🚀 go-pugleaf

ibacon@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Ian Bacon) wrote:

> I was told recently that there is a severe bush fire risk in NSW. This
> risk was caused by lack of fire breaks and other decisions made at the
> instigation of the "environmentalists". This does sound a little flakey
> to me. Does anyone have a better slant on this situation?

Ian,
My position;
1. Service for twenty years in the SA Country Fire service.
2. Provide training in electronics, computer and fire related
industries.
3. Currently a member of the Greenock CFS here in SA (2nd Training
Officer)
3. I am also a practical conservationist and aware of environmental
issues.
4. Ex-farmer. I was known as the "Barefoot Farmer" because I spent
lots of time walking my land. I felt I had a better "feel" of the land
if I did it that way.
5. Requested to attend Sydney bush fires (SBF) in 1994.
6. Have read reports and listened to debrief about the SBF scenario.
7. A member of the Northern Terrotory BushFires Council and a
consultant to the Conservation Comission of NT during 1989-92.

First I will presnet some information drawn from SA Country Fire
Service members, other participants in SBF, information from the
Bureau of Meteorology and satellite pictures taken before, during and
after the SBF.

GENERAL INFORMATION: The level of fire risk can be defined as a figure
calculated from the amount of available fuel, the weather conditions
and the level of fire protection.

SPECIFIC INFORMATION: Very few controlled burns were done in the
mountains in the four years previous to SBF'94. I believe they are
necessary in order to reduce the amount of dry fuel on the ground in
natural vegetation. A cooler, controlled burn every three to five
years is less damaging than a very hot wildfire once every fifteen
years!

Many of the fire access tracks in the mountains were overgrown with
vegetation. Most were impassable to fire trucks. They had not been
maitained. One reason for this was because when they were maintained,
a small group of renegade, thoughtless 4WD/scramble bike enthusiasts
were degrading them to the point of non-access increasing the
maintenance immeasurably.

There were two incidents I know of where the fire units proceeded
along fire tracks that were blocked with intent to use a bulldozer to
re-open the track only to find groups of protesters had chained
themselves to trees that had grown in the middle of the access tracks
in the previous years.

Water restrictions (and the price of existing water) has meant a slow,
but positive move towards low maintenance gardens using native and
other "dry" area vegetation. Many of the outer suburbs still have
about 10% of the natural vegetation. As much as I like this idea, it
means that houses in these suburbs are constructed next to scrub areas
where the trees actually lean over the roofs of the houses. These
points created a more volotile than normal situation.

The weather preceeding the outbreaks around Sydney were consistently
hot, dry and northerly swinging occasioally into the north-west
quadrant. Generally there was no cloud cover for the week preceeding
the fires. Temperatures were high. Humidity was at an all-time low!

The fire protection equipment offered the NSW people by the government
is generally aged, but serviceable, although I heard about 20% to 25%
of the SA fire fighters complain that it was not well maintained.

The NSW brigade members were generally in-experienced and the NSW fire
chain-of-command quickly fell into a heap because of its use of older
and less-efficient practices.

THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS & VIEWS are not necessarily the views of the SA
Country Fire Service. They are conclusions drawn by me, personally.

CONCLUSION BY ME: There is enough evidence to suggest accumulated dry
fuel in the outer and middle suburbes coupled with a lack of removal
of fuel around homes, lack of maintenance to the fire protections
agencies, a growing "it can't happen here" attitude and an "invitation
to fire" by the then current weather conditions culminated in a
significant increase in risk factors of the Syndey area during that
time.

It is my belief that the "non-burn fuel reduction" lobby is stronger
in NSW than elsewhere.

My views are probably very strong because in the past sixteen years I
have been involved in several major bushfires in SA and NT. I have
noticed people in the Adelaide metro area becoming (what I would call)
complacent towards fire risk, by letting/growing trees and vegetation
of the wrong types in the wrong places and generally too near
dwellings.

As a conservationist, I believe reduction burns in natural vegetation
every three to five years ARE the best compromise, particularly in
parks. Much of the SBF burnt in inaccessable country and parks that
had not seen a burn for more than twenty years! Hot fires like this
one KILL trees and wildlife on a large scale. Reduction burns
resulting from the combustion of only three to five years of fuel do
not have to heat to "crown" (burn in the tree tops). Crowning trebles
the temperature of the fire at ground level. Generally trees may
temporarily loose their leaf, but reshoot quickly because the fire did
not "boil" the tree or its roots.

Hope this is of help

Have you seen the predicted extinct species list for this year? I was
told it includes the possible demise of the NZ kiwi. Is this correct?

Regards,

Rik Thiel
rik@dove.mtx.net.au