Comments on: Backburning damages water, tourism and health

By: Dr Harvey M Tarvydas

Dr Harvey M Tarvydas — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

So we have to be bloody smart as the math’s is booby trapped with square roots and exponential functions.
I have seen government organizations and departments, state & federal, in medicine do and perpetrate such scientifically stupid things that cost over 10,000 lives annually (counted by independent international experts) none as dramatic as the loss of life we have seen in the fires and easily swept under the rug (why, you didn’t even know did you) and police commissioner’s leave because some nutter in major crime has successfully p-ssed and f-rted into all the right desk drawers at head office (figuratively).
What is so tragic about major organisational behaviour seriously flunking is the extraordinary valuable good of which they are also capable.
Your example is essential, we the people have to be responsible and personal vigilance is the price of guarantee.

By: Venise Alstergren

Venise Alstergren — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Lionel, I’m just about to read your article, but before that I have a question. Many people bang on about putting exotic trees around native trees as fire breaks. If it were remotely possible to put any kind of trees around the existing ones; wouldn’t it be better to grow Australian, trees which are almost fire retardant? I’m thinking Blackwoods and Lilly-pilly trees. As these are the only ones I can think of. I suppose it would be a very very long-term prospect. Actually, I can’t think how it would be done. Just an idea.

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

So we do no hazard reduction, and just wait for the big fires? Cool season burns can’t be done in a mozaic pattern, rotationally, so that runoff is limited? You actually favour the all or nothing scenario, big fires fuelled by 30 tonne/ha fuel loads, on the basis of having one huge fire every 30 years is going to be better than having smaller fires every 8 years? Sounds like you better join the CFA.

It might be true that using fire might promote fire promoting species, but we are going to get fires in these areas anyway, and so wouldn’t cool fires used properly be less likely to kill fire retarding species than hot fires?

By: RJG

RJG — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Lionel, please answer this question. If no backburning or fire management is carried out anywhere, won't lightening, arsonists or accidents cause fires that will result in huge damage anyway? What do you do to stop them. I have been inundated with smoke, enbers and soot three times now. My tanks were contaminated on one occasion. It takes at least week to clean up. None of these were the result of backburns. They were wild fires lit by arsonists. My son and I both suffer from chronic respritory problems, I'm 53 and he is 15. Neither of us have had any addtional problems as a result of these fires. We live downstream of the Thompson dam. Thousands of tonnes of dead trees came down the river after the big fires and damaged the Cowwarr weir. It took nearly a year to repair. Nothing to do with prescibed burns.

My view is you are talking rubbish.

Where is your hard evidence for all of these claims you make and when will you offer detailed solutions that can be the subject of rigorous scrutiny? I don't want to be rude, but your harping on prescribed burning is becoming tedious.