Backburning

[buggerlugs]

What do people think. To backburn or not. There was a piece on the news where a fellow bought a 60 acre bush block and cleared a section for his house. He also cleared a large section of timber around his house site in case of fires. He used a lot of the timber he cut down to build a log house. Doing the right thing you'd think. Apparantley not. The council fined him $50,000 for illegal tree clearing. Near sent the bloke broke. And guess who's house survived the bushfire while all the other houses around him burnt down. Now he is considering suing his local council. I'm all for conservation but I think the Greens have to much of a say. Controlled back burning has always been effective and aboriginals have been doing it for thousands of years. Plus it has to be better for the wildlife. Thoughts ??

[OLDFORDNUT]

100% spot on, there was a lot of needless deaths due to heavy scrub right to boundaries,
another thing is in the High country they have removed all livestock as it was damaging the ground, guess what, 3 big fires in 16 years since the Greenies started making the government get rid of cattle out of these areas,funny thing is ground looks the same but lots of dead trees

[Daymoe]

Also, one guy just on channel 2 (ABC1) raised a PRETTY DAMN GOOD POINT:

The council wouldn't let people take the wood off the side of the road from trees to use as firewood, they even fall over the road and all that happens is the council comes along and puts it on the side of the road, which just became fuel for a fire, they banned farmers from clearing grass near the side of the road and their fence lines...

I think the council needs to take a look at what the hell just happened and pull their heads from their coit and stop fining people for basic things.

[Donut King]

Just to correct a common misconception:

Back burning is done in the right conditions while a fire is burning in an effort to create a fire break to starve the fire

Hazard reduction burning is burning done in the cooler months (like the Aboriginals did) to reduce the amount of fuel available to a fire, and therefore make any fire which starts is more easily controlled.

Sadly, when a forest is locked up as a national park, often one of the first acts is to close off fire trails and stop doing hazard reduction burning, ensuring fires are larger, harder to access in their early stages and as a result; more damage is done.

[rodderz]

As a kid growing up near Yarrambat the local CFA's used to carry out burn-offs along the nature strips a few times during the year, mostly at night when not windy. A couple of trucks used to go past, one bloke would be lighting it up, they let it burn for a while then put it out. It done wonders for the ground, burnt the weeds, the rubbish, and cleaned the place right up.

I havent seen them do it in years. Probably liability or something. I saw the story on the news last night, I reckon that council will do a backflip on future cases now. I can see that they dont want people lopping the whole property down, but around the house it's common sense that it should be allowed to for safety.

No just for fire reasons, but for falling limbs too. There are quite a few new housing estates around Mill Park, Whittlesea etc where massive Redgums 100's of years old cannot be removed, yet a house lot is situated directly beneath.

[Nathan&Amanda]

The other concern is the stopping of logging.
Controlled logging is quiet good for the forest and helps a lot in times of fire.

The reasons are.
All access roads used to get in and haul the logs out, tracks to get to parts so they can cut them out, are all kept clear and under control.
One of the trucks couldn't get in due to the road been overgrown.
Your not allowed to push tracks or anything anymore.

They also cut out the older trees which will fall and lay on the ground as fuel, or stay standing and burn anyway. also helps the younger trees grow as they get more light.

The Greenies i believe have a lot to answer for in there decisions.

over my few years, i have seen the difference of logged areas which were controlled, the areas are now unusable for anything and a fire risk.

And i agree with the burn offs etc. very good for the land and control of fires.

Nathan

[ebxr8240]

Don't ya just love the way country people speak !!
NO B/S just the way it is !!!
And he was 1000 % right !!!

[Road_Warrior]

The greenies can go and GTFO: they claim that controlled burning gradually effects the ecosystem or whatever and drives fauna away - wonder what they think now with huge tracts of forest obliterated with around a million native animals killed! Clowns.

[ebxr8240]

On another note..
I have to patrol High Voltage power lines.. There are places now that we cannot check due to overgrown vegetation..
High voltage power lines can cause many forest fires if they clash or trees came into contact with them.. If the fire trails and tracks are not kept up to std .. There is no maintenance done in these areas..
These areas are in northern Sydney, Galston to Brooklyn ...

[XR6_190]

I honestly hope the truth of this comes out in the coming Royal Commission. As for the man mentioned in the OP, I too saw this on the news the other night. I honestly think that the Local Councils often over step the mark when it comes to their authority, this is maybe something that the Royal Commision needs to look into.

[GK]

Originally Posted by XR6_190

I honestly hope the truth of this comes out in the coming Royal Commission. I honestly think that the Local Councils often over step the mark when it comes to their authority, this is maybe something that the Royal Commision needs to look into.

Agreed.

The truth will come out, but that's just not enough. The councils and state government need to stop worshipping all things green and allow the CFA and DSE to do their job properly.

Andrew Bolt has written two ripper pieces on this, the second was in Yesterdays (Friday) Herald Sun.

He outlined the many, many reports that call for more fuel reduction burning to be allowed and how over the years the amount allowed has continued dropping. An interesting read.

GK

[pandaman]

Hazard reduction activities carried out by fire brigades/sparks and wildfires personnel are a great idea, particularly around the urban interface where a localised firebreak will be effective in protecting a large amount of properties. unfortunately many councils do not allow hazard reduction for a variety of reasons, the most idiotic of which is air pollution. Certain councils, (my own included) dislike hazard reductions within residential areas, because some residents are stupid enough to complain that the smoke generated permeates the washing on their lines and may even penetrate the house and irritate their sinuses. Our council stopped us from burning the green waste pile at the local tip because 1, (one, yes only one) resident out of over 3000 in the town, complained at a council meeting. Lets see them complain about the smoke generated when the tip itself catches fire. Now that stuff is nasty.

In another scenario, our country has a lot of rural residential areas where the houses are more widely spread through thick bushland, and I'd like to see landowners being allowed to do more to protect their properties. (and hence lives) In my local area there is an escarpment (effing big ridgeline) that has caught fire in a major way three times in the last 15 years. Fighting fires on this particular piece of geography causes major headaches due to access issues. Despite the risk, people keep building there and fair enough I say, the view is shweet. The law states that any removal of existing flora requires government approval at either local or state level depending on location, which is often not forthcoming due to environmental protection concerns. As a result, most of the properties on this escarpment are completely cactus in the case of a wildfire. If a revolutionary administrative change were made, and these people were allowed to clear an area of 50m radius around their houses and legally obliged to take further (often inexpensive) precautions against fire, we might never see a catastrophe like this again. Check this out for an ideal rural living situation: clear a minimum 50m radius from house, install a ring main at 25m radius with sprinklers pressurised by a firefighting pump from a 20,000L minimum water source within that radius, keep gutters and roof's clear of flammable debris, install a small well insulated shelter and a few other little bits and pieces depending on the construction of the dwelling. sound survivable? (Tell ya what, if I ever built in a forested area, I'd be bringing in a D6 (or bigger) to do a bit of work for me, no matter what the council said)

The other big issue is training and education. People panic, it's what they do best when they don't know what to do. If people are taught effectively how to deal with fire, they may just do better at surviving. There have been a few ads on the telly in the last year in NSW regarding the rural fire service and what the community can do to help out, providing static water sources, preparing your home etc. Truth be told, best way to learn about how to deal with bushfire and help your local brigade is to talk to them. Yes they're mostly weirdos and maybe even objectionable and unpleasant, (it's a volunteer organisation so we take what we can get) but at least one or two of them will really know their stuff and be able to help you out.

Addressing the thread title. (if not the topic) Backburning is a very useful tool for creating a firebreak using burnt ground. It has to be used very carefully, as the conditions that give rise to a large bushfire tend to be very dangerous to light up in. Great care should be taken when selecting backburning as a tactic. Looking back, I've set fire to some stuff that was probably inadvisable in retrospect. Far easier way of putting in a firebreak that has come into fashion quite recently in my area, is the dozer. The aforementioned D6 or bigger (or smaller if absolutely necessary) is great for cutting a very effective firebreak. Only problem is the two hour minimum wait to get the bugger onsite.

Anyway, best thing anyone can do to help with firefighting/prevention is to get involved in their local brigade. You don't need to be fit/brave/smart, (if you've got one of the above you're overqualified) you just need to be willing to help people. Sorry for the rant/blatant recruitment plug, but I'm a little frustrated at the moment. On the off chance anyone wants more info on the RFS, please PM me. If you're interested in the CFA you can PM if you like, just means I'd have to refer you to some mexican mates of mates.

Stay safe all,
Neil

[The Yeti]

Yes Pandaman your 100% correct

I was at a relatives house a few months ago (up on the north western out skirts of Sydney), there land is beautiful allbe it extreamly dangerus, they are on the top of a ridge, they have trees overhanging the house the native grass arround the house is kept long to encorage native animals they store there wire wood on the back veranda and the list goes on.

with out trying ot intrude I sugested that they change a few things and got told I didnt know what I was talking about (RFS 20 years With BF VF AF CL CABA RFD) as there mates a landscaper and he helped them set up to comply with council requirments

I give up

[Yellow_Festiva]

I watched that ABC show last night. What an eye opener, and yes, I like the way country people don't mince words.

Alan on 2GB was saying that there was a council somewhere in Vic in a location that got burnt out. If you wanted to collect fallen timber for firewood from the surrounding scrub you needed to do these things:

Fill out forms asking permission, state the exact location, the date and time, the qty of timber you would remove, if you were to use it for private or commercial purposes and... wait for it.. a 'Traffic flow management plan'....

What a joke. It's this sort of rubbish that is turning us into the 51st state.

This has to be the time when government calls to put a stop to this sort of rubbish.

[vanman_75]

Queenslands case would be that most fires you see up here are land areas controlled by the state ,national parks ,crown land etc. back burning ,controlled burning is essential for these areas . as a rural we got bookings from farmers and blockies who wanted help or were not able to handle a burn,to go and burn for a donation to help us get by as the government subsidised /gave us the vehicle but we had to run out of our own pockets .i personally would be worried to sleep at night with all that timber around me , I would suggest approaching your local council with a petition or group and loby a little .needs fixing and fast .

[buggerlugs]

Exactly. And isn't the silence deafening from the Greens now. Won't hear a thing from them until the next election. Them and the Councils have a lot to answer for........ You'd think the Council would be gratefull for the firewood to be picked up......

[MO]

As a retired Rescue Firefighter there is not one point written here that I disagree with apart from the confusion of the OP with backburn instead of hazard reduction burn. And that is understandable give that even the media have this confused as well.

One thing is for sure no greenie will want to cross my path 'cos I am busting to give them hell and yes I believe they should be held accountable for their role in this NEEDLESS loss of life and property.

I better stop now anger is growing and I don't want to be banned.....

[EB_5.0_WAGON]

I totally agree with all the replies to this thread regarding Hazard Reductions.
As a now retired NSWRFS Deputy Captain for 10 years i have seen the pro's and sometimes cons of Controlled Hazard Reductions.
I also agree that greenies should have NO say in anything related to Hazard Reductions as the people organising them are generally qualified in Bush Fire Fighting technques and procedures regarding Hazard reductions.

A perfect example of what can go devistatingly wrong when greenies get there way was a few years ago in Canberra.
The areas between suburbs are called Green Zones down there and too many people complained when they wanted to reduce the hazards in these green zones and the results are there for all to see.

Some of the devistation in Victoria wouldn't have mattered if they had done HR's during winter because looking at various types of maps of for example Coombe Rd Kinglake the road in question is right at the top of a 200mtr deep valley with very steep sides.
This means the fire would have as residents attest to litterally Come out of Nowhere. If a HR had been done in winter the area COULD have still burned last week like it did due in part to the drought we have had and the amount of Leaf litter on the ground.

If anyone from the area that was devistated has issues with my post please dont take it the wrong way as no offence was meant.

Cheers
Adrian