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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“The contractors were out working on the fire lines. They put in containment lines and cleared off some of the fire trails. Two weeks later that fire broke out, but unfortunately those trails had been blocked up again [by greens] to turn it back to its natural state … Instances like that are just too numerous to mention”
“Near Dubbo two years ago, as a bushfire raged through the Goonoo Community Conservation Area, volunteer firefighters bulldozing a control line were obstructed by National Parks and Wildlife Service employees who had driven from Sydney to stop vegetation being damaged.”
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/green-ideas-must-take-blame-for-deaths-20090211-84mk.html
I southern Spain, where similar fire risks pertain, there are large, maintained firebreaks cut along ridges and across hillsides. Not as pretty as nature intended, but a lot prettier than a massive fire devastated area. There was a fire burning on the side of Puig Campagna as i flew into Alicante 3 weeks ago. They were using army personnel to tackle it, and aircraft carrying water. The firebreaks made their job easier, and much safer.
There have been at least two Royal Commissions into “bush fires”. None of the recomendations as an output from those commissions have been implemented (Apparently).
Darwin
I grew up in the country – my family were pioneers in our area in the mid 1800s – so I’m sympathetic to the Sheahans as we were always told to clear any burnable material away from houses – but to be blunt if they wanted to live in bare paddocks they shouldn’t’ve bought a forested block. There’s lots of bare land in Australia if that’s what they wanted.
No doubt the denizens of this board would love to be able to blame the “greenies” – whoever they are – for the fires, but the allegations being aired on this board are derived from at best third-hand sources – internet links to a brief media report of a single comment at a community meeting alleging that the council hadn’t allowed the person in question to clear trees. There has been no independent evidence offered that Nitmiluk shire did have the alleged policies forbidding tree clearing or that any Green party was responsible for those policies if they did exist. But for a lot of people unsubstantiated allegations seem to be good enough.
And as one expert noted in today’s Age, given the strength of the firestorm – the ferocity of which I doubt anyone here can even comprehend – even massive clearing wouldn’t’ve helped. There was a property noted in today’s Age that had 16 hectares of cleared land around it and the owner had proper fire pumps and a full dam, and he still died and the house was still destroyed. The smaller fire that started next door to my parents’ farm was jumping 200m at a time – so a clearance of 30 m still wouldn’t help much.
The real problem in the area north-east of Melbourne is that over the last 20 years lots of people have been allowed to move into very dangerous forested areas and to build substandard, non-fire proof housing in those areas. There have been plenty of warnings about the issue, but succcesive governments have apparently been determined to ignore it in the interests of having cheap housing for people who couldn’t afford housing closer to Melbourne. This policy failure was compounded by a “leave early or stay and fight” policy that just didn’t work in this instance because of the extreme conditions. And, it has to be said, a lot of people just didn’t take the situation seriously enough: there’s been lots of comments about TV footage broadcast last Friday of some locals drinking beers while playing a garden hose around their roof – that attitude just won’t cut it in 48 C / 80+ km winds, after 12 years of drought (caused by climate change) and a week of 40+C weather.
“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.”
Close down this blog, there is no need for debate ‘codetech’ (whoever he is) has spoken!
“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.”
A lot of the opinions here today have been vile, your rant offers little more than the kind of ‘I’m right, you lot are idiots’ nonsense we often see on the net bar some extra fury and invective. Go easy, and try to behave towards those you disagree with with a modicum of respect else you’ll blow a gasket!
REPLY: Peter, since you say nothing other than your disagreement with this particular comment, then are we to assume that you agree with the decisions of the councils there? – Anthony
tallbloke (03:33:58) :
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.”
OK the chopper travels 120 miles an hour. So from a dead stop in 30 to 60 seconds they can travel 1 or 2 miles. Even in Eastern Canada it can require travel of 10 to 20 miles for a body of water large enough for a refill. How far in an arid region under drought?
Sorry but the excess emissions excuse sound more like bull emissions, and not the methane.
Alan Wilkinson (23:50:53) :
“any that do will have to spend at least $20,000 more to comply with yet more regulations on building standards.”
Alan
That was a single comment in a single article in the Age, quoting an unsourced comment – I have the article in front of me:
“Experts say that forcing residents on Melbourne fringe to build high-tech, fire resistant housing could add $20,000 to the cost of a home”.
– which experts? The Age didn’t identify any.
– where did these experts say it? There’s been nobody in the media saying anything of the sort.
– “high-tech, fire resistant housing” – actually fire-resistant housing doesn’t have to be high-tech: there’s nothing “high-tech” about hebel brick or steel building frames or fly-screens over gables. The thing is that Victoria has been allowing buildings that aren’t allowed in NSW – I was in Sydney on Monday and the local press were noting that a lot of the housing that burnt so quickly wouldn’t’ve been permitted in NSW or, as I understand it, any other state.
And as the Age noted, the proposed changes would “[end] the common practice of building flammable houses in fire-prone bush”.
– “could add $20,000” – how was this figure arrived at? Is that a percentage amount? Or was it just plucked out of the air? It reminds me of the articles I see saying that green houses (e.g., solar passive) cost more – how is that possible when green houses are mostly about proper orientation to the sun, not materials?
Don’t forget the Polar Bears! If we cut down the trees what will happen to the Polar Bears! or the baby Seals.
(You know that argument is coming)
oh, Nancy, my heart bleeds for your stupidity. Liam Sheahan is not a bastard, we have the same mother and father,God rest his soul, and they were married. My brother is a highly intelligent, capable, christian man with no hate in him. He has a wealth of fire brigade experience and knew what he was doing. He cleared with an intent to replant with fire retardent species. this had recently been completed, hundreds of tubestock natives had been purchased and planted. If you look carefully in the background of the photo you can see the remnants of the protective sleeves from around the plants. He cleared only 3% of his land. I am prud to be his sister and I am a horticulturist, we consulted on this subject for some time and looking out for the environment as well as fire protection had equal priority. God Bless all those affected.
Anthony, I’m not an Australian, so I’m trying to learn what is going on. What is currently going on here on this blog atm is a series of pretty damn obnoxious ventings and precious little light shining.
Lets, please, hear the justification for some of these ‘greenie’ policies. Lets see if what is said of the ‘greenies’ by those who so clearly really detest (or worse) such people is actually right. Lets hope a ‘greenie’ speaks and, lets hope the verbal assault on them that, clearly, will follow isn’t too violent.
I don’t, ever, convict anyone on the basis of the case for the prosecution. yet, all we have heard so far is the shouted case for the prosecution. It simply can’t be as simple as ‘they are idiots’!
REPLY: Sometimes in the case of government actions, ‘they are idiots’ is in fact the most apt description. This may be one of those cases. Here in California the greens have gone about their business as if nothing ever happened when confronted with policy issues related to the Lake Tahoe fire. – Anthony
thanks for providing the original article.
looks like these points are important and haven t been discussed so far:
In a letter tendered to the court ,the Sheahans told the complaining resi-dents and the council to ‘‘getstuffed’ ’when asked to explain the clearing.
and
Sheahans bulldozed 295 trees, some 40 years old, without applying to Mitchell Shire for a permit.
Ed MacAulay (05:12:11) :
tallbloke (03:33:58) :
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.”
OK the chopper travels 120 miles an hour. So from a dead stop in 30 to 60 seconds they can travel 1 or 2 miles. Even in Eastern Canada it can require travel of 10 to 20 miles for a body of water large enough for a refill. How far in an arid region under drought?
Sorry but the excess emissions excuse sound more like bull emissions, and not the methane.
Actually, a lot of individual properties in australia have their own dams and pools.
Check the photos on the thread where my friend commented.
http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=12706&startat=260
Arapiles wrote: but the allegations being aired on this board are derived from at best third-hand sources – internet links … snip
… after 12 years of drought (caused by climate change) and a week of 40+C weather.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
An Australian claiming that drought and +40c weather is somehow new to the continent? 12 year drought due to climate change? Real climate change would equate to Melbourne receiving 2500 mm of rainfall each year for 12 years.
Yeah, its the greens fault that Southern Australia has been in drought for the last decade isn’t it. Maybe, just maybe it could be a hint that the theory of AGW has some basis.
But of course with all these greenies around, we’ll be up to our armpits in owls! You people really need to stop listening to the same old conservative BS.
Actually I have something to confess. I currently work for a state government Wildlife Service/EPA in Australia and the consensus around the office is amazement at the lack of fire breaks, especially around the small rural townships that were devastated. And to a certain degree I do agree that some greens can go over the top.
In the organisation that I work for (different state) there are comprehensive systems for managing and analysing controlled burns and wildfires on the parks and forests. These burns are carried out with the utmost care and impose a considerable financial burden to the organisation.
I’m afraid that green bashing is only going to make conservatives appear more and more out of touch especially as the effects of AGW become more and more irrefutable.
“Sadly, the greenies can never be called to account for such stupidities – they just disclaim responsibility and move on to the next lunacy, ”
Time to start shootin’ yet?
Who did start in the world all this green madness?. I think WUWT is the proper place to post the historical facts around this pseudo religious movement. If more steps are taken “against global warming” or “climate change” more people will die, while others profit on it.
Nancy, me thinks you’ve got your tongue in cheek!!!
Philip Bratby
“Nevertheless I continue to do woodland coppicing and hedge-laying on my property. I just hope that these ancient practices are allowed to continue. The people of times-gone-by who lived intimately with nature knew what they were doing.”
So do we! And, as you must know, many County wildlife trusts also do such things in their reserves. To try and imply that ‘greenies’ in the UK might want to ban such practices is quite absurd.
sod (05:56:00) : Let’s discuss those points, Sod. Do you think the people should not have cleared a fire break around their house on their own land? Do you think trees are more important than people’s lives?
You do realize that fires there are part of a natural cycle, right? If those trees were 40 years old, it’s because the Green-influenced government has been supressing fires and preventing fire breaks for years. Fires happen; trees burn.
Anyone who advocates not allowing fire breaks around homes in fire-prone areas should “get stuffed”. If the government wants the land as a nature preserve they have only to buy it, otherwise they are morally bound to let the owners defend their own lives from the inevitable fires.
This was so very predictable that local officials should prosecuted for manslaughter.
kinda makes you wish those who pass and enforce those laws were caught in a brush fire without a bulldozer.
Peter Hearnden:
I’m sorry you don’t “get it”.
The natural state of most forest is growth, burn, growth, burn. As we encroach into forested areas it is a requirement to control the burnable parts, either by deliberately setting small fires or clearing areas to protect our structures. It’s not optional.
Unfortunately, the “greenies” as I derisively call them think that the “natural state” is “sustainable”. Somehow they forget the “burn” part of “natural state”. Debris from trees and underbrush pile on the forest floor, dry out, and create a fire hazard. This must be removed somehow, or it WILL burn eventually. Yes, even in the “natural state”.
We all know these people. They live in a fantasy world. They want log homes nestled within the uncleared forest, because it’s “natural” and feels good. The city equivalent would be building a gasoline moat around your home. In order to maintain this “natural state” they ban others from clearing or protecting.
Again I ask, why is this hard? It’s a ridiculously simple concept, and yet you seem unable to comprehend why anyone here is upset!
If you owned a home surrounded by inflammable fuel, with your family and belongings in that home, I guarantee you’re not going to allow someone else to tell you that you can’t remove fuel or clear a space around your home. If you had that gasoline moat around your house, I guarantee you’ll spend a lot of time watching out the windows to make sure passers-by don’t throw their cigarette butts in your direction!
The frightening and ANGERING part about this is that this isn’t even a simile, and it’s not hyperbole! These homeowners were FORBIDDEN to do the most basic protection of their own lives and property! They were NOT ALLOWED to disrupt someone else’s idea of a “pristine” forest!
Again… why is this hard? What “other side” is there? People DIED, houses and priceless possessions were lost. The forest doesn’t care a whit about the efforts to “maintain it” or keep it “pristine”, it did what it will always do.
““We’ve lost two people in my family because you dickheads won’t cut trees down…””
You gotta love his style, direct and to the point, and totally irreverent. Good for him!
Governments are run by crooks and morons. If more people understood that we’ve have a lot less government. And that would be a great benefit to the people.
Time for greenie / enviormentalists to answer some hard questions about their positions. I’m tired of the well it’s a drought excuse or he broke the law.
Remember Vistoria
I see a class-action lawsuit in the making. If I were these folks who’ve lost loved-ones and property you bet your a– that I would be getting together with my neighbors and starting a lawsuit. Also Mr Sheehan should get involved to get his $100,000 back plus interest. Also these “dickheads” should be impeached or thrown out of office.