4 ms·

True. This could have all been prevented with controlled fires during winter time. However, they are illegal to do in Australia. Creating a firebreak to save yo

True. This could have all been prevented with controlled fires during winter time. However, they are illegal to do in Australia. Creating a firebreak to save your home from a bushfire is also illegal and heavily punished.

polemic 7y ago
The season where it is safe to do controlled burns has been shrinking due to climate change. So no, this is not true. Don't spread FUD.
- asdfwvwe 7y ago
  The more reason to do them when it's safe.
- viraptor 7y ago
  This will be interesting to see in the few next years. Either the way we do the burns will have to change, or we'll just have to accept unsafe burns as better than massive fires a few years down the line. So far I haven't heard any announced alternative ideas.
oasisbob 7y ago
It's illegal to construct firebreaks ... in certain places? At certainly times? That sounds quite incredible to me - a quick search turned up plenty of WA firebreak building guides, as well as the Brush Fires act of 1954 which seems to mandate construction of firebreaks by landowners in certain situations.
- asdfwvwe 7y ago
  You need permission to cut down a tree on your property. If you are not given permission then it's illegal to cut it down. Hence, it is illegal to create a firebreak if you are denied permission to do so. There is a minimum range that doesn't require permission but it's not far enough to save your house in a bushfire.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    > You need permission to cut down a tree on your property. This may be true in downtown Sydney or a National Park, but it's very much not the case in most of rural Australia.
  - FireBeyond 7y ago
    You need permission to build an extension to your home. If you don't get it, it's illegal to build an extension to your home. Therefore, it is illegal to build extensions to your home. That's the flow of your logic.
    - golemiprague 7y ago
      I wouldn't say it is illegal but the law in Australia is very tough and you can't just use common sense, you got to wait and get approvals which in many times don't come. Many times I was pointing out to people that there are too many dense forests around where people live and it is a fire hazard but people looks at me like this dumb immigrant who is anti "the environment". Australians just love their nature and are against anything that will hurt it, even if it is necessary. So it is easy to dismiss anybody who point it out as some climate change denier but meanwhile people houses get burned.
      - FireBeyond 7y ago
        Oh, I understand - I lived 25 years, until recently, in bushfire country in Victoria.
woggy 7y ago
Huh? Are you talking about hazard reduction burning? Hazard reduction burning is not illegal in Australia [1]. I don't know where you got that idea from. It is also legal to create a firebreak [2]. [1] https://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/resources/publications/hazard-reduction https://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/resources/publications/hazard-red... [2] https://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/18453/1050-Vegetation-Clearing-Code-of-Practice.pdf https://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/18453...
- asdfwvwe 7y ago
  If permission is not granted it's de facto illegal.
  - woggy 7y ago
    Can you please provide more detail on what you are referring to?
  - SturgeonsLaw 7y ago
    The RFS has permission to conduct materials clearing. The quotes below are from the head of the RFS: > Shane Fitzsimmons told the program that while hazard reduction burning is part of a “really complex argument”, “environmental clearances are invariably not our problem with hazard reduction burning”. > “Our biggest challenge with hazard reduction is the weather and the windows available to do it safely and effectively,” Mr Fitzsimmons said. > “Sure, there’s environmental and other checks to go through but we streamline those. There’s special legislation to give us clearance and to cut through what would otherwise be a very complex environment.” https://www.news.com.au/national/rural-fire-service-boss-rejects-barnaby-joyces-bushfire-theory/news-story/d89c268a63385f6afb8f78171457dfa3 https://www.news.com.au/national/rural-fire-service-boss-rej...
glangdale 7y ago
Oh look, a new account making things up about fire management in Australia. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/05/explainer-how-effective-is-bushfire-hazard-reduction-on-australias-fires https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/05/expla...
- 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y ago
  That’s a strange article. On The one hand they’re saying people who say lack of hazard management (controlled burning) is making the fires worse are literally “conspiracy theorist” and then the very next paragraph this line: > Former fire chiefs who have been calling strongly for action on climate change, and who have been trying to meet Morrison for months, have also been calling for increased funding for hazard reduction.
  - woggy 7y ago
    The "conspiracy" is that hazard reduction burning has been blocked by the Australian Greens (and other environmental bodies). More hazard reduction may be required, but this is orthogonal to the above. I have seen no evidence of the Greens blocking hazard reduction burns requested by the RFS. As the article states, fire chiefs have been trying to meet with the Australian prime minster for months, but have been ignored. this suggests that any blame for poor preparation leading up to this bush fire season should be attributed directly to the party in power. To me the motivation behind this spread of disinformation is very clear.
  - glangdale 7y ago
    I think it's only a 'strange article' if you only skim read it. It's saying that the claim that somehow the Greens prevented hazard management is a conspiracy theory. The Murdoch media has decided to run with the idiotic idea that there was an 'easy' opportunity to reduce fuel loads and it was prevented by unspecified environmentalists at unspecified locations (the claims are always super-non-specific, for obvious reasons). In fact, as the fire chiefs point out, the limitations on hazard reduction burns have largely been due to weather (too wet or too dry). Needless to say, the actual statement from the fire chiefs is extremely nuanced and well thought out. It's almost like they know something about fighting bushfires, unlike all the amateur hour geniuses that have emerged from the woodwork to sit in their pajamas theorizing on every major venue 24/7 including public holidays.

polemic 7y ago

The season where it is safe to do controlled burns has been shrinking due to climate change. So no, this is not true. Don't spread FUD.

asdfwvwe 7y ago
The more reason to do them when it's safe.
viraptor 7y ago
This will be interesting to see in the few next years. Either the way we do the burns will have to change, or we'll just have to accept unsafe burns as better than massive fires a few years down the line. So far I haven't heard any announced alternative ideas.

oasisbob 7y ago

It's illegal to construct firebreaks ... in certain places? At certainly times? That sounds quite incredible to me - a quick search turned up plenty of WA firebreak building guides, as well as the Brush Fires act of 1954 which seems to mandate construction of firebreaks by landowners in certain situations.

asdfwvwe 7y ago
You need permission to cut down a tree on your property. If you are not given permission then it's illegal to cut it down. Hence, it is illegal to create a firebreak if you are denied permission to do so. There is a minimum range that doesn't require permission but it's not far enough to save your house in a bushfire.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  > You need permission to cut down a tree on your property. This may be true in downtown Sydney or a National Park, but it's very much not the case in most of rural Australia.
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  You need permission to build an extension to your home. If you don't get it, it's illegal to build an extension to your home. Therefore, it is illegal to build extensions to your home. That's the flow of your logic.
  - golemiprague 7y ago
    I wouldn't say it is illegal but the law in Australia is very tough and you can't just use common sense, you got to wait and get approvals which in many times don't come. Many times I was pointing out to people that there are too many dense forests around where people live and it is a fire hazard but people looks at me like this dumb immigrant who is anti "the environment". Australians just love their nature and are against anything that will hurt it, even if it is necessary. So it is easy to dismiss anybody who point it out as some climate change denier but meanwhile people houses get burned.
    - FireBeyond 7y ago
      Oh, I understand - I lived 25 years, until recently, in bushfire country in Victoria.

woggy 7y ago

Huh? Are you talking about hazard reduction burning? Hazard reduction burning is not illegal in Australia [1]. I don't know where you got that idea from. It is also legal to create a firebreak [2]. [1] https://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/resources/publications/hazard-reduction https://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/resources/publications/hazard-red... [2] https://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/18453/1050-Vegetation-Clearing-Code-of-Practice.pdf https://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/18453...

asdfwvwe 7y ago
If permission is not granted it's de facto illegal.
- woggy 7y ago
  Can you please provide more detail on what you are referring to?
- SturgeonsLaw 7y ago
  The RFS has permission to conduct materials clearing. The quotes below are from the head of the RFS: > Shane Fitzsimmons told the program that while hazard reduction burning is part of a “really complex argument”, “environmental clearances are invariably not our problem with hazard reduction burning”. > “Our biggest challenge with hazard reduction is the weather and the windows available to do it safely and effectively,” Mr Fitzsimmons said. > “Sure, there’s environmental and other checks to go through but we streamline those. There’s special legislation to give us clearance and to cut through what would otherwise be a very complex environment.” https://www.news.com.au/national/rural-fire-service-boss-rejects-barnaby-joyces-bushfire-theory/news-story/d89c268a63385f6afb8f78171457dfa3 https://www.news.com.au/national/rural-fire-service-boss-rej...

glangdale 7y ago

Oh look, a new account making things up about fire management in Australia. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/05/explainer-how-effective-is-bushfire-hazard-reduction-on-australias-fires https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/05/expla...

3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y ago
That’s a strange article. On The one hand they’re saying people who say lack of hazard management (controlled burning) is making the fires worse are literally “conspiracy theorist” and then the very next paragraph this line: > Former fire chiefs who have been calling strongly for action on climate change, and who have been trying to meet Morrison for months, have also been calling for increased funding for hazard reduction.
- woggy 7y ago
  The "conspiracy" is that hazard reduction burning has been blocked by the Australian Greens (and other environmental bodies). More hazard reduction may be required, but this is orthogonal to the above. I have seen no evidence of the Greens blocking hazard reduction burns requested by the RFS. As the article states, fire chiefs have been trying to meet with the Australian prime minster for months, but have been ignored. this suggests that any blame for poor preparation leading up to this bush fire season should be attributed directly to the party in power. To me the motivation behind this spread of disinformation is very clear.
- glangdale 7y ago
  I think it's only a 'strange article' if you only skim read it. It's saying that the claim that somehow the Greens prevented hazard management is a conspiracy theory. The Murdoch media has decided to run with the idiotic idea that there was an 'easy' opportunity to reduce fuel loads and it was prevented by unspecified environmentalists at unspecified locations (the claims are always super-non-specific, for obvious reasons). In fact, as the fire chiefs point out, the limitations on hazard reduction burns have largely been due to weather (too wet or too dry). Needless to say, the actual statement from the fire chiefs is extremely nuanced and well thought out. It's almost like they know something about fighting bushfires, unlike all the amateur hour geniuses that have emerged from the woodwork to sit in their pajamas theorizing on every major venue 24/7 including public holidays.