RE: Fuel Reduction Burning

To: "Birding Aus" <>
Subject: RE: Fuel Reduction Burning
From: "martin butterfield" <>
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 19:02:58 +1000
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.
-----Original Message-----
From: [On Behalf Of Simon Mustoe
Sent: Sunday, 3 April 2005 6:33 PM
To: Birding Aus
Subject: [BIRDING-AUS] RE: Fuel Reduction Burning

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.
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the birding-aus mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU