavy choppers (Sky Cranes) we use for fire-fighting stay near the fire. They hover over a dam or a pool, suck up water in something like 30 – 60 seconds, and then fly for maybe 30 – 60 seconds to the fire front and dump. They are carrying a fair bit of water each time, and cycle fast. We have a LOT of these choppers, and use them intensely.”
Nick Stokes (03:14:22) :
There are odd aspects of this case, Here is the original newspaper report. They actually cleared 100 metres around their house, which is certainly a large firebreak. They may have had other motives. You can see from the photo that after the clearing, there are still a number of large eucalypts around the house.
IT’S HOT IN AUSTRALIA. Shade from trees directly next to the house is welcome, and needed. Having a good sized firebreak between those and the surrounding woodland is JUST GOOD COMMONSENSE.
“A Department of Environment spokeswoman confirmed yesterday it had received a public submission to list controlled burning as a “key threatening process” – the same category that applies to climate change, land clearing and feral cats, pigs and foxes.”
“The federal Environment Department’s spokeswoman declined to name the applicant behind the proposal to list controlled burning as a “key threatening process”.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25042644-5018722,00.html
Hey DJA yeah I got the wife and kids out and the fire hit the top of my valley in Kareela another 5 minutes and my street would have gone. Then a wind change occurred – a southerly buster came through and took out the adjoining suburbs of Como West etc. When walking around with those who lost their homes later they talked of how for years they had asked Sutherland Council to back burn the growing fuel of leaf and branch litter up to 10 feet deep and were ignored. When the fire hit and raced up the hill the radiant heat was so intense it caused flash point in many houses that caused the explosions you saw. Yet when I look around now in the Shire and up the Blue Mountains (have friends up there) the fuel load is much higher than Ive ever seen it.
That Nancy evidently sees the 247 trees “killed” as a more heinous crime than the 181 (and counting) of her fellow human beings that she and her rabid ilk have sacrificed to Gaia is, to me, the most disturbing thing I have heard this last week.
If such views continue to carry even a modicum of influence over policy formulation at the Federal, State and local level, we are doomed to revisit this horror.
Liam Sheahan stands as a monument to those of us who take a more considered approach to sustainability and rail against brainwashed greenies and criminally incompetent bureaucrats.
Nonetheless, the spotlight will remain on the hunt for and prosecution of “mass murdering arsonists” who, while deserving to suffer the full extent of the law, only serve to shift the focus from the true culprits.
Nancy can best serve Gaia (a concept, incidentally, she clearly misunderstands by presupposing a separation between it and us) by offering herself up as a nutrient source for her beloved trees.
Dear Code Tech,
Have you asked your greenie acquaintances if they would decline a call out of fire services if their own property was burning – and spare themselves the embarrassment of all those CO2 emissions being expended upon them ?
A personal sacrifice they would be prepared to make for future generations ?