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.
What is debate?
45 Years ago Aussie wildland fire/building interface regulations addressed one common sense value – after the fire. No CLEARANCE no rebuild (thru their FEMA) help. My limited viewing of today’s fire lose in these deadly Australian events, via satellite mapping, the images of burned out homes and space looks identical to those in California 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003 etc. etc. Not enough clearance, poor Interface housekeeping.
Pre 49er days in California the inhabitants of this mediterranean climate understood “don’t play with fire unless you know Prometheus”. This included living in a severe fire hazard zone. Most of these earliest users of the land, without formal academic preparation or written language, would handle the application of forest modification to increase food production, interpreting weather, farming ‘acorn orchards’. All through the use of fire.
Newer citizens began the use of timber harvesting. The same ridge tops that the first users kept OPEN for food gathering and travel were kept relatively the same with timber logging. There were some timber-sustained yield abuses, all fixable by 1960. Not all were fixed even by 1990. Fifty yrs ago a California forester spent 75% in the forest, 25% in the office. Today????? 75% at a computer.
California scientific-political managing of open space Sonoran-Conifer Zones began in the 1980’s. The Sonoran zone was managed by fire with the first users, then post 1849er days grazing with cows/sheep. ‘Open’ ridge tops were kept open with more grasses than ladder fuels. Unwanted fires may only be stopped on open ridge tops and in most cases a ‘ground fire’. If these ridge tops have severe fire-fuel loading-ladder fuels ( left to nature), no fire will be stopped. A grazing experiment in Southern California post WW1 to maintain open ridge-fuel breaks occurred. Interestingly the only problem is that sheep and goats did not understand “stay and eat within 100 ft of the ridge line”. Another study in 1977 (earlier study flawed said experts, participant people were “not fully prepared to analyse data”) and their conclusion the sheep and goats (cost of transportation $1.5M) did not understand “eat only within 100 ft of the ridge line”. There is currently a NEW concept of using sheep and goats to create fuel breaks around urban interface S. California. Will a study precede such an odd NEW idea?
Yellowstone fire in 88′ followed the bug kill (mostly lodge pole). There are Fed aerial maps before and after that substantiate the event burn pattern. Once these fires over-taxed logistical potential of fire suppression, there would not be any containment until the snow came.
NEWS RELEASE #09–32 February 16, 2009 DNR News (803) 667-0696
PRESCRIBED BURNS AT JOCASSEE GORGES
RESTORING HABITAT, IMPROVING SAFETY
Many species and ecosystems require fire periodically to ensure their survival, and that’s why prescribed burns are a part of the S.C. Department of Natural Resources’ management of the Jim Timmerman Natural Resources Area at Jocassee Gorges. People in the Upstate might see smoke signals emerging from the mountaintops north of SC 11 in Pickens County in the next month or so.
“The objective of the prescribed burns going on this winter is to maintain the ecological integrity of these lands,” said Mark Hall, S.C. Department of Natural Resources (DNR) wildlife biologist and forest planner, “and to provide for human safety by reducing the amount of fuel, thereby reducing the chance of catastrophic wildfire. For many of these ecosystems, it’s not a matter of ‘if’ they will burn, but rather ‘when.’ We like to choose the ‘when.’”
Burning will be done when the weather is suitable to allow for a safe burn, including the rapid rising and dispersal of smoke, Hall said. Once weather conditions are right for the burn, it should take four to eight hours for the active burning to be completed, although scattered stumps, logs and dead trees may smolder slowly through the night. Fires will be surrounded by fire breaks, which include existing preserve roads, streams, plowed fire breaks and breaks put in with hand tools in sensitive areas.
“Through the centuries, many native plants, animals and habitats in the southeastern United States have adapted to the presence of recurring fire,” Hall said. “Many species and ecosystems are now rare because of fire suppression, and they actually need fire to ensure their survival. We’ve burned about 2,000 acres in the last four years to help restore natural process in the system.”
Hall emphasized that since controlled burning requires careful timing and a thorough knowledge of weather and fire behavior, highly trained fire personnel with the DNR and S.C. Forestry Commission will manage and conduct all aspects of the controlled burns.
“Besides the ecological benefits of prescribed fire, it also has the added benefit of reducing fuel on the forest floor and lessening the chances of a catastrophic fire, which can threaten homes and people,” Hall said. “Because fire has been suppressed for so long in some places, you get dangerous buildups of fuel and increase the chances for a wildfire that can destroy property and lives. The wildfires we’ve seen across the United States in the last 15 years, due in large part to past fire suppression, underscore the need for prescribed fire.”
By using a controlled burn—when wind, temperature and humidity conditions are appropriate to remove some of the forest fuel like leaves, pine needles and twigs—fire managers can greatly reduce the chances of a catastrophic wildfire. After controlled burns are completed, the homes and properties close to Jocassee Gorges will be much less likely to be in the path of a wildfire, because the fuel is reduced or eliminated.
Optimal weather conditions will be chosen for smoke dispersal, but Hall advised that during these controlled burns nearby residents will certainly see and smell smoke. The smoke usually disappears by the end of the day.
“People become upset when there is smoke in the air if they don’t know the reason for the fire,” Hall said. “That’s why we’re trying to get the word out about prescribed fire. If we carefully plan and conduct a burn when weather conditions favor smoke dispersal, this reduces smoke-related problems. Dealing with a little bit of smoke now is infinitely better than trying to control a raging wildfire later.”
DNR protects and manages South Carolina’s natural resources by making wise and balanced decisions for the benefit of the state’s natural resources and its people. Find out more about DNR at http://www.dnr.sc.gov.
#
Re:Smiley (06:31:03) :
So the conservatives will come out looking bad and not the greenies? What kind of weed are YOU smoking? You’ll be lucky if you have a job after this debacle!
Yet another case of the enviro-weenies’ foolishness costing human life. Heaven forbid we cut down trees (which get burnt down anyway) rather than save people’s lives and property!
It would be nothing if not fitting if the moronic bean-counters prosecuting this brave family died in a fire…
Anyone who has ever BEEN in a fire, knows the folly of leaving dead brush standing. Anyone who has made their living outside understand TRUE land management.
Agencies full of people who stop responsible land management are busy bodies.
Come out & live on the land a while & see how it REALLY is.
I applaud this man & his family.
My brother in law’s ranch in the Kraft Springs fire in E MT some years back almost burned the whole property down.
Forest service was reluctant to come & help & area ranchers had to do most of the work before the slurry planes came in.
Guess who started the fire?
Forest service. Oh, accidentally of course.
What happened to PROPERTY RIGHTS, as in, why can’t I cut down MY TREES on MY PROPERTY?
@Peter Hearnden (05:31:00) :
“Lets, please, hear the justification for some of these ‘greenie’ policies.
…
It simply can’t be as simple as ‘they are idiots’!”
It usually is, regardless of how many words the justification uses.
A small example this brings to mind was a new law in the 80s in (parts of) Germany that greatly restricted the felling of trees by homeowners. Danger for a house was not going to be an easy excuse (and if I remember correctly, trees above a certain size would be considered particularly protected).
I don’t remember the justification blather, other than that it didn’t address the fact that insurance still wouldn’t pay if you knew that a tree was at risk of falling on your house but you didn’t fell it (regardless of legal obstacles).
In my parents’ woodsy neighborhood, there was binge-felling of trees between announcement and effective-date of the new law, as anys tree that had any chance of perhaps soon becoming a risk (and, if I remember correctly (see above) very tall trees) were now being cut down just in case while it was still legal, rather than illegal with a tiny chance of getting special permission.
Unintended consequences, and then some.
(Different from most of their neighbors, my parents were able to continue to slowly cull (i.e. whenever needed) iffy trees around the majority of their property which wasn’t not visible from the road… In 2007, windstorm Kyrill (100+ mph) hit the area and broke vast numbers of trees, incl. onto buildings, cars, and roads. My parents lost only 2 of their 50+ trees, causing damage only to one paddock fence, no building damage, and no tree-on-tree damage)
The same happens in the US: No one can cut down their trees unless it obstructs the view from an oceanside, 7,000 square ft mansion in the Hamptons or Cape Cod, or it is situation on a ski slope in Jackson Hole or Wyoming. Oh, and you have to vote democrat and not pay taxes. Then you are allowed to cut down your trees, because you nephew drives a Prius.
A man who takes a stand on his own property is a criminal? Greenshirted EnviroNazis would much prefer to see people die. They don’t seem to be able to grasp the fact that many fires start from lightning strikes.
There exists a species of pine in the western U.S. which bears a cone that withstands every force on earth except one: fire. The heat of a fire causes the cone to open. No fire, no new trees.
God bless Liam Sheahan, and those like him, who are good stewards of the earth.
Nothing will change if the people in government that do such a bad job are fired or held financially responsible. It never happens. The worst that happens is the government agency pay out and the responsible people get a promotion or retire at 85% of their last salary. Not much of a penalty for screwing up and in this case actually killing people.
First we ~snip~ the government employees and then the lawyers–jukin’s mod to the great Bard.
How do the morons get into the position to terrorize an average Joe who appears to be much wiser than the idiots calling shots and making law. They should be shot then hung to make sure they are of no further danger to the average Joe,public..
The “dickheads” should be charged with the murder of every person who died in the fires and they should be executed. Nothing less is justified.
The fools who passed the law and the fools who ruled against this family should be named publicly and prosecuted for murder.
The fools had the power. They are responsible and should be punished for their decisions.
Calling politicians names won’t do it. You’ve got to hang them.
BWitt (09:40:26) :
Good to see South Carolina is operating good stewardship of their forests.
I’m an environmentalist, NOT an Environmentalist, there’s a difference.
I’ve had the argument about wildfires being caused by excessive fire suppression too many times now. I don’t want to see this happen ever again, unfortunately I will.
I offer my deepest sympathy to the people of Australia for this devastation and hope someone will learn the lessons.
DaveE.
It comes to my mind the expression: “GREEN – GO” (invented when Mexicans wanted green dressed american soldiers to go out from his territory) which could be applied to the new greens invading science, and peoples’ private territory.
You know what will happen now, don’t you? They will order his house be destroyed to be fair to those who lost their homes for following the law. It’s not fair they followed the law and lost, while he gets to keep his home after breaking the law.
It wouldn’t surprise me one bit. People all over the planet seem to be losing their minds, and we keep giving them power over us. I hope we wake up before it is too late, though I suspect it already is.
Global warming activists like Tim Flannery and Clive Hamilton have been quick to blame the extreme weather conditions that helped turn Victoria’s bushfires into a fire storm solely on increased levels of carbon dioxide. This simplistic argument has been shown to be false by research at the University of Queensland led by Dr Clive McAlpine that demonstrates that 150 years of land clearing has added to the warming and drying of eastern Australia leading to increases in temperature and decreasing humidity. Australian native vegetation holds more moisture than broadacre crops and improved pastures, and this moisture evaporates and recycles back as rainfall and also raises humidity. It also reflects less shortwave solar radiation into space, and this process keeps the surface temperature cooler and aids cloud formation. As high pressure systems slowly pass the southern part of the continent over summer the air they draw down from the north, over cleared land, has been getting hotter and dryer and helps explain this summer’s heat wave that probably made these bushfires more intense than those of Black Friday in 1939 and Ash Wednesday in 1983.
Reducing the chances of future extreme weather events then does not solely depend on reducing CO2 emissions but in restoring vegetation to critical parts of New South Wales and Queensland. Use of CO2 as a scapegoat for extreme weather events has blinded us from looking for the real influences on regional climate systems. Clearly Tim and Clive are spending too much time jet setting about the climate change conference circuit and should be spending more time in the library.
For a copy of the journal article see:
McAlpine C. A., J. Syktus, R. C. Deo, P. J. Lawrence, H. A. McGowan, I. G. Watterson, S. R. Phinn (2007), Modeling the impact of historical land cover change on Australia’s regional climate, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L22711, doi:10.1029/2007GL031524. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL031524.shtml
13times (06:21:57) :
“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.”
There are no precedents for this drought or the temperatures we had last weekend. The previous extremes, set in 1939 in similar circumstances, weren’t slightly exceeded – they were smashed. An official temp of 48.8 C at Hopetoun? Avalon getting to 47.8? Do you have any concept of what those temperatures feels like or how far from normal they are?
Feel free to keep on seeing climate change as a greenie/commie/lefty plot, the rest of us will get on with dealing with reality.
Jesus! I thought women glowed and men thundered in the Land Down Under. I guess it was just a song. What a bunch of government mandated wimps they’ve become. Sorry to all the manly men in Austrailia.
Interesting too how the Extremist Enviros are choosy about which natural threats they fear. If it’s the eucalyptus trees in the Ozzie Outback, well then they must be protected at all costs, even if that endangers humans. And those outbackers, well, they should be living in urban high rises anyway.
But if it’s the Gulf floodwaters entering New Orleans, LA, well, then we need huge new bureaucracies to build dykes, levies, walls, and other protection and warning systems to save each and every house. Especially those in the “poor” wards.
So let’s see:
Trees = Good, Water = Bad, CO2 = Bad, Glaciers = Good (except in Antarctica), Animals = Good, Humans = Bad, etc.
Any other simplistic Enviro Extreme reductions I need to add?
I sensed the AGW alarmists were getting desperate, but I never dreamed they’d advance their cause by enacting laws that ensured massive Australian bush fires, and thereby adding heat to the atmosphere. These people are even more devious than I thought.
Some green history:
“Fascist Ecology:
The “Green Wing” of the Nazi Party and its Historical Antecedents”
Sorry, here is the link:
http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html#bib1
WRT the current Australian Drought Conditions.
An article at
http://www3.aims.gov.au/docs/publications/waypoint/003/headlines-03.html
Spells out that dry periods of up to 20 years have occurred in Australia back in the 1600s, well before industrialisation. As a consequence the current drought (in SE Australia – I doubt that someone living in the current Queensland Floods (NE Australia would claim “drought” conditions ref http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/north-queensland-floods/2009/02/04/1233423294938.html ) can not be confidently attributed to climate change (I assume that your are actually referring to AGW caused by man made emissions of CO2).
Mind – the data is based on a coral core proxy, the idea being that the corals are impacted by the amount of fresh water coming out of the rivers, with more Fresh water in wet years and less in dry years.
The http://www.aims.gov.au/ site is somewhat politicised towards AGW – so to have them suggest long dry periods have occurred in the past that can’t be attributed to increased CO2 actually lends some weight to the idea.