Patrol 4x4 - Nissan Patrol Forum banner

1 - 20 of 47 Posts

·
Administrator
GUII ZD30DI Wgn
Joined
·
45,170 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This fire season looks to be an ever growing deadly one. I would be extremely interested in data coming from fire investigation, sure we know lightening can cause natural fires and the ember attack can send them for kilometer after kilometer, but how many are arson or neglect of responsibility and how many are natural. A pie chart in one article outlines this but it is old data (can't seem to locate anything later but would like to see some if you know where it maybe located).

Quote from a below article "According to a study by the Australian Institute of Criminology, only 6% of bushfire ignitions in Australia are attributed to ‘natural’ causes; the rest involve humans"

An aquaintance I have in Sydney recently had a clean out of his shed, what was going to be dumped was piled up outside the shed, later he gets a phone call from a neighbour saying the shed is on fire, turns out that in the pile of stuff to be dumped was an old mirror and that had started the fire on a clear hot day. Being a kid from the bush I am also acutely aware of how discarded bottles can have a magnifying glass effect that can start a fire in scrub and of course the discarded cigarette butt. Up here we have had recent instances of teenagers starting fires causing a great deal of damage and hugely significant inconvenience to hundreds of families and then being 'protected' from scrutiny.


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
291 Posts
You will notice from the stats that 78% of civillian fatalities were within 30m of the bush, with only another 7% additional between 30m and 100m of the bush.
Old School method was to keep 50m clear of buildings, and run a couple of 100m fire breaks around the perimeter of small towns. I remember as a kid, we'd burn off the 200m-300m band of bush between the town's fire breaks every 2 or 3 years in late winter. Effectively we had a 500m deep fire break with the centre part used to catch and neutralise flying embers before they hit town.

During the first part of European invasion of Australia, the settlers learned from the original caretakers (Aboriginals) the best methods of fire management of the bush. = Patchwork burning / regular cool burnoffs.
The secret of managing the Aussie bush is to keep fuel loads at a minimum and the understorey fairly clear. This gives grasses for native animals, kills off weeds, regenerates species which need fire for seeding, and promotes new foliage for food.
Other than a crown fire resulting from extended hot dry conditions (which nothing can really be done to avoid), regular patchwork burning minimises native fauna losses.
Once again - pre 1980's we had well maintained fire trails = about 10x more fire trails than exist at present, and large areas were MAINTAINED by state forest, instead of NEGLECTED by National parks. (National Sparks and Wildfires Starters)
The fire trails in State Forest and lots of bush areas were of a standard that most of them was easily driven by 2wd. A clue here is the large number of 2wd RFS units back in those days, as well as RFS dozers and graders for trail maintenance.
Prevention is always better than cure. $20k spent a season in prevention is far better than $2m a day in aerial water bombers.
 

·
Administrator
GUII ZD30DI Wgn
Joined
·
45,170 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Absolutely, we have gone backwards in the management of forestry. I saw a US doco earlier this year, can't remember which state, but (and this is simplified) it revolved around managing undergrowth so that when a fire went through heat levels were lower and it didn't reach the top of the trees, it showed many areas where long term trials had been done and the differing results in management.

But having said that the stats showing only 6% of fires are started naturally certainly says something about us.
 

·
Registered
nissan gq
Joined
·
1,724 Posts
Fuel mitigation by selective understory burning is the obvious answer even blind freddy understands but the stupid tree huggers just resist what they perceive as destroying the forest instead of looking at the logic of a progressive "cool burn" allowing wildlife to escape on the perimeters.We need beaurocrats with the nads to lay down a policy to make the forest safe over a target time frame and tell the interferers to koff.As a much younger,fitter,bolder[chancer] self I helped fight quite a few fires and the immeadiate radiant heat and ferocity of a fire is not easily dismissed or forgotten.This is where the tree huggers should be introduced to reality of their policies. my2c

Cheers,G.
 

·
Administrator
GUII ZD30DI Wgn
Joined
·
45,170 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Fuel mitigation by selective understory burning is the obvious answer even blind freddy understands but the stupid tree huggers just resist what they perceive as destroying the forest instead of looking at the logic of a progressive "cool burn" allowing wildlife to escape on the perimeters.We need beaurocrats with the nads to lay down a policy to make the forest safe over a target time frame and tell the interferers to koff.As a much younger,fitter,bolder[chancer] self I helped fight quite a few fires and the immeadiate radiant heat and ferocity of a fire is not easily dismissed or forgotten.This is where the tree huggers should be introduced to reality of their policies. my2c

Cheers,G.
Agree with a lot you say, was doing a full reply but Adam Brandt came into it so decided to put that post in the political thread.
 

·
Registered
nissan gq
Joined
·
1,724 Posts
Agree with a lot you say, was doing a full reply but Adam Brandt came into it so decided to put that post in the political thread.
If political discussion was a fire blanket we would have so much,we could export it worldwide,meantime the fireies on the scene have to deal with the result of failed blah blah sessions.
Maybe we should have a "National Fire Fighters Day" to recognise the courage of those great people !!
Hmm just realised the unintended comparison I have drawn with our Defence personnel,both cleaning up failed political decisions,

Cheers,G.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,385 Posts
Fuel mitigation by selective understory burning is the obvious answer even blind freddy understands but the stupid tree huggers just resist what they perceive as destroying the forest instead of looking at the logic of a progressive "cool burn" allowing wildlife to escape on the perimeters.We need beaurocrats with the nads to lay down a policy to make the forest safe over a target time frame and tell the interferers to koff.As a much younger,fitter,bolder[chancer] self I helped fight quite a few fires and the immeadiate radiant heat and ferocity of a fire is not easily dismissed or forgotten.This is where the tree huggers should be introduced to reality of their policies. my2c

Cheers,G.
just interested as to why you are of the opinion that the tree huggers have had an impact on prescribed burning and forestry management or particularly fire safety requirements. I know they have different ideas and campaign for saving habitat for fauna. However, I was under the impression that there is a Fire safety authority that can order fire reduction and clearing fire breaks etc. The tree huggers have little to no influence when it comes to ordering fuel reduction.

I have worked with greenie tree huggers that are also active members of the SES and volunteer fire fighters that do put their lives on the line to protect, forest, property and lives during fire emergencies, so its a bit hard to put them all in the one basket as to not knowing about reality.
 

·
Administrator
GUII ZD30DI Wgn
Joined
·
45,170 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
They seem to have some influence to do exactly the opposite and stop fuel reduction burns, at least in Qld national parks..
Absolutely they do, many of them became entrenched in the NP system here years ago. I'm pretty sure NSW & VIC are similar. Local councils in many areas are in the same position.
 

·
Administrator
GUII ZD30DI Wgn
Joined
·
45,170 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
90kph wind gusts today ahead of a front moving up from Vic through NSW, stay safe everyone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
625 Posts
From having lived in the NT for many years to now living back in SEQ there's a massive difference to how national parks and suburban bush areas are managed. In the NT pretty much every piece of land was burnt every year from the CBD to the border and beyond. You would constantly see rangers/fire brigade etc out burning sections of land, they even had some contraption which would shoot out a timed delayed ignition device from choppers to cover more ground. I can honestly say I've never seen this once while out and about SEQ, not saying it doesn't happen but just an observation. In the NT when out camping, bush walking, 4x4 etc not one tree anywhere I went wouldn't of had signs of burning on its trunk about 1-2m high. Out doing the same in SEQ it is rare to see these similar signs and if a section of bush had burnt the trees were completely burnt right to the top and not just around the base. Can't just be a coincidence right?
 

·
I Have Imaginary Friends
Patrol Hybrid.
Joined
·
12,777 Posts
As a kid I saw on the Newsreel (at the pictures no TV then) they used to used these delayed fire starting devices from airplanes to do their controlled burns. (Two common substances in a test tube).
 

·
Administrator
GUII ZD30DI Wgn
Joined
·
45,170 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
From having lived in the NT for many years to now living back in SEQ there's a massive difference to how national parks and suburban bush areas are managed. In the NT pretty much every piece of land was burnt every year from the CBD to the border and beyond. You would constantly see rangers/fire brigade etc out burning sections of land, they even had some contraption which would shoot out a timed delayed ignition device from choppers to cover more ground. I can honestly say I've never seen this once while out and about SEQ, not saying it doesn't happen but just an observation. In the NT when out camping, bush walking, 4x4 etc not one tree anywhere I went wouldn't of had signs of burning on its trunk about 1-2m high. Out doing the same in SEQ it is rare to see these similar signs and if a section of bush had burnt the trees were completely burnt right to the top and not just around the base. Can't just be a coincidence right?
I posted earlier about a long term study in the US re stopping fires from getting into the treetops, that is critical, embers under these circumstances can travel up to 30k so I am informed. Sure the climate is changing and it has been changing for millennia so things will quite likely get much worse in some areas and maybe better in others. We have housing estates around here that are Islands in dense bushland, one in particular has been hit hard because of arson (remember 6% of fires are naturally caused), if these areas are not managed then housing estates like this are always in the 'line of fire' and a potential 'Black Saturday', read an article on suburbs springing up Sydney outer suburbs and how this could be a disaster waiting to happen.

I've had one major experience with a bush fire as a teenager, I was hunting rabbits with a mate along a powerline near the Watagan's, we could see a fire approaching a lone house, on going to the house there was a woman with a couple of young children. Cut a long story short we stopped the fire at the fence line with wet hessian sacks and tank water after a long and arduous struggle, I remember being burned on the back from embers, as you would think this stuck with me, I do a lot of back road trips and look at homes in various areas and wonder how the hell they would survive a bushfire.
 

·
Registered
nissan
Joined
·
6,386 Posts
I saw an article about doing controlled burns in the NT. It was done by helicopter and the bloke had a bag full of balls about the size of a golf ball but soft like a marshmallow. He had a syringe of catalyst that he would give a ball a jab with and throw it out the door. After about 20 seconds it would start to smoke and about another 20 seconds later it would burst into flame. He said there was a machine available that would spray the balls and drop them automatically but he saw no benefit in it and felt the control was not as good as doing it manually.

Edit; found a clip of the machine being used.
 

·
Registered
nissan
Joined
·
2,011 Posts
I read an article from 2013 on SBSNews page this morning, an expert, David Packham, was interviewed about the cause of the big fires in 2012.

I posted a link to the article on a couple of pages. All of a sudden the article was taken down I contacted SBS to ask why, after some time, this was their response "Thanks for your feedback, this article was outdated and misleading and so it has been taken down."

To date I have no response when I asked how it was misleading and outdated given the interviewee was a respected ex CSIRO bushfire expert with exceptional credentials

Lucky I kept a copy of the article

NSW's bushfires to climate change is 'nonsense', a leading expert says.
UPDATED 22/10/2013

Linking the bushfire disaster in NSW to climate change is "an absolute nonsense" and reducing fuel loads in the Australian bush is urgently needed, a leading scientist says.
Retired Monash University researcher David Packham says global warming is a gradual process which doesn't explain major bushfires.
Greens deputy leader Adam Bandt has been accused of playing politics by linking the NSW bushfires to the new federal government's climate change policies.
But Mr Packham says there is no link.
"It's an absolute nonsense," he told AAP.
"The very best interpretation is (it's) misguided by them not understanding how bushfires actually do work in Australia.
"If there is any global warming, the global warming is so slow and so small that the bushfire event is totally overrun by the fuel state."
Mr Packham has previously accused "latte conservationists" of having too much influence on forest management.
He says fuel loads are now the heaviest they have been since human occupation of the continent and Aboriginal methods need to be adopted.
Flying over the Blue Mountains in recent years had been "frightening", he said.
"There's been this determination over the last 10 to 20 years to not treat our country in the same way the indigenous people treated it for 30,000 years," Mr Packham said.
"The concept has been every fire is a bad fire.
"In the Australian context you need fire to keep the bush healthy and safe."
Mr Packham said Western Australia had successfully reduced fuel for decades and up to 20 per cent of bushland should be burned annually.
"If we got to 10 per cent then our area burnt would drop by 90 per cent and our intensity would drop by at least that and undoubtedly more," he said.
He said major fires had occurred every 10 to 20 years since records began in 1915.
Mr Packham called for an end to playing politics with bushfires and instead called for leadership based on scientific evidence.
A tweet from Mr Bandt last week linked the Abbott government to more bushfires, while Greens leader Christine Milne said it was "climate censorship" to not discuss global warming and bushfires.
Labor frontbencher Tony Burke said he was worried about singling out individual events and using that as an example of climate change.
"Climate change is about overall trends," he told ABC TV.
"You can never pick the individual drought or the individual weather event and say that's one because of climate change."
However, Mr Burke acknowledged climate change was increasing the intensity of extreme weather events.
Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce described Mr Bandt's statement as "inflammatory".
"I don't think (the people who lost their homes) will appreciate someone playing short term politics," Senator Joyce told ABC TV.
He said fire activity was not unusual.
 

·
Administrator
GUII ZD30DI Wgn
Joined
·
45,170 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Bandt, just goes to prove the radical left leaning so and so is a serial pest. If your ideas don't fit in with inner city treehuggers like Bandt then your views don't get publicised simple as that, then everything is twisted like the old disproven '97% of all scientists agree on man made climate change', I sent something to Ch2 beakfast and said in my email ' I bet this doesn't make it to air' I was right, those who had opposing views were all over it..
 

·
Registered
nissan
Joined
·
2,011 Posts
If you do google search of David Packham, there is reference to an interview he did for ABC 7:30 where his facts didn’t fit the narrative and they cut his 35min interview to 16 words

its time the ABC were held to account
 

·
I Have Imaginary Friends
Patrol Hybrid.
Joined
·
12,777 Posts
ABC = All Bull Chitt
 
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
Top