Guest essay by Eric Worrall
There is growing pressure on the Australian Royal Commission investigating Bushfires to investigate how greens in positions of authority allegedly hijacked forestry management, to frustrate efforts to protect property and lives by back burning, to manage forest fuel load.
Bushfire royal commission ‘to examine green movement to hijack back burns’
18/06/2020|3min
There is “irrefutable evidence” environment and conservation departments around Australia have been “hijacked by lefties and greenies” who are pushing their own agenda on climate change says Sky News host Peter Gleeson.
On Wednesday, the royal commission into Australia’s Black summer bushfires saw the emergence of evidence that “fuel reduction burns saved lives last summer,” Mr Gleeson said.
He said the pushing of a climate change agenda by “lefties and greenies” has meant massive amounts of fuel has been allowed to build.
The royal commission will no doubt explore the link between climate change and the fires, and will also investigate how we allowed the green movement to hijack back burns.
“This royal commission cannot be politicised. It’s in all our interest to get it right, because bushfires are here to stay and we’ve got to do this better”.
Source (Watch the Sky News Video): https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6165223394001
Before anyone dismisses this sky news claim as empty media hype, here is what the New South Wales Volunteer Fire Fighters Association had to say about back burns and green interference in March last year.
Green ideology, not climate change, makes bushfires worse
March 5, 2019
Melissa Price, the new federal Environment Minister, has done untold political damage to a government already divided over climate action by spouting idiotic green propaganda about Victoria’s bushfires.
On Tuesday, she linked the fires to climate change, claiming there is “no doubt” of its impact on Australia.
“There’s no doubt that there’s many people who have suffered over this summer. We talk about the Victorian bushfires … There’s no doubt that climate change is having an impact on us. There’s no denying that.”
Sorry, minister, it wasn’t climate change that caused the latest bushfires which have so far destroyed nine homes in Victoria, and it wasn’t climate change that killed almost 200 people in the Black Saturday fires ten years ago.
The real culprit is green ideology which opposes the necessary hazard reduction of fuel loads in national parks and which prevents landholders from clearing vegetation around their homes.
…
Read more: https://volunteerfirefighters.org.au/green-ideology-not-climate-change-makes-bushfires-worse
A royal commission finding against greens is not a foregone conclusion – greens can also muster impressive figures to provide opposing expert testimony, so it is anyones guess which way the final judgement will go.
Sky News host Peter Gleeson also blamed climate change as well as greens, so the final judgement of the Royal Commission could be that climate change and greens are to blame.
But this is a step forward. Allegations of green interference in forestry management are now well and truly out in the open.
Next time some faceless Australian government bureaucrat rules people cannot protect their own land from fires by clearing vegetation, they better be sure their decision is justified, because they will not be able to hide; it won’t take much effort for landowners to attract the attention of high profile media figures like Sky News Peter Gleeson, to shine the spotlight of public attention on individual cases of alleged green interference.
“Before anyone dismisses this sky news claim as empty media hype…”
It’s empty Murdoch hype, a Sky News report based on quoting a Sky News host. And the “New South Wales Volunteer Fire Fighters Association” is just a right wing political group.
Like the ABC and Guardian, etc., are ultra far-left wing political groups … Stokes, anything to the right of your opinion is just a right wing political group. Your lot have done enormous damage to Australia, you’d do best to just keep your socialist head down.
Let me quote (via Sky News) the RFS commissioner (another lefty, I suppose you’ll say)
“Commissioner of the New South Wales Rural Fire Service Shane Fitzsimmons says he would put “very little store in anything the Volunteer Fire Fighters Association (VFFA) has to say,” due to the lack of “access to information about who they claim to represent, how many they represent, and how they operate”.
Mr Fitzsimmons told Sky News the VFFA are “highly politically-charged, their leader is a failed political candidate” with unclear motivations. “
Nick, Fitzsimmons never even addressed the obvious problem that the VFFA put forward. And whats more you haven’t either. It is a common known fact that the Greens have been anti fuel reduction burns, also green stacked councils have been placing restrictions on clearing vegetation around dwellings. Why won’t your ideology accept that.
“It is a common known fact that the Greens have been anti fuel reduction burns”
Never substantiated with any evidence. It isn’t true.
Aussie col
You are correct .Example
Darcy Duggan
“It IS true.”
I have several friends who were stopped from clearing by “environmental” dictates.
Fortunately only one of them lost out last summer, but they are now going to ignore the “enviros” and just tell them to go jump.
You are a LIAR, Nick, and I suspect you know it.
Come on Nick. Greens have been responsible for the green tape that has restricted FRB’s through things like special values which end up getting fried in a wildfire anyway. And that’s just one back door example.
“I have several friends who were stopped from clearing by “environmental” dictates.”
That has nothing to do with whether the Greens are preventing fuel reduction burns.
This was all pointed-out to you during the bushfires, Nick. Straight from the Greens website:
“…strict controls are required to reduce the amount of rural burning that is not required for essential asset protection…”
And:
“…The Australian Greens support hazard reduction burns and backburning to reduce the impact of bushfires when guided by the best scientific, ecological and emergency service expertise…”
Anyone but you can read those and see they didn’t support the current level of backburning. They support/supported backburning under conditions they approve/approved of and nothing more.
“They support/supported backburning under conditions they approve/approved of…”
Of course they do. Everyone does; it is a tautology. Would you support back-burning under conditions you don’t approve of?
The question is, are those conditions reasonable? What is wrong with asking for “guided by the best scientific, ecological and emergency service expertise”? What do you think they should be guided by?
“…Of course they do. Everyone does; it is a tautology. Would you support back-burning under conditions you don’t approve of?…”
So you admit they opposed (and opposed) the scale of back-burning which is (and was) implemented because they took (and take) issue with the conditions under which it is applied. See how easy that was?
“…The question is, are those conditions reasonable? What is wrong with asking for ‘guided by the best scientific, ecological and emergency service expertise’? What do you think they should be guided by?…”
Quit trying to weasel-out. The Greens clearly have a different opinion as to what the best scientific, ecological, and emergency service expertise is compared to those which dictate active policies, otherwise it would not have to be mentioned, nor would their calls for “strict controls.” They would simply say they support the current levels and policies for back-burning.
This is ridiculously obtuse, even by your standards.
It’s hard to see, when you refuse to look.
I lived for seven weeks in close proximity to these bushfires, and had to leave on three occasions due to smoke and no power. Six houses were destroyed near me, and six firefighters nearly lost their lives, all because property owners and local authorities are very limited in what they can do in terms of asset protection and hazard reduction, a result of ‘green’ policies.
We have said it before Fitzsimmons is just protecting his 200K job and very few people believe a thing he says. There has been submission after submission to the Royal commission on the real problems but Nick is just and old retired lefty troll … dont feed him.
I recently had a discussion with someone who had a home on the NSW Central coast which had a national park adjacent to his property that had been left to grow wild for years. On his own property he had large trees close to his house, which had prevented him from being able to insure his home. He obtained a quote of $12,000 to have the trees removed and then contacted the Council to obtain permission – this was denied, so he asked what the fine would be if he went ahead without it and was told that would be $20,000. So, he then told the Council officer that he would send them a cheque immediately as it was cheaper than losing his house worth $1.5 million and not having it insured. This is the Green Lunacy that has invaded our elected officials, allow people to build on their own property but refuse them the right to protect their lives and their home!
Nick,
With respect, a Commissioner is the politically appointed figure head of a government body. One is not appointed to the post of commissioner by one’s political masters without playing the ‘correct’ political games.
Make of Mr Fitzsimmons’ remarks what you choose, but as Eric correctly pointed out “…greens can also muster impressive figures to provide opposing expert testimony…”, I would be inclined to add that the green’s impressive figures are largely funded by or salaried and pensioned from the public purse; provided they play the ‘correct’ political games.
Nick,
Cheap shots like that are beneath your usual standard.
There has been a lot of internal dissent within the RFS for a number of years with many of the volunteers regarding the organisation as increasingly centralised and bueaucratic, with a focus on fighting spectacular large fires with big toys rather than reducing fuel loads and local crews responding rapidly to small fires.
Interesting. I’ve noticed the US Forest Service has been playing a game – allowing a naturally caused fire to be “managed for environment benefits”, until some days or weeks later a wind event blows it into a raging wildfire that requires a tens of million dollar multi agency effort to fight. In almost all cases the fire could have been stamped out in one hour by the fire crew that arrives within minutes or hours of the lightning strike that started it.
It’s a tiresome and heart breaking kabuki dance. Perhaps a thousand acres (almost nothing) “benefit”, tens of thousands of acres are catastrophically burned with ground sterilized before the mounted effort gets it under control. Or it burns all the way to the desert. Greens are placated, budgets are assured.
“Cheap shots like that are beneath your usual standard.”
Cheap shots like that, are his usual standard.
Randle,
USFS has changed it’s practices from stamping out every little fire to letting it burn until it threatens property/homes. Why? Because stamping out every little fire allowed for huge fuel loads which lead to devastating fires. Do fires get away from them, yes and they always will because Mother Nature tends to get nasty at times.
‘…Mr Fitzsimmons told Sky News the VFFA are “highly politically-charged, their leader is a failed political candidate” with unclear motivations…’
Maybe Mr. Fitzsimmons meant to suggest he had “clear” motivations?
“…And the ‘New South Wales Volunteer Fire Fighters Association’ is just a right wing political group…”
LOL. You’re pathetic.
Rather than deal with the actual arguments, Nick argues that they must be wrong because they have the wrong politics.
There wrong because Nick says because he is a true believer … you don’t need to produce an argument as a true believer :-).
Once again, Nick declares that the VFFA must be wrong, because they have the wrong politics.
No attempt to actually deal with the arguments, just attack the messenger.
…like the southern poverty law group, BLM, antifa, hope not hate, the green party are just hard left political groups?
Leo’s Filter for news.
Is the argument based on facts that anyone can check, or is it based on emotion, derived from models constructed by experts whose workings cannot be shown, where anyone who disagrees is held to have a political motive?
Check the facts. Who is more political of these two
https://volunteerfirefighters.org.au/ and https://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/volunteer
Or
https://www.splcenter.org/ and https://www.hopenothate.org.uk/ etc.
violence populism and shouting down the opposition and smashing statues and creating a new orthodoxy blaming someone else…now where have I heard that before? Nuremberg 1933.
We know what you represent Nick.
The people you warned us about.
You forgot the sarc tag.
It’s empty ABC hype …. GW and associated s@$t
There, I fixed it for you! Your bias against mine.
I lived half of my life under the socialist s@$t … what is yours? (bias)
Dear Nick,
You are talking bovine excrement. And may I ask precisely where and when you have been a volunteer firefighter to be so sure that this is hype? I would rather take the truth from my family and friends, many of whom are volunteers and whose lives are increasingly at risk because inner city morons with no idea at all prevent them from reducing fire risk.
The NSW Volunteer Fire Fighters Association are the people who actually get out there in front of the fires and fight them. They do it because it is their lives and properties at risk while the inner city idiots who prevent the burn offs sit safely in those inner cities miles away from the fires.
Like many firefighters, my family members don’t recall too many greenies out there fighting the fires with them, although a few can tell you stories of greenies demanding the firefighters prevent their country homes from burning.
And as an example of the lack of knowledge of fire commands , bush fire fighting is now largely “managed” from inner Sydney. During the Blue Mountains fires in December last year, a friend of mine , a fire captain in a volunteer fire brigade , was told to deploy to a particular fire trail to start a back burn. Command was asked how they could do that. Its on the map, go and do it they were told. Command was informed in pretty blunt words that the fire trail no longer existed. It was overgrown to the extent a hiker would have trouble walking through. Forget about a fire truck and the volunteers putting their lives on the line. She also advised them that her local volunteer brigade had been telling them in writing for over 10 years that the trail was getting more and more overgrown and that all of it was documented including the read receipts on emails. Constantly they were not allowed to clear or prepare for a back burn. Several homes were lost in that area and a few near misses in firefighters lives.
In 2003, there were big fires that destroyed over 550 homes in Canberra near where I live. There were big old pine trees just across the road from many of the homes in one of the suburbs that burned. The volunteers and even parts of Canberra’s paid firefighters wanted those trees to go because they were near the end of their lives and dangerous. Local greenies “saved” the trees. Many people lost their homes and 4 people lost their lives and we were very lucky indeed that many more did not die. Since then , there has been a lot more willingness to allow burn offs although we still cannot get rid of big , eucalypts in our suburbs. And many of those same firies who wanted the dangerous trees gone went out to fight the fires and lost their homes while they were trying to save others.
While ever the Nick Stokes’s of this world sit back and say it is empty media hype, then they have the loss of people’s homes and livelihoods and deaths of fire fighters on their hands.
But I forgot, Nick Stokes is so much smarter than we country bumpkins. F**k off, you fool!
“The NSW Volunteer Fire Fighters Association are the people who actually get out there in front of the fires and fight them.”
No, the New South Wales Rural Fire Service are the people who actually get out there in front of the fires and fight them. And I’ll quote again what their leader, the commissioner, thinks of the VFFA:
“Commissioner of the New South Wales Rural Fire Service Shane Fitzsimmons says he would put “very little store in anything the Volunteer Fire Fighters Association (VFFA) has to say,” due to the lack of “access to information about who they claim to represent, how many they represent, and how they operate”.
Mr Fitzsimmons told Sky News the VFFA are “highly politically-charged, their leader is a failed political candidate” with unclear motivations. “
I don’t have a clue what is going on in Australia, we have more than enough stupidity to keep track of in BC. But I will note this, Nick’s responses are of a type that have become standard for people who espouse some intangibly related set of values, call them the politically correct party line. The rule seems to be that one never discusses the data or the logic but rather moves directly to argumentum ad hominem. I don’t know if their is a standard play book or if it is simply because the politically correct are so sure of their moral superiority. In any case, it is very ugly.
Nick is just wishful thinking as you note he isn’t actually providing anything factual except a quote from a guy with a 200K job that is in danger of losing it and trying to deflect blame.
Nick Stokes, with all your Green argument disclaiming the evidence that others in this forum place before you via experience, you are unbelievable. Go and have a cup of green tea and a good lie down mate, you need it!
All the evidence required is freely available in the 57 Enquiries that have been held regarding bushfires, every one of the has the same conclusion, that the best preventative measure is regular “burn backs” the report into the 1939 disasterous fires puts the conclusions brilliantly and is just as relevant today!
Fitzsimmons is (was, since he is now retired) a bureaucrat protecting his own arse and that of his political masters. He has referred to his own volunteers as “Rednecks”, and despite the public persona, refuses to support the people in the field when it is politically inconvenient.
Dissent is swept under the carpet or vilified….. Meanwhile, Fitzsimmons moves on to yet another highly paid, bureaucratic position and the RFS is struggling for recruits. Who wants to be part of a “service” that doesn’t share the priorities of the communities that provide the volunteers.
A little Aussie etymology for our confused foreign friends.
greenie: pejorative for a concerned citizen trying save a patch of forest or a species from a bulldozer; a grab-all dog-whistle phrase, meaning pretty much whatever a paid, knuckle-dragging conservative from the IPA like Miranda Devine wants her audience to think it means. Specifically “them”.
green: not quite as bad as greenie.
The Greens: a political party, full name The Australian Greens. (Green Party = US version)
These terms are used inter-changebly by observant, nuanced, non-binary, fair-minded, conservative philosophers and academics.
Miranda Devine=>Sky News=>Eric=>WUWT bunker and only one skeptic questions any of it, the rest just gulp it down like a pack of thirsty poodles.
The greens the political party are watermelons.
A Greenie is generally considered a derogatory term for a nut job environmentalist.
The Greens political party has many members who are Greenies .
There are direct links between local Greenies and local government members who are members of The Greens.
In case anyone didn’t already know, Loy-doh speech a far-left looney language, and has basically zero comprehension of anything that is rational or real.
Greens are actually a far-left, communist based anti-humanity party based on some of the dumbest ideas in existence.
Basically everything they do is against common sense or decency.
They want to interfere is everybody’s lives and tell everyone what to do on their own land and life.
That are a sick, anti-human, totalitarian marxist party.
Which is why Loy-doh loves them so much.
Tell us more Fred.
He’s already told you more truth than you are able to handle.
It’s okay they are a 10% nuisance factor useful sometimes in some regimes as cannon fodder or to park tanks on.
Loudo, when you resort to name calling like “paid knuckle dragging conservative from the IPA”, you join the people who resort to calling your opponents “NAZIS”, that indicates that you have lost the debate! Trying to dress it up as some sort of erudite point doesn’t change the fact that you have failed to state your case and just resorted to name calling, which seems to be the norm.
My wife is a quilter and would very much appreciate your comments. Nick Stokes is an ignorant fool and should not enter any argument about fires and fire behaviour. We lost our house in 2009 and I have studied fire behaviour since and rebuilt a fire proof house. The 1939 and 2009 royal commissions both identified prescribed cool burning as the way to go and politicians, councils, forestry people and greenies prevent sufficient from happening. To blame the fires on Climate Change is a cop out and very convenient scapegoat when the fore-mentioned prevented adequate preparation. Indeed they have blood on their hands.
Bloody oath….many should have been jailed for man slaughter…particularly the nut jobs at Land Victoria
NS: try ignoring your Green Marxism for one moment and understand that regardless of whether or not the earth is warming the prime cause of the devastation from fires was Green political dogma that has for years Stopped and Prevented the removal of the fire load and the creation of fire-breaks. California has had the same problems.
You give your Green Marxism credentials away by using the standard weasel-word diversion of claiming that facts you can’t put up an argument against are from ‘Right Wing extremists’. The permanent dishonesty of Green ‘Activists’ is the most sickening thing in today’s world.
I’ve toured Australia on holiday 5 times since 2009 with my wife. In 2009 we crossed Victoria 2-3 months after the Black Sunday fires and saw the extensive aftermath damage. We’ve also seen massive bushfires from a light aircraft in northern Queensland stretching across the whole horizon. Everywhere we have been, talking to cattle station and sheep station farmers, as well as many locals in all regions, the opinion is that lack of controlled bush clearance fire prevention is the reason for the frequency and extent of these fires. Many refer to historic Aboriginal controlled bush burning. The Greens should own up to their responsibilities for the costs, damage and deaths resulting from their actions and policies.
Hi Peter,
The Greens supporter base are, perhaps counter-intuitively, almost exclusively urban inhabitants (who paradoxically live in the environment most heavily impacted/damaged by humans).
City inhabitants are not endangered by the results of misguided political or activist interference in forest management or controlled burn-offs originating in the city (the hint is in the Australian term ‘bushfire’).
With that in mind, the Greens have nothing to gain politically by owning up to their responsibility (I would say culpability), because their supporters are mostly ignorant of the costs, damage and deaths since those all affect someone else (people living in rural regions). Evidence of this ignorance is openly displayed when, as the fires are damaging rural properties and killing rural residents, large mobs of city activists protest in their concrete jungles demanding that government double down on ruinous ‘green’ policies, some of which are demonstrably contributing to the bushfire disater unfolding ‘out in the bush’, or on the television depending on one’s frame of reference.
As they say in reference to useful idiots, ‘you can’t fix stupid’.
Murdoch turned over most of his empire to his sons.
Murdoch sons are not right wing at all.
All of the Murdochs are globalists.
Individual efforts for the good of everybody are not globalist desires.
Fox News’ conversion into leftist publishing is just one example as is the Wall Street Journal’s turn towards leftist view.
WSJ’s displacement of senior experienced journalists in favor of inexperienced ‘print what they’re given’ reporters further erodes the WSJ’s prior “open mind” reporting.
Peddle your nonsense elsewhere, nick.
Teflon Nick, at your knowledge-dodging best.
Bit below your usual standard Nick.
The author, Roger Underwood, was awarded the Order of Australia in 2018, for his dedicated lifetime of service to forestry management.
https://www.perthnow.com.au/community-news/melville-gazette/australia-day-roger-underwood-honoured-for-lifetime-of-bushfire-management-c-836939
Eric,
“The author, Roger Underwood…”
What did Roger Underwood author?
“service to forestry and bushfire management in WA”
So does he speak for the NSW VFFA?
”So does he speak for the NSW VFFA?”
LOL. So wild fires burn differently in WA??? Wow, you really are showing your ignorance.
In fact WA’s track record of suppressing wildfires far exceed that of NSW. If NSW stopped kowtowing to green ideology with blaming climate change instead of their own incompetence they might have got somewhere.
Mainly the question still is, where does Underwood come into this at all? What did he say?
Perhaps ask Nick to explain the drop in support for the fire services by mainly by landowners?
Lets give him a real lefty link it’s actually worse than this
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/29/australias-volunteer-firefighting-force-declined-10-in-past-decade
That one has been given to the Royal Commission by at least half a dozen submissions so far. Perhaps Nick or good old I got my paycheck Fitsimmons would care to comment?
This what he had to say,
”Unfortunately since about the 1980s green burning has been under constant attack from environmentalists and academics.
As a result, in Victoria and New South Wales, especially in forests which are now national parks, almost no effective prescribed burning is done.”
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/10/bushfire-management-in-australian-forests-a-note-from-roger-underwood-2/
Nick Stokes, please let us know the suburbs where you live and work and whether you spend any time working in rural areas.
You are obviously an expert at Googling up links to support your opinions (preconceptions). What experiences do you have that have formed these?
You invariably find links that are appeals to authority and denigrate all anecdotal information from people who actually live and work at the coal face of the regions where the alleged climate change effects are taking place but do not see these alleged changes.
Please prove to us that you are more than a keyboard warrior, tucked away in academia, putting forth the IPCC line
Nick stokes, you are not an Australian. You know nothing about bushfires. You have never experience a bushfire. In your normal style you actually know nothing except the rubbish put out by socialist greens (watermelons). Well, I have been in bushfires. Twice, we had flames up to the sides of the house -lost fences and sheds. We saved the house by backburning to decrease the intensity and used hoses & bucket to put out spot fires. I saved the house on the adjoining property where no one was home. About a km away two people were burnt to death when the roof of their house caught fire. Both bushfires were lit by stupid people -in one case the fire got away from a backyard burn and the other was arson. Bushfires have nothing to do with so-called climate change and certainly not CO2 in the atmosphere which helps plant growth. In Sydney there after regular bushfires about every 10 years. In the past they were controlled with firetrails and regular controlled low temperature burns in at the end of winter and in spring. The Greens, however, changed that -they let firetrails over grow and stopped controlled burns. I sold my 5 acres property and moved to SEQld where it normally rains in summer so there is less chance of bushfires and luckily the local firebrigades carry out burns in winter and early spring as there are always arsonists (who seem to be socialists and union followers)
“Nick stokes, you are not an Australian. “
Fourth generation.
Never substantiated with any evidence. It isn’t true.
Can trolls have citizenship?
“New South Wales Volunteer Fire Fighters Association is just a right wing political group.”
Oh yes of course they are … they also eat babies, molest children, take money from oil companies, and consort with the devil etc etc
Isn’t about time that people like you stop denigrating and smearing anyone who dares disagree with your religion. The removal of undergrowth / debris from around trees is a critical activity to preventing forest fires. The Environmentalists oppose it do they ? well not surprising really, after all if the Aussies don’t burn off the undergrowth before it becomes a threat then it will help produce greater firestorms in the future which will then be used as an example of man-made climate change/warming or whatever.
Ah yes, classic Nick. No data, no arguments, just a declaration that anyone who disagrees with you is a “right wing political group”.
The funny thing is that even if they were a “right wing political group”, so what. Deal with the argument made.
“No data, no arguments, just a declaration that anyone who disagrees with you is a “right wing political group”.”
The data is there. The RFS Commissioner
“told Sky News the VFFA are “highly politically-charged, their leader is a failed political candidate” with unclear motivations. “”
The leader, Mick Holton, was a candidate for the Shooters and Fishers party. The VFFA devoted its resources to backing his campaign.
“MOTION: ‘That a donation of $10,000.00 be made available as required for Mick Holton to be used for his 2019 state election campaign to be paid into an election account.
Carried Unanimously”
The point here is that the article is not about the desirability of prescribed burning. The headline is
“Aussie Royal Commission to Investigate how Climate Activists “Hijacked” Forestry Management”
And its relevant that all Sky News has to back that is talk from one of their talking heads, and Eric comes up with something predictable from a right wing political group. It is indeed just media hype.
That is okay the NSW RFS got what $51M from Celeste Barbers effort that can only be spent on purchasing and maintaining equipment, training and administrative costs. Lots of very expensive team meetings, personal development and lunches coming up for all the heads of the NSW RFS. …. would you like to make a bet it doesn’t happen?
Don’t lie, Nick.
Green interference in forest management policy predates the current panic over climate… and I can say this positively having been a volunteer for over 40 years.
Despite the fact that every major fire enquire since Stretton in 39, has found that we are not doing enough fuel reduction burning, Green groups and the typically “green” politicians who seek Ministerial responsibility for public land, have continued to deny the connection.
After every major fire season, I hear the people who work in the field, actually facing the fire, condemning the lack of fuel management that is putting lives at risk…. and every time the politically-appointed management refuses to embarrass their political masters by publicly stating the truth.
Rather than deal in facts and experience, you trot out the old lie that anyone who disagrees with you is “Right Wing”. You deserve no respect.
Common-sense maybe breaking out at last~
Not with Stokes still on the loose, it won’t! He doesn’t just drink the Kool-Aid; he baths in the stuff every morning.
C’mon, Nick; you’re entitled to a different opinion on climate to most of the rest of us on here and welcome to it. Debate is good. But you’re starting to look desperate and making yourself ridiculous. Wherever in the world, fires are started by tinder+an ignition source and burn because of fuel load. Climate has absolutely f***-all to do with it!
Not 100% correct.
Increasing CO2 means faster and thicker growth means more fuel.
That isn’t climate change, but it is an effect of no longer living in a CO2 starved, barely surviving world.
So increasing CO2 and natural warming coupled with increased precipitation means more back burning needed.
For an examination of past catastrophic Bushfires in Victoria see “History and Incidents” at Forest Fire Management Victoria, particularly the Black Friday Bushfires which led to the Stretton Royal Commission in early 1939.
The 1983 bushfires are also referenced.
Link: ffm.vic.gov.au
An area of almost 2 million hectares was burned across the State in 1939 and 71 people lost their lives. Whole townships were destroyed and thousands of sheep cattle and horses were killed.
The salient question for the present Royal Commission is whether you need climate change to cause a catastrophe such as occurred in the recent summer.
The obvious answer is No.
Bushfires need fuel, oxygen and ignition.
The Environment Minister is misinformed to link the recent bushfires to climate change however fashionable it is to do so.
Australia has had significant bushfires on average every 11 years since European settlement.
It doesn’t have to be one cause or another, it can be both plus other factors.
If the RC is going to waste time and money debating CC™ there is no point to it.
Royal Commissions over the years have come to the same basic recommendations and reduction of fuel loads is high on the list.
Do homeowners get fined for bush clearing?
Yes. Nick Stokes is on the wrong end of every argument.
Coeur de Lion, yes they do. A country owner defied the laws and cleared trees close to his property. He was fined $100,000. A bush fire went through his area not to long after and his property was spared being destroyed.
You cannot remove native trees without Council permission, people have lost their homes waiting for an answer. Gums and Eucalyptus trees are found in many places around the world now. They shed their bark, leaves and limbs continuously. The eucalyptus oils makes for a very fierce fire, without management they are a disaster waiting to happen.
I find Nick Stokes remarks highly offensive. My son is a member of the Rural Bushfire Brigade, these men and women have saved innumerable lives and property. He is not speaking from any kind of personal experience.
Spend a year with the Brigade Nick, fight some fires. Until then don’t speak disparigently about something you know nothing about.
The GWPP ( Global Warming Political Party) is placing ads here. Slightly irritating. I’ve put my adblocker on for this website now.
The GWPP is The Global Water Pathogen Project.
More of a health issue than a political one.
The ad specifically said Global warming political party and we should all join or we’re gonna die. I don’t know exactly how ad placement works. I get ads for stuff I bought or looked at. I never go to political party websites. Strange that these ads have started to appear on WUWT, only (for me).
I’ve never seen them Alex, must be spam.
The New South Wales Volunteer Fire Fighters Association is on the front line when the bushfires break out and knows a great deal more than the Green, (that is not difficult) about the causes and fighting of fires. The lack of preventative back burns is well documented as being a policy and goal urged by the Greens, and not just in March last year.
They aren’t on the front line. Again I’ll quote the RFS commissioner
“Commissioner of the New South Wales Rural Fire Service Shane Fitzsimmons says he would put “very little store in anything the Volunteer Fire Fighters Association (VFFA) has to say,” due to the lack of “access to information about who they claim to represent, how many they represent, and how they operate”.
Mr Fitzsimmons told Sky News the VFFA are “highly politically-charged, their leader is a failed political candidate” with unclear motivations. “
Their role is to support Mick Horton’s candidacy for the Shooters and Fishers party. It is a long time since Mick Horton was fighting fires.
”They aren’t on the front line… It is a long time since Mick Horton was fighting fires.”
Speaking as a career and volunteer firefighter, the thing you choose to ignore is the fact they still represent and have members who are on the front line. To simply brush them off with a generalisation from a quote from one person speaks heaps of the ideology you pursue.
Nick,
The role of the Volunteer Fire Fighters Association (VFFA) is to support their members, the volunteer fire fighters, in the same way that a union supports its members in the workforce. While it is fair to observe that many unions and associations engage in political advocacy, it is drawing a very long bow to suggest that ‘the role’ of the VFFA is to support their preferred political candidate.
By contrast, it is no stretch at all to expect a politically appointed commissioner to engage in covering your arse (CYA), when the government one is serving finds itself under criticisism for a poor outcome alleged in part due to mismanagment (in this case the political inhibition of controlled burn-off in the years leading up to the 2019/20 bushfires).
The VFFA spokesmen may or may not be ‘on the front line’ but their members are. And those members volunteer to be in harm’s way to the benefit of thier communities.
The commissioner sits in an office in Sydney. He is paid a generous salary with pension to the benefit of himself. Furthermore, how many contemporary political leaders are willing to accept responsibility for a failure on their watch?
When accusations of mismagament and counter-claims of lacking access to information are flying in a political space, consider who has the most to lose and who’s claims sound credible (in this case, every Royal Commission following a bushfire disaster have included controlled burn-offs in their lists of recommendations) and who’s claims sound like the feeble, dismissive, ad-hominem remarks one would expect of a political CYA exercise?
I wouldn’t presume to know whether Mr Fitzsimmons is ‘a lefty’ as you mentioned in an earlier comment (I assume sarcastically) but I smell the bouquet of CYA in action in his off-hand remarks about access to information. If the commissioner can instead indicate precisely what the VFFA have said that is incorrect and what information factually refutes what the VFFA have said, then his CYA exercise would be more credible.
“in the same way that a union supports its members in the workforce.”
There is such an organisation. But it isn’t the VFFA. It is the NSW Rural Fire Service Association.
Hi Nick,
I followed your link and found the page blocked.
So I ‘Ducked it’ and found the RFSA, whose ‘about’ page reads much like the VFFA.
Do you suggest there are laws dictating or limiting which association(s) volunteer fire fighters can join?
It is perhaps indicative to return to the VFFA ‘about’ page, which notes;
“The VFFA was formed in October 2004 by Peter Cannon who is a Group Captain with the Mid Lachlan Team, after the then State Government, RFS and National Parks and Wildlife Service would not take an interest in our concerns into fire safety matters following the aftermath of the 2001 fires in the Goobang National Park. Peter felt that volunteer rural firefighters were not given fair representation within the Rural Fire Service Association (RFSA) & thus the VFFA was born…”
It sounds to me, having read a lot of Nick’s posts here, that it is Nick who is ‘highly politically charged’ yet his voice is heard so what is wrong with Mr Horton’s voice being heard?
As for Shane Fitzsimmons, he has moved on from one fairly prestigious public service position to another, “Commissioner for Resilience” no less. I wonder which genius from marketing made that cuddly name up?
The brutal facts are that while fuel reduction burns are not a ‘snap your fingers’ cure all, especially in such an extreme season as the Indian Ocean Dipole dominated one last summer, when implemented as part of an ongoing, underlying strategy, year in, year out they are a very significant factor in reducing fire intensity, the effectiveness of crews and resources demanded to successfully fight or control them. The leftard rhetoric is of course that they are not a snap your fingers cure all therefore are irrelevent and can be dismissively ignored and the focus shifted to OMG !!! DEADLY!! CLIMATE !! CHANGE !!! but that’s ‘critical thinking’ for you as distinct from actually thinking.
For non Australian readers our evergreen, eucalypt forests need fore to regenerate, their seeds burst open ready for the wet season that follows when they can germinate. Their leaves are full of highly flammable oild, not dissimilar to pine trees, which become a simply explosive vector for fire propogation when a fire occurs. They are fire adapted and except for the most intense ones, fire is their friend. Low intensity fire (say at ‘fuel reduction’ level) does the job for them without killing off the natural fauna or obliterating the smaller flora.
Indigenous Australians devloped the practice of relentless, off seson spot burning to reduce fuel load and also to shape the extent of forest and open ground to suit their hunting, the growth of certain plants and to manage their risk from fire. They did this over millenia after millenia of dutiful, deliberate burning by the local clan or family group with responsibility for a local area. Of course the ‘white fella’ stopped that sort of nonsense as the wonderful landscape was obviously the work of God and needed no such interference. Green hillbilly fundamentalists are the inheritors of that vacuous ignorance, still fuelled by their sense of ‘whitefella’ superiority and Northern hemisphere reference points.
It will take years and years of committed, strategic fuel reduction burning to set a new standard for fire management on this continent + Tasmania coupled with more firebreaks and access roads plus some serious thought to just how close to inflammable bushland ‘treechangers’ are allowed to build. A huge driver in the outcome of last summer has simply been the numbers of people building in high fire risk areas compounded by ‘green’ micro regulation forbidding and harshly punishing any otherwise rational tree clearing near such dwellings.
As for Shane Fitzsimmons I am of an open mind, he was a sober face on TV through the crisis period but by the same token I am cynical enough to consider he also may have his own biases and ambitions. I am not sure he is that different to say Greg Mullins who held a similar position in the NSW fire response system but who is now on the eco loon Climate Council long with Tim the Fool Man/ “Endless Drought” Flannery* et al. Time will reveal all I suppose.
* Australia is getting wetter generally ( ~ 15-20% since 1900) and in most regions except SW Western Australia , Victoria and Tasmania although ‘Southern Australia’ has still got a bit wetter over the period. That is plain as day from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology data ( http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries) which surely someone with a PhD can take in so how the heck could such a person make such a stupid assertion? He was talking in the context of drought largely in Queensland (~8% wetter) and NSW (~10% wetter). Go figure. That said last year was extremely dry, typically the driest on record but coming off years of fairy typical variation about the trend line.
This is the submission to the Bush fire Royal Commission from a scientist who has lived through and fought bush fires in rural Australia. I suggest Nick Stokes and others ignorant of the real world situation have a read of this, it should carry considerable weight at the commission.
Forgot the submission.
https://saltbushclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/bushfire-enquiry.pdf
Viv Forbes a scientist? You mean the extremist, coal-mining zealot and failed politician?
Loydo you do know that coal is one of the essential materials used to make solar panels, don’t you? It is also essential in the making of the steel used in the making of wind turbines.
The thing is we use it for fuel too to power homes and industry. So this one product (one type of mine) is useful/essential for many reasons.
On the other hand wind and solar renewables need many types of mining, some highly toxic, in addition to coal and yet ‘they’ are of little use.
Don’t you think it makes sense to ‘reduce’ the amount of mining we do? Not to mention the fact that much of wind and solar renewables cannot be recycled and are now going to landfill. So echo friendly. /sarc.
Sorry, I said I wouldn’t mention it.
I suggest LOYDO read the submission and then comment on it’s worth. Attacking the messenger shows only the ignorance of the commentator. Not unusual on this subject.
Sorry, I’ve already wasted way more than enough time reading Viv Forbes’ self-interested lies and disinformation.
But you expect us to read your self-interested lies and disinformation … so we have a standard response from here on.
And when was the last bushfire that you fought, Nick. And the last fire control exercise that you took part in?
NIck,
these fires broke out on Fitzsimmons watch, fuel reduction burns were not done while he was in charge and NSW RFS was not prepared for what was expected given the drought and the Indian Ocean Dipole driven weather that year. I imagine he will bag anyone who says anything that might infer some awkward questions as to his (lack of effective) leadership as the disaster loomed.
I must admit he was very schlick on TV at the pressers with the Premier but hey, that’s why he is now the Commissioner for Resilience! He is the epitome of political ‘resilience’ himself!
Nailed it KK.
While a Royal Commission is not an appropriate process for a scientific inquiry, it can be more appropriate to investigate ‘governance’ issues, if the key personnel are adequately qualified in integrity. It should not matter if evidence is presented by Snowy on the tram, ‘little green men from Mars’, or even the fantasising greens, the job the citizen is entitled to expect – and pays – the RC to do is the rigorous search for, and establishing, the truth. But that would be ‘setting a very high bar’ – and almost unprecedented for RCs.
Gerald
Good point about the science.
FYI the terms of reference di include how different gov department interact.
The interaction are complex but one problem is :-
A resident can ask the local council to clear the reserve.
The council can then clear mechanically or ask the country fire authority to burn.
For larger areas the council can ask DELWP the state authority.
The two problems are:-
1.greenies in council aren’t really interested.
2. No budget
“have been “hijacked by lefties and greenies” who are pushing their own agenda”
In the green agenda, prescribed control burns are bad because of their CO2 emissions. That’s how weird things have gotten in the age of climate change.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/02/02/tbgyozfire/
“In the green agenda, prescribed control burns are bad because of their CO2 emissions. That’s how weird things have gotten in the age of climate change.”
No, what is weird Jamal is that without the slightest shred of evidcence, you can just make that up, post it on a website that puports to be about global warming, where people proudly proclaim the are skeptics and its the lonely alarmist that calls you out. That is weird.
Plenty of evidence that the greenie agenda has cause delays in presrided burn-off, and has blocked necessary clearing in many places
Stop your far-left illogical anti-fact DENIAL, Loy-Doh !
Get out of your inner city basement and go and have a look at the overgrown state of many of our state forests.
Or are you afraid you will miss out on your hourly soy decaf latte?
Do go on…
What about the massive reductions in planned burn offs around Mallacootta which led to this last summer’s devastations, Loydo? They were directly due to lobbying by local greens to “protect” local fauna and prevent carbon release
Analitik
I believe you are correct.
Due to the sensitive environment around Mallacoota normal prescribed burns were supposed to be replaced with more targeted environmental burns.
These environmental burns take longer and require more resources.
Nevertheless, they still should burn 5% per year.
It would be very interesting to see the numbers.
1. The planned burn area.
2. How much was actually burned.
3. How much got burned anyway in the fire.
Have a read of the Jo Nova part and discussion on this. Of course, Loydo and Nick will instantly discount this as “denier” discussion
http://joannenova.com.au/2020/01/abc-deleting-facebook-posts-on-how-protesters-stop-prescribed-burns-more-worried-about-climate-change-than-wildfires/
Depends what you mean by “greens”. Thought I’d go and check for myself and this wasn’t hard to find.
https://greens.org.au/vic/policies/bushfires-policy
Loydo the Greens bushfire policy uses alot of words and says nothing. The sensible things they suggest are already in place. They do not mention fire prevention or reduction methods. They discuss research and things that might be done in the aftermath. Meaningless and repetitive. They are basically skirting around the issue, we need to reduce the fuel and they want to avoid that at all costs.
“we need to reduce the fuel and they want to avoid that at all costs.”
Sigh, you should have actually read it.
18. Properly resourced and evidence-based planned burning regimes
a through h.
Loydo you can sigh all you want but this extract you directed me to (see below) does not suggest ‘fire reduction burns’ It describes every reason to avoid it!
“18. Properly resourced and evidence-based planned burning regimes that:
a. Reflect tolerable fire intervals for respective Ecological Vegetation Divisions (EVDs);
b. Ensure proper biodiversity assessment of Fire Operation Plans (FOPs) by the responsible government departments;
c. Involve Traditional Owners and local communities with local biodiversity knowledge;
d. Exclude long unburnt representative areas;
e. Require fuel hazard re-assessment with on-site inspection immediately prior to burning;
f. Consider an area as “treated” if fuel levels are below the designated threshold;
g. Do not alter the composition of dominant canopy species, for example by rake hoeing around the base of all large, old trees; and,
h. Reduce the number of large old trees cut down after the fire.”
If you are referring to ‘h’, they are suggesting NOT CUTTING DOWN old large trees after a fire.
It’s a typical Greens document, lots of words but says nothing.
Loydo, who determines what constitutes
“Properly resourced and evidence-based planned burning regimes”?
This where the failed fuel reduction performance originates.
Desktop computer jockeys in downtown Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra etc looking at google maps and fire models are no substitute for experienced bushfire experts out walking & assessing the potential fire grounds.
But increasingly, the access tracks have been neglected for so long they have become impassable for vehicles except dirt bikes.
(I had such a serviceable fire access track alongside my remote bush property when I moved there in 1998, but with no maintenance at all on it in the ensuing 21 years I lived there, it reverted to thick bush, as eucalyptus forests will do.)
”18. Properly resourced and evidence-based planned burning regimes
a through h.”
LOL. That there is the classic green tape scenario where it is not based on the obvious practicality of excess fuel loads on the ground and addressing the problem, but snow balled within ”evidence-based planning”.
They say they want controlled burns, but what they do is do everything in their power to block all such burns.
Like the rest of the socialists, they lie with ease.
There are large tracts of parks that won’t need control burns this summer .. so the green policy will be right for this year 🙂
Loydo said: “where people proudly proclaim they are skeptics ”
Since you brought it up…….
I personally tend to think in a skeptical manner around subjects like these to try and avoid being a gullible pinhead. (BTW I’m not suggesting you are either).
I, like most skeptic thinkers, want to get as close to the truth as possible, which of course is not always easy, there’s bias everywhere you look (including my own), and speaking as a complete layman on so many subjects here at WUWT that doesn’t help me either in that task.
At a quick glance, I could not find a specific “green agenda claim” linking CO² and control burning as Chaamjamal suggests but nevertheless, their agenda does state, in their own words:
https://greens.org.au/policies/climate-change-and-energy
4. A safe climate will require a return to an atmospheric concentration of 350 parts per million or lower of greenhouse gases (and CO2 equivalents).
…and they certainly are not keen on burning
https://greens.org.au/nsw/policies/bushfire-risk-management
2. Assumptions about bush fire prevention, mitigation, control and management need review in the light of the need for ecologically sustainable management.
5. Strict controls are required to reduce the amount of rural burning that is not required for essential asset protection.
6. Prescribed burning is only one method of fuel management and should be considered in the context of other available options and the management objectives of the land in question.
However they do allow Indigenous people their say, even though that involves burning too, but differently maybe.
4. Bush fire risk management should be informed by the knowledge of Indigenous Australians.
Am I wrong to put 2 and 2 together? what is it you’re calling out?
A strong accusation of, “no evidence and made up”, is clearly unsubstantiated.
I would say you’re being either very captious, or politically correct, or probably ……both.
Just my tuppence. Sorry bit long.
Thank you for your tuppance worth. This would be a better place if there were more actual skeptics like yourself. I’m happy to hear arguments for and against, but so much of what I read here is strident, vicious, inaccurate and ideological ‘against’ and my inclination is to point that out. “Green/greens/greenie” bashing and blaming is at best misguided and thoughtless but when its source is the likes of the reprehensible Miranda Devine and Gina Rheinhart, its more usually cynical, disinformative dog-whistling, with zero concern for the hatred, bile and divisive ‘us and themism’ it foments.
Hey at as reprehensible as Miranda Devine and Gina Rheinhart may be to you, they did something with their lives. What is your claim to fame paid troll of a website?
“https://greens.org.au/policies/climate-change-and-energy
4. A safe climate will require a return to an atmospheric concentration of 350 parts per million or lower of greenhouse gases (and CO2 equivalents).”
Who determined 350ppm/v GHG’s (They must be talking about CO2 only as that is the claim in the wider alarmist community) creates a safe climate? I see no evidence that the climate was safe at an estimate of 280ppm/v or at a measured 415ppm/v CO2.
How can you be lonely when there are so many of you?
Or is it the voices in your head, with the leading/troll responses intended to drag others down into your pit?
“New South Wales Volunteer Fire Fighters Association” is just a right wing political group.
I knew it …. bloody nazi firemen/women… of course…. thanks Mr Stokes.
Surprise surprise, Stokes gets the first, opposing, post in. Well, like all the RC’s before it, it will cost millions, a report will be created and put on a shelf and forgotten. Nothing to see, move along. The green boondoggle will continue and bushfires will continue to happen.
The unspoken problem in NSW is that there are 3 bush fire fighting organisations which do not seem to have a consistent command structure.
National Parks, Forestry , and the CFA. National Parks are infested with Greens, Forestry is under resourced, and the CFA have to work around these others. CFA do not control fires in National Parks.
70% of the land area burned in NSW was within and adjacent to National Parks. Once the fires took hold within the parks they could not be stopped at the boundaries. National Parks in NSW have a policy of blocking fire trails so that 4WD groups are excluded. National Parks NSW also let a fire which started from a lightning strike at McIntyres Hut in the Brindabellas west of Canberra run for days. The fire ultimately devastated Canberra about 10 years ago.
Hazard reduction burning in NSW has been constrained by political correctness where Sydney and other town residents complain loudly when smoke covers the city from hazard reduction burns. The politicians cave in to the criticism and hazard reduction burns are severely constrained. Despite what the CFA says they are impotent before the wishes of the politicians, ably added to by radio and TV commentators decrying how many asthma sufferers will suffer during smoky days.
A pedant point, it’s the RFS (Rural Fire Service) in NSW. I think CFA (Country Fire Association) is the Victorian equivalent.
Also, much of the former Forestry area (e.g. Pilliga Forest) has been transferred to the National Parks and Wildlife Service
Just may be, if some of the Greens/lefties got out & helped fight bush fires, the “New South Wales Volunteer Fire Fighters Association” wouldn’t be a right wing political group.
Hell if some greenies actually helped fight bush fires, they would learn something about fire behavior, & would then have to change their attitude to national park management. They may not survive such a rude reality lesson.
There is no evidence that anyone in the “New South Wales Volunteer Fire Fighters Association” actually fights fires.
Nick, let me ask you this. As principle, do you want the Royal Commission to find the truth, whatever it might be?
Stooping to basic downright LYING yet again, hey Nick.
I have several friends in the VFFA, and they were fighting fires a lot last year.
Travelling to fire zones to do so.
No just ask him for evidence they don’t .. it’s a Stokes Deflection.
It’s how Stokes the troll rolls he insists you provide evidence but notice he neatly sidesteps and provides none himself.
Wow, this is a new low for you, Nick. Normally, you find some authoritative link to back up you opinion but this verges on slander
Nick,
“There is no evidence that anyone in the NSW VFFA actually fights fires”
Maybe not presented on this forum, but I assume you are labouring this point to infer that the VFFA doesn’t know anything about bushfires, fighting bushfires or mitigating the risks posed by bushfires?
From the NSW VFFA website ‘about’ page:
Objectives of the VFFA
Providing a voice and forum for ‘grassroots” representation of volunteers views with the RFS and the State Government.
– To lobby for and to advocate for improved bushfire management and mitigation in NSW.
– To disseminate information to volunteer rural firefighters on matters that affect their interests.
Mission Statement
The NSW Volunteer Firefighters Assocation is the independent voice of Volunteer Firefighters within the NSW Rural Fire Service. NSW Volunteer Firefighters or Brigades as a whole may join the VFFA free of charge. The VFFA represents the interests of volunteer firefighters without fear or favour to the RFS and the State Government in all aspects of volunteerism including Firefighting, Welfare, Discipline, Grievance Disputes, Workplace Safety, Discrimination, Training etc.
Since the stated objective of the VFFA is to represent volunteer fire fighters, who self-evidently make up the VFFA’s membership (free of membership charges no-less), and to advocate for improved bushfire management and mitigation in NSW, it is difficult to believe the implied corollary to your remaeke.g. that there is any evidence that no one in the VFFA fights fires.Nor for that matter is it conseivable that a body which ‘disseminates information to volunteer rural firefighters on matters that affect their interests’ is going to be suffering a chronic lack of access to information, unless that informationis being willfully with-held from those whose interests are arguably most affected.
Instead of labouring over these two sound bights (dismissive,off-hand remarks from the RFA commissioner regarding his critics, or the credentials of the VFFA’s members and spokesmen), can you provide evidence that the VFFA is engaged in a disinformation campaign for political purposes, is demonstrably misinformed in it’s views on bushfire management and mitigation and in so doing, lay out a compelling case for the readers of WUWT to reject the opinions of the VFFA on why last summer’s bushfires in NSW were as severe as they were and why we should all un-critically accept the meme that gullible warming is actually the chief culprit?
You should be studied as to how leftist mental illness distorts and dements reality of its adherents. Even intelligent ones. As you obviously are, yet your ability to dodge critical information at the expense of ideology is fascinating.
This from the official VFFA magazine,
”The structure of the RFSA is 50% salaried staff and 50% volunteers. This means that volunteers will never have a majority voice so we, the VFFA, are inviting the volunteer members of the RFSA to join us in one united voice.”
You really can be a horses ass sometimes.
“we, the VFFA, are inviting the volunteer members”
They invite, but how many came? That is the point of Fitzsimmons
‘lack of “access to information about who they claim to represent, how many they represent, and how they operate”.’.
Remember, Fitzsimmons is, or was until April 30, responsible for organising the volunteers to actually fight the fires. If the VFFA really did speak for a significant number of those volunteers, he could not speak of them in such a way.
“we, the VFFA, are inviting the volunteer members”…Yes, to join with the volunteers already within their ranks.
”If the VFFA really did speak for a significant number of those volunteers, he could not speak of them in such a way.”
Ever heard of the saying, ‘don’t rock the boat’? He is simply saying that because their principles went against the narrative.
NICK, We know you don’t fight fires, would be below your status. Ouch, broke a finger nail,MEDIC.
It is important that correct bushfire related terminology be used and understood.
A ‘backburn’ is a technique used to attempt to control an existing uncontrolled fire front, a strategic line of fire is deliberately lit in favourable wind conditions to ‘burn back’ against the existing fire front to provide an area of inert ground between the chosen containment line and the uncontrolled fire front, therefore impeding the advance of the uncontrolled fire. Accurately predicted wind direction and speed are paramount in a successful ‘backburn’.
A ‘prescribed burn’ or ‘fuel load control burn’ is a method of bushland or forest fuel load control utilising fire setting which requires considerable local knowledge and a thorough understanding of fire behaviour along with favourable meteorological conditions. Until such time as bushland and forest fuel loads are conscientiously managed it is illogical to expect a different outcome to that experienced last summer particularly if the strong hot winds of a positive Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) reoccur over the same extended period.
The Australian continent has warmed by slightly less than 1°C (or 0.64°C depending on the method of record homogenisation) over the past 100 years, there is no evidence that this mild warming has in any way contributed to bushfire severity particularly given the fact that evaporated eucalyptus oil is able to drive bushfire hotspots to 1100°C.
The black sunday fire killed twice as many people in a short time as the Wuhan flu over the course of months . To control the latter extraordinary restraints were placed on individual freedoms and the economy brought to the brink of ruin .
Yet Nick Stokes and Climate Believer refuse to accept the control of flammable brush as indicated in the photo displayed on the gounds that it was advocated by a group whose politics they don’t approve of . A group , lets note, of volunteers , not people spouting political prejudice from the comfort of their computer chairs , but people actually going out and facing danger for the public benefit .
errr…. think you might be confusing me with somebody else Mr Waite 😉
Australia’s CoViD-19 death toll isn’t a valid comparison.
Effective means of limiting the spread of airborne pathogens (in this case SARS-CoV2) have been known for over a century, and have been rather effective. For various reasons, they were applied later than would be ideal, and hence to a much larger area. National co-ordination of efforts was also effective. by and large
Conversely, effective means of limiting the spread of grass and forest fires have been known for over a century, and were not applied to any extent.
Yes however, we didn’t have to shutdown the whole global economy, take away freedom of liberty, travel and socialising with others to do it. The reduction in the number of cases isn’t a result of the draconian measures but it will be claimed as such. Here in Victoria, Australia, restrictions have just been introduced again because of a couple of cases identified this w/e. It’s madness!
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on that
The evidence suggests that the extent of the restrictions and lockdown was totally over the top.
I am 70+ and have seen Bushfires since I was a kid.
The Green movement in Australia have very little idea of management.
They “preserve” rather than “conserve” and that means one thing goes missing – Fuel reduction!
The Royal Commission into the terrible 1939 Bushfires said it as has every other enquiry since.
You could cut and paste the findings of the 1939 RC and it would fit today with some equipment reference updates.
It is all about fuel you fools!
“The Green movement”, whatever that is, is not in power. The party in power: “the NSW Liberal Party (conservative) has cut tens of millions from state fire services”
https://www.crikey.com.au/2019/11/11/nsw-bushfires-budget-cut/
No fool like an old fool.
Trying to DENY that the greenie agenda holds sway in many local councils.. really ?
Either you are totally blind and ignorant,
… or just being totally and deliberately deceitful because you KNOW that is the case.
I suspect deceit, to go along with the rest of your constant lies.
You think that’s not true?
The Aboriginals have been getting it right for thousands of years. link
My favorite arctic explorer is Amundsen. He, alone as far as I can tell, learned from the indigenous people in the arctic. He lived, and prospered, and explored while pig-headed arrogant British explorers died heroically.
It’s easy to dismiss people we see as less sophisticated. It’s also pig-headed, arrogant, and often self defeating.
Of course thats true. I also think aboriginal burning practices should be studied and widely used. I am just sick of this us vs them, blame the greenie, it’s childish bs. I just read their bushfire policy; they are in favour of controlled burning. Greens aren’t even in power and clearly deep funding cuts to the fire service by the conservative state government contributed. Look I feel sorry for nankerphelge. The poor old fella has just credulously allowed himself to be dog-whistled by Eric into regurgitating toxic ‘us versus them’ bs.
Loydo what part of the Greens bushfire policy supports reduction burns? I just read it and I didn’t see it. Could you please quote the reference.
The other point to raise is that it’s the green bureaucrats in councils that make decisions in regard to what happens in their constituency. When we lived in the suburbs we lived close to a National Park. The council put up bollards to reduce access to the park, they blocked access to horse riders and trail bike riders, and the firetrail became overgrown. I hope there’s never a fire in the park, thousands of homes are at risk, many suburbs surround that park.
On top of that the Greens do not need to hold power in their own right, a bit like Antifa, Extinction Rebellion and the like they have infiltrated all levels of the community and State and Federal government. Many of the sitting government politicians on all levels are in fact deep green and are making policies that their constituents didn’t vote them in to make. If you think differently then you are delusional.
Tell that to Hatter Eggburn below. Eric probably considers that a successful outcome. Do you?
Well we could ask you a question as well.
So do you get that the conditions in Australia are going to be at least like this going forward (if not far worse) regardless what green/left dreams are that the world will agree to emission control. Extended to that do you get that we are going to have to do things differently going forward?
The current policy managed to endanger many parks and rare wildlife and insanity is by definition doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome. You want to threaten the existence of many of the parks just keep doing what has been done in the past.
Is the Government application form for a back burn on a rural property 26 or 28 pages long, I can’t remember.
A royal commission finding that greens hijacked forestry management, won’t be news to most Australians. The surprise would be that a royal commission in this age of ‘goose green’ would actually put it in writing
“Is the Government application form for a back burn on a rural property “
It’s unlikely that anyone fills out a form to do a back burn on a rural property. Maybe a fuel reduction burn.
Backburning as done by fire fighters can easily go disastrously wrong. So can fuel reduction burning. It is as well that they inquire.
Thanks for posting that link.
It rather confirms the complaints that volunteer firefighters have been making about an excessively centralised and bureaucratic organisation, n’est ce pas?
As an aside, it’s much easier for an incoming manager to concede that mistakes may have been made under earlier management. The statements about learning from the mistakes to prevent recurrence are rather promising.
”Backburning as done by fire fighters can easily go disastrously wrong.”
LOL, this is from your same link Nick… “For this last fire season, there were more than 1,000 backburns put in. Of that, 4 per cent got out of containment. It’s quite a low percentage when you think about the success rates.
There’s not too many other options … It’s either we put in a backburn to stop these fires, or we’ll just wait for them at properties and hope for the best.”
You obviously no nothing about fighting wildfires do you.
As I said, it can easily go disastrously wrong.
That doesn’t mean don’t do it. It just means be very careful.
And for fuel reduction (also risky) don’t complain if the authority wants to make sure it will be OK.
Nick is correct.
Backburning is a very specific fire-fighting technique.
One of the major problems has been the roadblocks placed in the way of fuel/hazard reduction, either mechanically or using cool burns.
And if you actively don’t do it, what is the result? Big fires! Oh look, that is exactly what has happened in two major fire ecologies on this rock California and Australia. Most of my Aussie mates have no idea what a “fire ecology” means…
Yep. It is and it was, and that has been found in every official enquiry since at least 1939.
Just to clarify for the wider audience:, particularly non_Aussies who may use different terminology
Backburning is a specific firefighting technique, burning off a safe anchor line (firebreak, watercourse, etc) ahead of a fire front and letting the new fire burn into the wind to widen the break.
That is actually the reason for fire breaks in open grass country. I have no experience in forest fires.
The term seems to have come into the general vocabulary as a synonym for hazard reduction burns.
This is technically incorrect, but language changes over time whether we like it or not.
This wikipedia page is a reasonable summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_burn
The problem is the government lands in particualar state forests. As a private landowner we get fined if our fire breaks and fire control as directed are not done. Not sure in other states but in WA they can go to the extreme measure of actually doing them for you and then send you the bill.
There is no way to force that on government lands they can do what they like. From time to time they get found liable and have to pay damages to the surrounding landowners. However that is cheaper than the cost to do the proper fire control like everyone else must.
I have 24 acre paddock that bounds to a State Forest and I have continual issues with them over wild pigs, noxious weeds and fire breaks and the fact they have no firefighting equipment at all on site.
The most obvious thing about all the retired fire chiefs trying to attribute the fires to “global warming ” is that they are obviously trying any excuse to mitigate their gross negligence by any means possible. They are the ones who were negligent and only carried out only 10% of the recommended back burns during their tenure. Unfortunately in this day and age it’s always someone else’s fault. If your kid is an absolute pratt it’s not your fault it’s “attention deficit disorder” if you haven’t got a decent job it’s the education departments fault. If you get caught breaking and entering it’s the fault of the police. Now days everyone want’s to be a victim or a minority because thats their excuse. The retired fire chiefs have called out that “global warming” is the excuse for them not doing as they were paid to do and they will shout it from the mountain tops just to blame someone or something other than themselves. Global warming is the get out of jail free card of the 21st century.
+1000
Right on Don.
Yes and the conditions are going to stay like that for decades even if you are a true believer and the world did emission controls tomorrow. So it’s a pointless argument because their job is supposed to be to deal with the risk. So perhaps $200K payday Fitzsimmons and the greens could explain how they intend to deal with the problem rather than giving greenspeak to the cause.
Come on Nick. Greens have been responsible for the green tape that has restricted FRB’s through things like special values which end up getting fried in a wildfire anyway. And that’s just one back door example.
After the deadly 2009 Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria, the Royal commission made it clear.
The state needs to clear an annual rolling MINIMUM of 5% prescribed burning of public land.
It very clear the state has not meet this target.
It’s important to understand that the 5% really means the public land needs to be cleared on average more than once every 20 years. The interval can vary based on type of vegetation and associated risk.
“This royal commission cannot be politicised. It’s in all our interest to get it right, because bushfires are here to stay and we’ve got to do this better”.
It’s odd that no-one here has yet drawn attention to the patent absurdity of the first sentence. Royal Commissions are, by their very nature, politicised — however much interested parties may deny it. Royal Commissions can also be steered to the ‘right’ conclusions by carefully crafting the terms of reference.
By all means, have high hopes — but temper your expectations.
What Nick doesn’t do is try to convince anyone with evidence that ambient air temperatures of 2° or even 4° hotter on the fires. Questions: Does hotter ambient air temps result in more trees and brush that increases the fuel load? Does dead and dormant brush dry out more (lose more water) and burn hotter and faster?
The logic escapes me. If hotter temps results in more growth then CAGW promoters seem to have to have a problem saying how bad higher temps are. In this case management must adapt. If the inverse is true, then mismanagement has to be the problem.
The greens wanted the fires 🔥 and in some cases they lit the fires.
Do Nick and Loydo really believe the tripe they post?
My observation is Nick has some kind of leftist blinkers. Whether by choice or some type of subconscious bias he can not see all sides of the story.
They should apply for jobs at WHO. They are the same they keep talking and making claims but everyone except true blue supporters ignores them.
Discussion about indigenous burning.
1. Stone Age hunter gatherer societies probably had mean life expectancy of 40-45 years
2. Mean generations were probably 27-32 years.
3. long term ecological information can be passed down for generations.
4. But information of actual events can really only be passed on 1 or 2 generations, say 50 years max. Grandpa tells grandson about tree he watched grow.
5. Many trees live for more than 50 years. With several species living longer than 200 years.
6. Each region has different ecology with multiple tree species.
7. Each tree species has different fire interval and intensity it can survive. Some even need fire to regenerate.
8. Indigenous Australians did not keep written records, could not know the different tolerable fire interval for each species (especially ones with intervals longer than 50 years), and could not know the the percentage mix of each species in each region.
9. While we can learn from the burning methods of indigenous Australians, there were NOT practicing environmental sustainable burning.
10. They were changing the species mix of each region gradually over 1000s of years without knowing it.
MOD I posted a response to Loydo’s post 20 June 2020 10:48pm some hours ago.
It came back with a message that it was in moderation, was there a problem with it? It wasn’t offensive. Just as a by the way, my ‘tag’ was incorrect too?