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
http://www.nps.gov/yell/naturescience/wildlandfire.htm
There was a gradual recognition of the need for fire in the wilderness, that eventually lead to the elimination of the classic smokey the bear public service announcements that ran in the 1950’s. Yellowstones fire season of 1988 was after they had adopted a natural burn policy about 1972, but there was still unnaturally high fire load in much of the park.
You don’t need global warming to have massive firestorms only fire load and favorable conditions. The U.S. had its worst mass fire storm in 1871 which killed between 1200 and possibly 2000+ people on October 8, 1871 in Peshtigo, Wisconsin.
The fire was so intense it boiled people alive who took refuge in a water tank, most survivors took shelter in major rivers or lakes. The fire storm winds were intense enough to toss around large objects like railroad cars according to some survivors.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=51595
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_5_22/ai_n24983543
Larry
Pompous Git,
for all your tagging Bob Brown as a friend you sound like a relic green who doesn’t really recognise the demographic change that’s swept the over the movement perverting its meaning & purpose. I find it hard to say the same about Mr Brown.
Quoted from Sydney Morning Herald, February 10, 2009
‘Scientists warned us this was going to happen’
If seeing is believing, then it’s time to accept climate change, writes Freya Mathews.
IT IS only a couple of years since scientists first told us we could expect a new order of fires in south-eastern Australia, fires of such ferocity they would engulf the towns in their path.
[Death toll: 181 (so far, but still rising). Houses lost: ~750 so far, but towns still under threat. Area burnt: ~400,000 ha SO FAR. RNC]
And here they are. The fires of Saturday were not “once in 1000 years” or even “once in 100 years” events, as our political leaders keep repeating. They were the face of climate change.
They were the result of the new conditions that climate change has caused: higher temperatures, giving us hotter days, combined with lower rainfall, giving us a drier landscape. Let’s stop using the word “drought”, with its implication that dry weather is the exception. The desiccation of the landscape here is the new reality. It is now our climate.
===================================
The Sydney Morning herald has lost the last shred of credibility it had, (which wasn’t much)
In other news:
Man charged with arson.
“Words can’t describe how I feel about them,” Halyburton told The Associated Press at a relief center in nearby Alexandra. “I’m a Christian, but I don’t think to kindly of people if they go light a match and destroy people’s property and lives. They don’t have a brain in their head.”
Fined $50,000 for saving their home LOOK WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE EVIL GREEN NAZIS make stupid laws and regulations its like what i read about in SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA where a family ignored the CALIFONIA DEPT OF FISH & GAME and the U.S. FISH & WILDLIFES orders to not clear brush about their home becuase some endangered critter ENVIROMENTALISM IS A NEW KIND OF EVIL
The early 1900’s in the Western US were very nasty too. The “Big Burn” of 1913 ran trough most of the west-I keep thinking that this could happen again-in the name of
“protecting the environment” and not doing something about excess fuels.But the greens have the driver’s seat now.’07 at Tahoe was an example.I worked a fire on the North End of Tahoe in ’04-even then there were calls to clean things out.The trees
were packed close from a reforestation done in-1914.The Greens were yelling like a mashed cat then,about the need for thinning.’07 was an example…
I haven’t read all the comments but if Rudd wants to prosecute for murder some who started the fires deliberately, why not start prosecuting for murder all those who had a hand in setting this stupid policy.
It is just La Nina…
“Climate change” did not cause the fire; the climate always changes. Constantly. And the current rate and extent of change is normal and natural. The problem can be laid directly at the feet of the government, which stopped its policy of clearing brush and fire breaks.
In October 1991 there was a similar fire in the Oakland/Berkeley hills east of San Francisco. Uncleared brush fueled the inferno. 3,354 single family homes were completely destroyed in 72 hours.
Hot, strong winds spread the fire. Over 1,500 firefighters from Oregon, Nevada and Southern California were called in. But until the winds suddenly died down they were unable to contain the fire at all.
I still remember all the helicopters and aircraft fighting the fire. One helicopter hovered over my swimming pool and emptied about half of it in one gulp with a giant bucket suspended underneath. It took about ten seconds – and it took an hour and a half to refill the pool.
Brian BAKER (09:57:37) :
“I haven’t read all the comments but if Rudd wants to prosecute for murder some who started the fires deliberately, why not start prosecuting for murder all those who had a hand in setting this stupid policy”.
I am pretty confident that is exactly what’s going to happen.
1. The law has to be changed.
2. The people that have been fined in the passed must have their money back.
3. The people who have lost everything must be compensated.
Government is liable.
Why?
Because there are many reports pointing out the dangers of the “Green” policies.
The Government therefore was warned.
Despite the warning the Government did not change their act.
It will not bring back the dead but it will prevent future casualties.
Therefore the Government has to be brought to court.
Found on: http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/02/national-secretary-of-australia.html
February 13, 2009
National Secretary of Australia firefighters union is a true believer
During the last decade the planet has been cooling but fuel has been building up in the Australian bush because of “green” policies preventing fuel clearance, leading to tinderbox conditions and the recent disastrous wildfires. See here, here, here, and here. In spite of these facts, the National Secretary of the United Firefighters Union of Australia blames the wildfires on “global warming”, relying on the alarmist CSIRO “Drought Exceptional Circumstances Report” (DECR):
“Research by the CSIRO, Climate Institute and the Bushfire Council found that a “low global warming scenario” will see catastrophic fire events happen in parts of regional Victoria every five to seven years by 2020, and every three to four years by 2050, with up to 50 per cent more extreme danger fire days. However, under a “high global warming scenario”, catastrophic events are predicted to occur every year in Mildura, and firefighters have been warned to expect up to a 230 per cent increase in extreme danger fire days in Bendigo. And in Canberra, the site of devastating fires in 2003, we are being asked to prepare for a massive increase of up to 221 per cent in extreme fire days by 2050, with catastrophic events predicted as often as every eight years.” “Face global warming or lives will be at risk”
Apparently the National Secretary hasn’t read David Stockwell’s posts taking apart CSIRO’s DECR.
–
Posted by jblethen at 2/13/2009
Labels: climate models, Hansen – NASA GISS – NOAA – HadCRU – CSIRO
mick (06:42:58) wrote:
“for all your tagging Bob Brown as a friend you sound like a relic green who doesn’t really recognise the demographic change that’s swept the over the movement perverting its meaning & purpose. I find it hard to say the same about Mr Brown.”
Actually Mick, I do recognise the change in the Green movement. For example, way back in the beginning, we were in favour of plantation forestry. I still am and the Greens are against. OTOH I am in agreement over the concept of restoring Lake Pedder. Despite my political differences with Bob, it would be curmudgeonly of either of us to allow that to poison our mutual respect for each other.
Just as Patrick Moore was excoriated by Greenpeace for his involvement with forestry, I am excoriated by most Greens in the organic movement for hobnobbing with farmers and agricultural researchers — they are The Enemy. I was happy to help them reduce pesticide use by 95%, but that wasn’t good enough for most Greens. So it goes…
It occurs to me that perhaps we might make more headway with hazard reduction burns if we referred to them as “excercising the Precautionary Principle”.
I watch very little TV (I much prefer Climate Audit & this place), but last night heard a Green saying that we shouldn’t be allowed to live in the bush and put our lives in danger! Fantasists!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Tasmanian_fires
Fifty two of the 62 lives that were lost were in the city of Hobart.
“I was happy to help them reduce pesticide use by 95%, but that wasn’t good enough for most Greens. So it goes…”
How much did the yield suffer?
Pompous Git,
ok, that must be why it confuses me – you’re calling yourself green in the same sense as a turn of the century gent catapulted into the present still straight-facedly describing himself as gay when he means he’s happy. What you’re basically advocating are sensible land practices that the green movement never really had a monopoly on in the first place.
Adolfo Giurfa (10:28:56) : It is just La Nina…
The Indian ocean dipole is probably more important.
DJ said
Currently its 20C in Sydney which is only a little below average.
This stuff is easily checked.
Weatherzone said;
Where did Sydney’s summer go?
Brett Dutschke, Thursday February 12, 2009 – 20:34 EDT
About one week after western suburbs endured its hottest four-day heatwave in 37 years; Sydney is likely to be heading for it coolest February period in more than 50 years.
The city is in the middle of at least a week where the temperature stays below 25 degrees. The likely number of days is nine, with next Wednesday being the first day warmer than 25 since last Sunday.
This will make it the longest February stretch below 25 degrees since the 1950s.
Sydney also had nine days in-a-row below 25 in February 1953 and eight in 1996. The last time there was a longer stretch was in 1950 when there were 13.
The extraordinary turnaround from last week’s heat is a due to plenty of cloud and showers being blown in by persistent onshore southeasterly winds.
When will the summer warmth return? The middle of next week as winds turn warmer northeasterly, but it will only be brief, just a few days.
The city is likely to reach the high 20s, possibly the low 30s, but a cooler change late next week will put an end to that warmth. Western suburbs will hit the low-to-mid 30s before the change.
Frequent cooler changes for the rest of the month will the chances small of a prolonged heatwave.
– Weatherzone
© Weatherzone 2009
A ‘cold’ fire is one hat does not give out excessive heat, such as one used in winter for backburning. A hot fire is one which verges on a fire storm and destroys everything in its path. When cold fires are used in winter for fuel reduction they reduce the frequency and intensity of hot fires in summer.
“Pandering to the Greens” is right. You must remember that it’s not actually the Greens who are in power. The mainstream parties implement half-assed approximations to Greens policies to stop a drift to the green side of politics, then blame the Greens for resulting disasters.
The actual Greens policies on fire (e.g. http://www.nsw.greens.org.au/policies/bush-fire-risk-management) include scientifically designed back-burning. The kind of indiscriminate burning the logging industry advocates selects for fire-adapted vegetation. Fire-adapted vegetation burns hot and fast as its competitive strategy for wiping out the competition, then comes back fast. Burn too big an area too often, and you end up with a more flammable system.
This is bad enough with indigenous undergrowth but when you add into the mix highly fire-adapted African grasses that have no local wild predators, introduced to improve pasture, and you are pretty far off from pre-settler conditions.
Especially in the case of Euc’s, thinning and removal make a major difference. Here they are obviously non native, so I say, they are weeds. Obviously in their native land, a different story. But given their dangerous levels of explosive aromatics, aggressive management of them is clearly needed.
mick (12:47:38) wrote:
“Pompous Git,
ok, that must be why it confuses me – you’re calling yourself green in the same sense as a turn of the century gent catapulted into the present still straight-facedly describing himself as gay when he means he’s happy. What you’re basically advocating are sensible land practices that the green movement never really had a monopoly on in the first place.”
No, the green movement never had a monopoly on anything. Yes, I am a firm advocate of sensible land practices.
Wouldn’t a turn-of-the-century gent be 9 years old this year? :-))))
Yeah, I’m a facetious old fart 😉
Sandy (12:26:44) wrote:
“I was happy to help them reduce pesticide use by 95%, but that wasn’t good enough for most Greens. So it goes…”
How much did the yield suffer?”
During the same period, pack-out rates were improved by other changes in practice. Basically, farmers are in business and cannot afford to reduce profitability. The 95% reduction in ten years was a goal set by growers. It was achieved in considerably less time than that.
Home video posted on CNN on the Australian fires, from St. Andrews, Victoria.
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-211954
David Joss (21:25:12) :
Re your comments on the 1851 fires. There are many reasons that these fires are probably the most extensive in Victoria’s history. Not the least of which is the fact the forests were much more extensive and well connected, and the likelihood that aboriginal fire stick farming hadn’t been practiced for some time leading to an increase in fuel load. The idea is that land clearing is contributing to extreme weather conditions its not the sole cause.
The issue is much more complicated than presented by Flannery and Co who would like to blame the extreme weather SOLELY on CO2 emissions.
SteveSadlov: Another factor: in Australia, leaf litter is broken down by insects (small moths and beetles) that you probably don’t get in California, so eucalypt leaves become a major fire hazard, if the local bugs don’t like them (very likely). Here, frequent burning as advocated by the logging lobby wipes out the insects so the leaf litter also accumulates, and becomes a fire hazard.
Pre-emptive burning is a good strategy if done right. Done badly, it increases the risk.
E.M.Smith (03:21:27) and (03:45:21) ~ Very fine postings! Thank you.