I wonder how many Koalas have been burnt in the bushfires raging across Victoria?
I received a letter from Roger Underwood today, he writes, "Arsonists do light fires, but they are not responsible for fires becoming large and damaging, especially forest fires. Blaming them is a convenient way for politicians and land managers to avoid taking responsibility themselves, which they should."
Roger Underwood has over 40 years experience of bushfire management in Australia and overseas. He was formerly General Manager of The Deparment of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) in Western Australia, a regional and district manager, a research manager and bushfire specialist.
Dear Jennifer
I have been watching TV and reading newspaper reports on the recent (and ongoing) disastrous bushfires in Victoria and Western Australia. One common thread is the attempt to blame "arsonists, thought to be responsible for the fires".
There are two non-debatable things about arson: (i) it has always been with us and will always be with us, as it is an expression of anti-social, criminal or sick human behaviour; and (ii) since arson-lit fires cannot be prevented, we should expect them to occur and take the necessary measures to minimise their impact, not whinge about them.
The ultimate irony to me was to see our Acting Premier promising large sums of money as a reward for information about the supposed arsonist, when the government in which he is a Minister has overseen a massive decline in the capacity of the State's bushfire management resources.
Bushfires cannot be prevented.
On the other hand we can predict with great accuracy where and when they will occur and we can put in place very effective measures to minimise the damage they cause, and to increase the ease and safety of their control. In the publicly-owned forest, these measures are relatively simple.
In the first place we need a sound policy, and the strong support of government and agencies - this is a matter of simple, good governance and responsible public service.
In the second place we need a resource of permanent well trained and well equipped staff who can undertake fire management, supported by a well-funded volunteer firefighter force. Third, we need effective programs of green burning in our parks and forests, to reduce fuels and to ensure that fires do not become large, intense and unstoppable. Finally we need rural people, including those living at the interface, to take responsibility for making their own properties less hazardous or vulnerable, and if they won't do it voluntarilly, they must be forced to do it compulsorily.
None of this is new. But for some reason it does not happen. Worse, we seem to be going backwards. I agree with those who blame the environmentalists for antagonism or fear of green burning - they have very successfully created a generation of young people who do not understand the role of fire in Australian ecosystems - but they are not solely to blame.
The political leaders who show no leadership, or who try to slip out from under by blaming the arsonists are also contemptible, but politicians are politicians, and we cannot expect them to behave out of character. I am also very disappointed with some of the new breed of braided Fire Chiefs who tend to see bushfires as theatre, and whose media popularity would be threatened by a fire management system which resulted in fewer fire disasters. But these people are simply a product of the media-dominated world in which we live,and they won't go away any more than will the arsonists.
I conclude that the real villains in the piece are our professional land managers - the people who are today in charge of our national parks and State forests. They are well aware of the ecological research, they know about the decline in forest health in areas subjected to fire exclusion, they have staff in the field who are skilled in and enthusiastic about green burning, they have media and communications units, and they are in a position to influence government policy and priorities, to fight for a position which is right, even if it is politically unpopular. But they do not appear to be prepared to fight for good and effective fire management, and the result is an increasing number of large, high intensity fires which do no-one any good, and cause immense environmental damage.
The situation in WA is made more difficult by the fact that our land management agency (CALM) is not responsible for preparing the park and forest management plans which they are required to implement. The government has placed responsibilityfor management planning in the hands of a part-time committee of citizens and academics called The Conservation Commission, not one single member of which has any scientific expertise or professional experience in bushfire management or forest firefighting.
A thousand new arson detectives in every state will not catch every arsonist or potential arsonist, nor will they stop arson occurring in the future. What is needed is a new breed of tough, dedicated professional land managers who accept arson as inevitable, like lightning, and work to put in place a system which ensures that when fires start we can deal with them before people are killed, lovely forests incinerated and farms destroyed. What the government needs to do is to put these people in charge, chop off the influence of committees of well-meaning amateurs, and provide policy and political support.
Will this happen? The Bushfire Front developed a template for Best Practice in Bushfire Management in WA which, in early 2005, we sent to the Premier and the Minister for the Environment, together with an analysis of where WA needed to take steps to halt the decline in the standard of fire management, and to get the whole show back on the road. This submission was the outcome of several months work by experienced bushfire managers and former fire scientists. Neither the Premier nor the Minister replied.
Roger Underwood
The Bushfire Front WA Inc
1edb79f8cc5c Good work
ionolsen23 I am really impressed!
Deep in this blog is a plea. In April 2005 was a post from Val Jeffery asking for help with a petition.
Why has it got zero comments?
Davey said "so it seems some of our movers and shakers do actually read it". I agree this is a very good learning exchange. Yes, Ian has invaluable knowledge to share that he could communicate more clearly and with more credibility if he stayed calm. Ian the recent disaster you raise above is the perfect leverage point from which to perhaps, finally get the bureaucrats to listen (even a little). (It's unlike to help if you open the conversation by insulting them).
Ian unless you sincerely believe that in the near future you will be living in an independent agrarian state unaffected by the fire policies of neighbouring areas that might not belong to your state, then you need to keep trying to get your message across. This exchange is an opportunity to influence those dumb urban policy dictators. You actually have some of the people that you need to influence, here on this blog, listening to you! You never know who is lurking. Make good use of it.
Ian, if you're normally calm face-to-face, even with people who question your position, then perhaps you're experiencing *Cyber-disinhibition*:
"The tech problem: a major disconnect between the ways our brains are wired to connect, and the interface offered in online interactions. . . this disinhibition becomes far more likely when people feel strong, negative emotions. What fails to be inhibited are the impulses those emotions generate. . . The hallmark of a flame is that the same person would never say the words in the email to the recipient were they face-to-face. His inhibitory circuits would not allow it — and so the interaction would go more smoothly. He might still communicate the same core information face-to-face, but in a more skillful manner."
http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_5.html#goleman
Steve,
I can see you are passionate about this topic - good. I have not done any of the things you ask about. I have only floated an idea for discussion by people like your good self. If you disagree, that's fine, I am old and ugly enough to accept that.
Perhaps its a bit of a tangent, but some decades ago, in the then Forests Department of WA, we did a survey on public preferences for forest recreation. The most popular picnic spots by far were not in native forest, but in pine plantations. People liked the 'natural surroundings'. By initiating plantation forestry, local governments could generate income, create employment, and offer recreational opportunities for concrete-weary city dwellers, all in one hit.
Keep up your contributions - I think this is a very useful blog. I heard an idea from it used in parliamentary debate a while back, so it seems some of our movers and shakers do actually read it.
Davey: On the question of who minds the forests, I must ask readers to look briefly at say Japan. Those countries policies will affect ours. The 20/20 vision under all our RFA’s must also consider the state of play over there. We failed in recent decades to take heed of the overseas dilemma; it prematurely stripped our forests of ongoing assets.
Regional forest operations here over ran local operations long ago. Local mills disappeared all over at the whim of multinationals and that bad situation continues to some extent as old timber communities struggle to remain relevant in the global resource debate.
In my experience, small private holdings were the first to cash in what ever wood they could find. Our recovery requires quick crops, thickly grown in the short term .