|
The
following comments are not meant to criticise any of the previous contributors
to this debate.
One of
the issues is that many people concerned about wildlife seem to expect
decisions about controlled burns (on what I have seen a possible contender
for oxymoron of the year) to be made on the basis of scientific evidence.
As far
as I can see it is made on the basis of political sniffing the wind with little
or no regard for scientific evidence. The question that is addressed is
more "will there be more political kudos from (i) being seen to do SOMETHING,
however poorly thought through, to protect people who are scared of
bushfires regardless of where they live and their actual exposure to fires or
(ii) interfering as little as possible with the very limited remaining bush that
is greatly enjoyed by people who have chosen to live close to it, and accept the
risk of bushfires. "
I have
lived for most of the last 17 years adjacent to one of the bush blocks in
Canberra. Last year the heroes of the volunteer bush-fire brigade with
the full support of the local Chief Minister razed it. While there has
been some regrowth of interesting herbs and shrubs (but very few orchids) the
main regrowth has been of the two local fireweeds - Daviesia and
Cassinia. My guess is that they have made the fire-risk problem worse not
better. However the Chief Minister has received an improved vote at the
last election, so one assumes that option i is the answer to the questions the
Government asks.
What
am I doing about this? Moving to Manhattan in the shorter term, and
probably never coming back to live in the ACT. The problem I'm facing is
where in Australia has a more objective approach to assessing fire risks?
Sorry
about the rant.
Martin
Oh, I wish people would read emails before
responding with criticism : )
Laurie, I did not say fuel reduction burning
would stop. Neither did I say it should stop - quite the opposite in fact. But
nonetheless, the matter cannot lawfully continue without a Federal
assessment.
Clearly you would agree that if our attitude is
that it won't make a difference, then nothing would ever get done would
it?
Oh, and Mike Norris. Clearly my email in no way
denegrates the value of the Atlas. Quite the opposite in fact. Again, it is
wise to read and understand emails before getting off the point, which is...
Do we or do we not all agree that the main point
is that fuel reduction at present levels is NOT a good thing for wildlife,
that it IS unlawful, it SHOULD be stopped (at least temporarily) and it SHOULD
continue, but ONLY AFTER an appropriate management plan that guarantees
community interest and biodiversity is secured. If so, can we hear this, and
avoid detracting from those issues. This is really important.
I am going to say no more on the matter.
Cheers,
Simon.
| 