Re: columnists on the Bush Fires, a caution

To: <>, <>, <>
Subject: Re: columnists on the Bush Fires, a caution
From: kailash willis <>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:01:25 +1030

Although I can understand the frustration that many people feel in relation to 
recent articles blaming “greenies” and lack of prescribed burning. I would ask 
you all to take a moment to consider the reality of what would be required, 
including all its associated risks and effects to not only wildlife and the 
environment but also public health and safety, to make prescribed burning 
The amount of forest that would need to be burnt each year to achieve 
substantial fuel load reductions would not only require huge amounts of 
resources but the associated smoke haze would have health implications for 
many, particularly asthmatics.
There are also risks involved with prescribed burns breaking containment lines 
and then posing threats to communities (ie. The fairly resent Wilson Promontory 
fires which where also blames on “Greenies” undertaking ecological burns).
I would suggest that this level of prescribed burning is not logistically 
possible or that there would be a majority of public support and therefore we 
should try not to get to emotionally involved as I am sure this would bring a 
smile to Miranda Devine's face if that is possible.

> From: 
> To: ; 
> Subject: RE: [Birding-Aus] Re: columnists on the Bush Fires, a caution
> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:17:44 +1100
> Bob
> Well observed!! I am sure the frustration that many on this list feel is
> that the points of view, such as Ms Devine's, seem to get a much bigger
> airing than the alternative or balanced views.
> Yes, we can all write letters to the papers but they never get the audience
> that front page "journalistic" articles get - or that the television
> unbalanced "grabs" get.
> I think that some journalists who may like to put the alternatives up are
> currently keeping their heads down, just because they realize the emotion
> that is out there.
> One hopes that the Royal Commission will look at all these issues fully and
> carefully - that's what is being promised.
> To me the fundamental issue is the clash between us (western human)
> latecomers wanting to go and live (safely) among the natural habitat that
> has been the preserve of our fauna and indigenous people for millennia. The
> two are fundamentally incompatible, so any solution is always going to be a
> compromise.
> I live halfway between the Bendigo fire location and the Redesdale fire
> location and am counting my blessings. If I am ever affected by such an
> event I would accept that it was my decision to live in a protected natural
> habitat, made my decision on what protection I established and I took the
> risk. PS: I would get out very early!!!
> Bob Cook
> Axedale VIC
> -------------------------------------------
> I say:
> Wow!
> So much for:
> - freedom of expression;
> - freedom of speech:
> - freedom of the press;
> - listening to "the other point of view";
> - listening to a diversity of opinion.
> So much:
> - vitriol in some members of this group;
> - bias of thought;
> - bigotry;
> - intolerance of others opinions;
> - narrow-mindedness.
> I read Miranda Devine's original article (I was curious to see what was
> upsetting so many people in this group) and found it quite interesting and
> intriguing. Subsequent events and comments aired on radio and TV have
> indicated to me that many citizens of Australia have views similar to the
> ones stated by Devine in that article. Therefore it seems to me that she was
> justified in writing that article. I am sure she did not originate the topic
> but was simply reacting, as a journalist, to comments she had heard
> (possible not first-hand and therefore possibly not accurate) from some, at
> least, of those people directly affected by the fires.
> It is quite understandable that people affected by the fires will be looking
> for someone or something to blame and the environment-protection groups are
> the obvious choice. That is not to say that those groups are really to blame
> but they are, at the moment, the easiest and the most obvious ones to which
> to attach the blame.
> It will do no good what so ever to vigorously implore members of this group
> to ignore what people such as Miranda Devine are saying on this topic.
> People like her have a much wider audience than BirdingAus.
> It would be far better to encourage people to read those articles and to
> listen to the people saying the things Devine writes about and then
> examining why those views are prevalent.
> Listen to what is being said and produce valid arguments as to the "correct"
> point of view and then publically state them.
> Write to the papers and put forward your arguments to counter Devine's
> comments; tell the world what the "answer" is but don't encourage other
> people to maintain their ignorance.
> What happened on "Black Saturday" this year has been monumental and will
> continue to affect the fabric of the Australian society for a long time to
> come. What we want now is reasonable thought on the topic; we need to listen
> to all sorts of opinions on remedies for the factors which contributed to
> the disaster; we need to know how different people think about what has
> happened and we need to be open-minded. We don't need to close our minds,
> our eyes and our ears to what people are saying and thinking.
> If any of the BirdingAus members mentioned above have different points of
> view to Miranda Devine and the hundreds of people directly affected by the
> fires I would be glad to hear or read them so I can judge if they are any
> more sensible on this topic than that "accursed" journalist.
> Incidentally, I am not related to Miranda Devine (or Andrew Bolt) and I
> don't normally read the SMH.
> But I am glad to see that Devine has stirred up some emotions in this group
> but I wait now to see if sensible, reasoned argument will emanate from those
> so stirred.
> Note: Feel free to respond to what I have written above, but please note
> that I will not answer anything that I consider abusive, childish,
> ill-considered, frivolous, mean-spirited, etc.
> I am likely to respond to what I consider to be reasonable and sensible
> comments, provided it doesn't offend my own bigoted, biased, narrow-minded
> way of thinking.
> Cheers
> Bob Inglis
> Sandstone Point
> Qld
> It has been claimed that Confucius said "Learning without thought is labour
> lost; thought without learning is perilous." Think about it.
> ===============================
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
> send the message:
> unsubscribe
> (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
> to: 
> ===============================

Are you paid what you're worth? Find out: SEEK Salary Centre

To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
<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