Bushfires 2019/2020!

[Moody]

AFF at its finest!

Arson has been responsible for a small fraction of the total area burnt out this fire season. The worst blazes have been started by dry lightning in remote locations.

Myth4 - that Myths 1, 2 & 3 are actually taken seriously. What idiot would???

Can we all agree on one thing .... that 2019 being the hottest, driest year on record (after a long run of similar years) has lengthened and strengthened the bushfire season?

 

[get me outta here]

Professor Phillip Gibbons, a forest ecologist at the Australian National University, said this month fires had burnt through many areas that had hazard-reduction burning. "Fires have burnt through rural land which has a much lower fuel load than a hazard-burn area, but that didn't stop fires," Dr Gibbons said.

But, lets carry on thinking it will be fixed by jailing arsonists and lots more hazard reduction burns. Simples. And grazing in Nat Parks can encourage inflammable shrubs.

 

[drron]

A forest ecologist is not the same as a bushfire scientist.See JohnM's link to a bushfire ecologist from Tasmania.
Myth 5.Hazard reduction is not just hazard reduction burns.It also means proper fire breaks and accessible fire trails along with other methods of reducing loads such as picking up fuel.

Hazard reduction burns will never stop all fires.but a fire travelling through an area after a properly conducted hazard reduction burn will travel slower and with less intensity due to that reduced fuel load and be easier to fight.The WA wxample shows that.

Myth 5.Lengthened fire seasons.David Packham a fire scientist keeps records of all major fires.since 1950 there have ben 47 major fires in NSW.12 of them have been in October or earlier so the start of this year's fires is not unusual.

 

[get me outta here]

If you’re talking about David Bowman in Tasmania he is a forest ecologist.

 

[drron]

If you’re talking about David Bowman in Tasmania he is a forest ecologist.

Which is basically what I said.But go back and read his contribution in the link supplied by JohnM.

 

[kookaburra75]

Unfortunately, hazard reduction burns aren't the magic bullet some would hope they are. Nature being a complex, fickle thing means that there are many factors that need to be taken into account. There's a paper from 2002 (Is Fuel Reduction Burning the Answer? – Parliament of Australia ) that explores the different factors and that reduction burns don't work in certain circumstances. What does this mean? We're going to have recognise the problem is complex and there are no simple answers. After getting through several major fires over the years, and now living in Canberra, I certainly want my children and grand chi!dren not to be at risk.

 

[straitman]

Myth 5.Lengthened fire seasons.David Packham a fire scientist keeps records of all major fires.since 1950 there have ben 47 major fires in NSW.12 of them have been in October or earlier so the start of this year's fires is not unusual.

If anyone needs any direct input from David Packham just ask. He is a personal friend and is happy to provide information.

 

[RB]

Seems the Crestwood Dr fire at Port Macquarie has finally disappeared off Fires Near Me-we were away when this started in late Oct 2019-coastal heath has kept it bubbling for a long time. The Lindfield Park fire near PQQ started on July 18th 2019 and is still listed on the Fires Near Me site-again peat conditions-this was an article from Sept 2019
Reclaimed water used to flood underground peat fire on NSW mid-north coast - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

 

[Quickstatus]

Can we all agree on one thing .... that 2019 being the hottest, driest year on record (after a long run of similar years) has lengthened and strengthened the bushfire season?

Yes that falls into the low humidity, high temperatures and lots of unburnt dry fuel.

Post automatically merged: Jan 24, 2020

Professor Phillip Gibbons, a forest ecologist at the Australian National University, said this month fires had burnt through many areas that had hazard-reduction burning. "Fires have burnt through rural land which has a much lower fuel load than a hazard-burn area, but that didn't stop fires," Dr Gibbons said.

But, lets carry on thinking it will be fixed by jailing arsonists and lots more hazard reduction burns. Simples. And grazing in Nat Parks can encourage inflammable shrubs.

And experts saying that the Blue Mountains fire would have been a lot worse if not for the HzR in the last 18 months.

 

[Quickstatus]

We're going to have recognise the problem is complex and there are no simple answers.

Correct, a multiprong approach as has been reccomended by numerous royal commissions and inquiries. But these have only been carried out in a nominal way.

Here are some figures:
NSW national parks and conservation reserves 7107533 ha
Wilderness areas 2099278 ha
Reserved areas in State Forests 444903
Total: 9,651,714 ha = about 23.8 million acres

Total hazard reduction burns NSW 2015-2019 = 830593 ha = 232648
RFS says they exceeded their 4 year target which was an arbitratily set 750000 ha. The RFS commisioner is quick to say they exceeded their target HzR, but is the target too low?

So the per year HzR burn % of all NSW National parks, wilderness areas, reserves = 2.4%
This is half that of Recommendation 56 of the 2009 Victorian bushfire Royal commision.
And yet another Royal commision is recommended?

http://royalcommission.vic.gov.au/finaldocuments/summary/HR/VBRC_Summary_HR.pdf

The NSW RFS does not publish (or at least I have not found it ) the areas where HzR activities were carried out.

 

[Quickstatus]

 

[juddles]

Ah yes, that highly reliable source not quoted. .....

get me outta here, I am uncertain about your post. I was not in any manner referring to such alarmist/ridiculous news stories that I spend my days hating in the media. I said anyone could research the Red Cross via the internet if they choose to do so...

As always, a certain thing becomes a newsworthy (saleable) topic and much drivel is shared. I have no interest in such stories. What I was trying to convey is that the Red Cross is a business, in its essential form, and that it is not what many perceive it to be. I both know that they spend most of their funding internally, but I also recognize and see value in what they do. To amplify what I said earlier, I have directly seen and experienced the amazing work they do in some places. And to be very personal, I have relied on them very explicitly - as they are in many conflict areas perhaps the most respected neutral player and thus one that can help negotiate your life in extreme circumstances. (I was once even offered a job with them, but preferred to stay doing what I was doing that involved far less bureaucratic tape)

But the current furor, with regard to the bushfires in Australia, is very simple - people who donate assume that their donations go directly to the reason they made the donation. The Red Cross simply does not operate that way. And being a business, their first priority is not the emergencies, but their existence and cashflow. Because as such a large organization they have people at the financial helm that are professional and cold. I get that. I get that cash donations to people are fraught with peril. I understand the need for caution.

So I exist at the crossover - neither for nor against. They do amazing work. But their staff also get paid a top dollar. If you want my real feelings, then I agree to frontline staff and their salaries -it is hideous work, in many places very dangerous. But they also have their level of inevitable "management" - like their USA CEO who earns a million bucks in base salary, almost double that in perks.

I just want every one to be real....

 

[JohnM]

I just want every one to be real....

In this day and age?

Ya gotta be jokin', mate.

 

[juddles]

.....

IMO the worst thing that can happen is fraud....

I disagree. the worst thing that can happen is that the money donated by people doing good is that their money is is used up by an ostensibly "legit" company. There are so many deeper levels of wrong there....

 

[straitman]

Maybe it's worth having a look at Gippsland Emergency Relief Fund - Helping Gippslanders Since 1978 as a comparison to the Red Cross.

 

[Pushka]

The message this morning in the media, in SA, take that as you wish, is that no organisation that purports to ask for donations with a specific need - bushfire relief’ - has a right to keep those funds for future contingencies. The Red Cross is being slammed. Interestingly the Insta woman who raised all those millions for NSW Emergency Fire Service is having issues in getting the money distributed to other states Emergency Firies (she promised to do that once the millions kept soaring) because the purpose of her campaign was for NSW Emergency Fire. So she has to follow the rules. And the same media is now saying that we should be buying products from those areas affected (eg KI and the Adelaide Hills wineries) rather than donating money to the charities. Their policies are doing them a lot of damage and rightfully so. I’m pleased I directed my funds specifically to the group in KI who is treating injured Koalas.

 

[drron]

Unfortunately, hazard reduction burns aren't the magic bullet some would hope they are. Nature being a complex, fickle thing means that there are many factors that need to be taken into account. There's a paper from 2002 (Is Fuel Reduction Burning the Answer? – Parliament of Australia ) that explores the different factors and that reduction burns don't work in certain circumstances. What does this mean? We're going to have recognise the problem is complex and there are no simple answers. After getting through several major fires over the years, and now living in Canberra, I certainly want my children and grand chi!dren not to be at risk.

Of course HRBs are not a magic bullet but they are one of the most effective means of mitigating fire intensity.It has been known for a very long time that they will not prevent all fires but if used effectively they will make fires easier to control.
from your link-

"The effectiveness of fuel reduction burning is related to the fire lighting pattern and there is a need to train people to carry this out using the most efficient techniques. Dr Cheney of CSIRO is of the opinion that prescribed burning in New South Wales will not be successful until organisations approach the problem in a truly professional manner using burning guides for specific vegetation types and a professional team to implement the burning in a planned and systematic manner with highly trained staff.(33)
Fuel reduction burns may not halt bushfires under severe conditions. However, they do have some moderating effect on the fire and allow for control when conditions improve. In order to put fuel reduction in context with fire fighting under extreme conditions, John Fisher of New South Wales State Forests told the New South Wales Bushfires Inquiry that:

The opponents of fuel reduction burning fail to realise the operational difficulty of fighting a wildfire in extreme conditions. The only option or tool that State Forests NSW has available is the manipulation of fuel in the fire triangle (heat/ignition, air, fuel) There is no question that on extreme fire days we would not attempt a direct attack in heavy fuels. Even in a fuel reduced area on extreme days there is no question that fires would burn through those fuels as well, but the moderating effect of that fuel reduction activity is quite profound and is quite useful in the periods of the day when those extreme fire behaviours wane. We use that through the nightshift to effect further fuel reduction burnings or back-burns, as you have seen, and that provides us with a safe and effective means to control fires on our estate.(34)"

Back to the WA experience.They have put fighting and prevention of bushfires under one organisation.In NSW for example the NP authorities are in charge of fighting fires in National Parks and rural fire brigades elsewhere.
As well as proper coordination of hazard reduction the WA authority has produced a red book of the various means of hazard reduction generally including HRBs.The burns are conducted differently in the different forests and grasslands.When sufficient burns are unable to be done whether due to weather or the particular environment then other methods are used.Fire breaks and properly maintained fire trails are of major importance then.

With Victoria their mountain ash forests are extremely difficult for HRBs.It is estimated that most years have 4 or less days when it is safe to conduct HRBs.Fire breaks and fire trails there are of great importance. The RC into the 2009 fires heard evidence that fire crews were unable to access many areas because fire trails had been deliberately blocked with large boulders.Any one caught doing this should be treated the same as an arsonist.

 

[p--and--t]

I disagree. the worst thing that can happen is that the money donated by people doing good is that their money is is used up by an ostensibly "legit" company. There are so many deeper levels of wrong there....

I seem to vaguely recall after the Tsunami that hit SE Asia in 2004, a very large well known charity admitted in a CH7 interview exactly 1 year to the day that not one $ had left Australia's shores and the money was in interest bearing bank accounts while they decided on how best to spend it. In the meantime you had people allegedly on the point of starvation and dying/becoming ill of exposure to the elements with no housing in provinces of Indonesia. Some of the media reports one would expect to be hyped up as has become usual, however I have an intrinsic underlying problem with the approach if indeed any of it was true.

Much much later a senior executive in the UK charity sector was quoted as follows:

The importance of cash transfers, where survivors received cash grants to buy what they most need in the months after a disaster, was one of the lessons agencies said they learned from the tsunami. “Humanitarian agencies used to frown at cash assistance, often because of perceived risks with how the money would be spent,” Saeed said. “But one of the lessons that came out of trialling cash [transfers] was just how efficient it was – it enabled people to source what they needed locally instead of receiving supplies they didn’t need or that arrived too late.

 

[Pushka]

I seem to vaguely recall after the Tsunami that hit SE Asia in 2004, a very large well known charity admitted in a CH7 interview exactly 1 year to the day that not one $ had left Australia's shores and the money was in interest bearing bank accounts while they decided on how best to spend it. In the meantime you had people allegedly on the point of starvation and dying/becoming ill of exposure to the elements with no housing in provinces of Indonesia. Some of the media reports one would expect to be hyped up as has become usual, however I have an intrinsic underlying problem with the approach if indeed any of it was true.

Much much later a senior executive in the UK charity sector was quoted as follows:

The importance of cash transfers, where survivors received cash grants to buy what they most need in the months after a disaster, was one of the lessons agencies said they learned from the tsunami. “Humanitarian agencies used to frown at cash assistance, often because of perceived risks with how the money would be spent,” Saeed said. “But one of the lessons that came out of trialling cash [transfers] was just how efficient it was – it enabled people to source what they needed locally instead of receiving supplies they didn’t need or that arrived too late.

Additionally purchasing things locally props up the communities and starts them on the road to recovery.

 

[Moody]

And so I say again - this is the respective governments' job. They are accountable for and to the people, and if they fail to act responsibly we can vote them out.