A new rural organisation in Australia, driving innovative agribusiness ideas, the New Rural Industries Association (NRIA) truly has some good ideas for those on the land. But one of them is certainly not such a good idea – supporting more kangaroo slaughter.
The NRIA on its new website states that its mission is:
“through cooperation, coordination and education, to create an environment for the development and capacity-building of new, innovative, Australian rural industries and to maximise the economic benefits our nation gains from such industries.”
.
At what ecological cost? At what untold wildlife trauma?
.
It is all very well encouraging those on the land to make a quid and prosper from new emerging agricultural markets, but poaching wildlife is immoral in the mix of available options.
To push for more wildlife trade in Australia, is akin to the logging industry pushing for a new exploitative use of our native forests for ‘biomass’ – burning trees for power! It is no different to the ‘bushmeat’ wildlife trade currently being prosecuted from Africa to Europe.
Reading the NRIA website section under New Animal Industries – ‘Kangaroos and Wallabies‘- the script seems taken drirectly out of a promotion by the Kangaroo Industry Association (KIA). It is peppered with exploitative euphemistic terms like ‘kangaroo industry‘, ‘kangaroo harvesting‘ and ‘pest control‘. All terms deliberately chosen to try to legitimise what is blatantly wildlife poaching.
Then it suggests that the poaching is legitimate by claiming there is “a quota system” and that the poaching is “administered by the state and federal governments”.
It then argues that this wildlife trade is highly lucrative, quoting the “kangaroo industry was an estimated $43.9 million in 2007”, with major export markets being Indonesia, New Zealand and Russia. It is trying to sell kangaroo meat overseas beyond what has long been regarded as pet food. It is trying to rebrand the pet food as ‘game meat’ and is having success in Europe, notably recently in France, South Africa and Germany, and in Russia as sausage meat..
.
‘Bushmeat’?
.
Wildlife is wildlife and with so little remaining on so few token reserves, all wildlife deserve humanity’s utmost respect and protection.
Australian wildlife is no less deserving than African wildlife. In Africa, ‘illegal bushmeat is being sold on Paris streets‘ ranging from monkey carcasses, smoked anteater, even preserved porcupine. In Australian, bushmeat is our wildlife – our native kangaroo, wallaby, koalas, platypus, echidna, Tasy devil, wombat, potoroo and many other unique and vulnerable fauna.
‘A bonobo, most human-like of the great apes, killed for meat’.
‘In Paris, a recent study has found more than five tonnes of bushmeat slips through the city’s main airport each week to serve its underground bushmeat market. Experts suspect similar amounts are arriving in other European hubs as well – an illegal trade that is raising concerns about diseases ranging from monkeypox to Ebola, and is another twist in the continent’s struggle to integrate a growing African immigrant population. According to research published in the journal ‘Conservation Letters’,
“Anecdotally we know it does happen … But it is quite surprising the volumes that are coming through,” said Marcus Rowcliffe, a research fellow of the Zoological Society of London and one of the study’s authors.
“Everyone knows bushmeat is sold in the area and they even know where to buy it,” said Hassan Kaouti, a local butcher. “But they won’t say it’s illegal.”
For the study, European experts checked 29 Air France flights from Central and West Africa that landed at Paris’ Roissy-Charles de Gaulle airport over a 17-day stretch in June 2008. Of 134 people searched, nine had bushmeat and 83 had livestock or fish.
The people with bushmeat had the largest amounts: one passenger had 51kg of bushmeat – and no other luggage. Most of the bushmeat was smoked and arrived as dried carcasses. Some animals were identifiable, though scientists boiled the remains of others and reassembled the skeletons to determine the species.
Experts found 11 types of bushmeat including monkeys, large rats, crocodiles, small antelopes and pangolins, or anteaters. Almost 40 per cent were listed on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.
Based on what officials seized – 188kg of bushmeat – the researchers estimated that about five tonnes of bushmeat get into Paris each week.
Bushmeat is widely eaten and sold in Central and West Africa, with Central African Republic, Cameroon and Republic of Congo being the main sources. It varies whether it is legal. It is typically allowed where people are permitted to hunt, as long as their prey aren’t endangered and they can prove the animals were killed in the wild. And just as scientists have warned that eating African bushmeat is a potential health hazard, eating roadkill and wildlife is just at risk of bacterial infections like salmonella and ecoli.
Nina Marano, chief of the quarantine unit at the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, said similar underground markets for bushmeat exist across the US. “We have to be culturally sensitive and recognise this is important for some African communities,” she said. “But there are no regulations for the preparation of meat from wildlife to render it safe.”
The scale of Europe’s illicit bushmeat trade suggests the emergence of a luxury market. Prices can be as high as 30 euros ($A43) per kilogram, double what more mundane supermarket meats cost. “It’s like buying the best cut of organically grown beef,” Rowcliffe said, adding that bushmeat like giant rats and porcupine, which he has tasted, has a strong, gamey flavour.’
Meanwhile back in Australia, the NRIA claims “commercial harvesting” of wallabies is happening across Tasmania and on Flinders Island and King Island in Bass Strait…”ensuring the sustainability of the harvest“. Shooters are now targeting Tasmania’s beautiful Bennett’s Wallaby (Macropus r. rufogriseus) and the Tasmanian Pademelon (Thylogale billardierii).
.
“More than 9000 wallabies were harvested in 2005-06 but this was much less than the combined quota of 34,750.”
It is pleasing to learn that the City of Sydney council is funding $100,000 into its first serious biodiversity survey of inner Sydney, which is expected to take three months.
The aim is to support biodiversity information for an “urban ecology strategic action plan to conserve indigenous plant and animal species and identify ways to improve their habitats.”
The council has engaged the Australian Museum (located in the Sydney CDB) and specifically ecologists Henry Cook and Glenn Muir to identify all the native animals and plants living in inner Sydney. According to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald today, Sydney has long lost most of its native fauna to 220 years of urban development and habitat destruction.
Amazingly, Native Green and Golden Bell Frogs and Grey-Headed flying foxes still exist in one or two isolated locations but are endangered. Brush-tailed possums, Ring-tailed possums and native water rats are amongst the more adaptable to human incursion, albeit often persecuted.
The ecologists expect to find about 60 indigenous bird species and several reptile and frog species and the survey results are due in mid-2011.
A proven effective strategy against bushfires is early detection and response to ignitions.
Suppressing and ignition before it spreads seems logical enough, although perhaps with existing Rural Fire Service (RFS) is easier said than done. But is funding, and are RFS ‘fuel management’ strategies focusing on this albeit logical fire-fighting solution?
The Blackheath Glen wildfire (reportedly lit by bush arsonists, unconvicted) that started on 13th December 2002 was confirmed as having spread over 13 kilometres in less than six hours. By simple calculation the fire was travelling at less than 3kph. Why was it not detected early and suppressed?
Bushfire ignitions should be responded to before growing into uncontrollable wildlife fronts. Relying upon phone calls from the public to ‘000’ shouldn’t be a main detection mechanism, especially during times of known extreme bushfire (arson) risk.
Constant monitoring of bushfire prone bushland during the high risk season is crucial if we are serious about early detection. These days we have sophisticated long-range digital video cameras, radar and real-time satellite infrared cameras that can pick up individual trees! Perhaps the RFS should also have dedicated airborne fire surveillance crews. As for operational response, are fire crews sited in the most strategic response locations 24/7 on standby?
Is bushfire modelling and are the fire history databases utilised to allocate crews strategically to vulnerable and probable ignition locations? Stand-by helicopter air cranes equipped with water bombing capability provide faster response and superior access than truck-based crews.
Such solutions exist, yet require sophisticated resources, management and cost millions.
We choose to build closer to the bush, but are we serious about protecting lives and million of dollars worth of property from bushfire? Can we afford to rely on a grant and raffle-funded volunteer force or is it time to evolve the RFS into a specialist division of the NSW Fire Brigade and seriously resource it?
[This letter by this editor was first published in the Blue Mountains Gazette, 7th December 2005 on page 10]
[The following letter was first published in the Blue Mountains Gazette, 16-Nov-2005, contributed by the editor as Director, Colong Foundation for Wilderness. It sparked a debate in this local paper over successive months and preceded the 2006 Grose Fire in the Blue Mountains, possibly the worst fire storm in the history of the Blue Mountains.]
.
‘Premises at Risk’
Part and parcel of choosing to live in the Blue Mountains is that, by being on ridge lines surrounded by Eucalypt forests, many properties are inherently exposed to bushfire threat. Whether bushfires be caused by lightning (rarely), accidentally by people, RFS-prescribed, or by arson (usually); bushfire risk management is a community responsibility – not just the lot of RFS volunteers. The arson threat aside, “residents, landowners and land managers of the Blue Mountains need to accept that they are in a bushfire prone area and their properties may be subject to ember attack when threatened by bushfire.” (Blue Mountains Conservation Society Bushfire Policy).
To dispel a rural myth, not all native habitats recover from bushfire. Certain species and old growth flourish only in ecosystems that are never burnt. Post-bushfire regrowth often spawns dominant species like Eucalypt and Acacia, whereas original biodiversity may take centuries to recover. Bushfire is often a precursor to infestations of grass and weeds, and if followed by intense rain, also a catalyst for eroding irreplaceable native soils.
The antique premise ‘hazard reduction’ has become spin for pre-emptive burning that is prone to escaping out of control and so itself a hazard. Slashing and bulldozing under the premise of ‘Asset Protection Zone’ is also proving to be ineffective against ember attack and wildfire. But like arson, the hazard reduction and APZ theories contribute to the net loss of important habitat.
Proven effective and sustainable is early detection and response to ignitions. Most artificial fires start on developed land, so this in where the control measures should be focused – maintenance of gardens and guttering, retrofitting houses with materials and defences to resist fire, planting fire-retardant hedging around houses and implementing counter-measures recommended by Australian Standard AS3959.
The future of sustainable bushfire risk management starts by preventing houses being built where they cannot be safely protected from bushfires. Effective ‘hazard reduction’ is investigating and catching the arsonists.
.
.
Reply by District Manager, Rural Fire Service (RFS) Blue Mountains, Mal Cronstedt, 20060104 [Cronstedt ten month later was in charge of the response to the Grose Fire]:
.
.
.
Reply by local Architect, Nigel Bell, 20060118:
.
.
.
Counter reply by editor 20060222, page 10:
.
World Hazard Area?
I welcome RFS BM Superintendent’s response (BMG 4-1-06) to my letter (‘Premises at Risk’ BMG 16-11-05) and him challenging two of many researched points I raised.
In reply, my statements were not “misleading”. RFS’s own research confirms that most bushfires are caused by arson. Of 466 investigated fires in NSW (2001-2004), 296 (64%) were determined to be the result of deliberate ignition and the most prominent cause of significant bushfires. (Australian Institute of Criminology, Bushfire Arson Bulletin, 16-8-05).
In reply, an RFS ‘Asset Protection Zone’ will not stop a raging wildfire “with flames of up to 30m” nor stop embers carried by hot “60kph” winds well ahead of a wildfire front (Woy Woy). Burning/bulldozing bush, before arsonists get to it, is flawed logic. How many hectares of habitat would need to be destroyed to insulate bushfire-prone property from wildfire? Wildfires need not be inevitable. Wildfire fronts are often caused by an excitement-motivated arsonist’s multiple ignitions linking up.
I unreservedly commend the dedication of RFS volunteers each Summer. But habitat-destroying strategies applied by RFS bushfire committees each Autumn-Spring hark to 1940s solutions and are as ineffective as they are environmentally destructive. ‘Hazard’ reduction assumes a direct relationship between wildfire risk and the total area burned. But ‘hazard’ reduction does not significantly reduce wildfire risk. In 2003, the Auditor General of Victoria identified in his audit on fire prevention and preparedness, that “the relationship between hazard reduction burning and the overall wildfire risk is currently limited”.
Mal, no-one said solutions were simple. But to be effective, bushfire risk management must focus on the root causes – by (1) seriously resourcing investigation into bush arson, and (2) ambulance-speed detection and suppression of spot fires – else we do “invite disaster”! Our World Heritage need not be a wedge victim between ‘hazard’ reduction and serial arsonists.
.
.
.
Reply by RFS Blue Mountains Bushfire Management Committee member, Hugh Paterson, 20060405, page 10:
.
.
.
Counter reply by editor 20060426:
.
‘Land Clearing Immunity’
.
I welcome Hugh Patterson’s public input into the environmentally destructive practice of ‘hazard’ reduction (BMG 5-4-06). Conspicuously, none of the repeated research refuting the fallacy that ‘prescribed’ burning and bulldozing native habitat prevents wildfires, is disputed.
Hugh claims the Mt Hall bushfire in 2001 could not be controlled. But the coronial enquiry noted: “prescribed burns had been done… only two years and four months earlier” and “the ability of the fire to leap or bound many hundreds of metres at a time.” Reconfirmation that ‘hazard’ reduction does not prevent wildfires.
Why was the initial spot fire at Mt Hall not detected sooner and standby airborne water-bombing deployed?
Resourcing is clearly available when bushfire co-ordination committees can command millions in federal funding each year to perpetuate ‘hazard’ reduction – an unquestioned tradition dating back over 50 years. Last year these committees squandered $1.3 million ‘hazard’ reducing 3785 km2 of National Parks habitat, 565 km2 of Crown Land, and a further 391 km2 of local council-owned lands across NSW.
‘Hazard’ reduction is blatant land clearing. Worse, ‘mechanical’ hazard reduction (ie: bulldozing) permanently destroys habitat. Anyone else – farmers, developers, would attract severe penalties as environmental vandals. But these bushfire committees operate immune from EPA prosecution, write their own rules and code with eco-friendly jargon then call in the bulldozer anyway.
The discretionary millions deserve to be invested in effective detection and airborne suppression of spot fires, not squandered on finding something for volunteers to do over winter, which wildfires leap over anyway. According to the mayor of Junee last summer, “if it hadn’t been for the water-bombing aircraft half of Junee would have gone”.
Anyone arguing to divert scarce grant funding away from effective airborne fire-fighting and to justify futile habitat destruction doesn’t have a moral leg to stand on.
.
.
Reply by RFS Group Captain, Donald Luscombe 20060503:
.
.
.
Reply by local resident, Elizabeth Saxton, 20060517:
In the 1940s, ‘hazard’ reduction was a knee-jerk response in the wake of the Black Friday firestorms. The bushfire-prone nature of our community should compel us all to frequently look towards better solutions for bushfire prevention and suppression. We need to heed the latest investigative bushfire research telling us what’s effective and what’s not effective, then exercise best practice.
The research keeps reconfirming that hazard reduction is not effective. At the Adelaide Bushfire Conference 2004, research concluded that 90% of houses ignited in Australian bushfires are due to ember attack. ‘Hazard’ reduction does not prevent ember attack, so how does its stop the remaining 10%?
By walking around with petrol torches ‘hazard` reducing, volunteers are reducing habitat and reducing themselves to arson. Our actions need to respect both our built and natural assets. Most of us value our special Blue Mountains natural environment, otherwise why choose to live here and not in Portland or Pyrmont, where trees are scarce and concrete has eliminated bushfire risk?
Research into the Warrimoo, Valley Heights and Yellow Rock bushfires of 2001-2 concluded that the main cause of houses destroyed by bushfire was from burning debris (ember attack) allowed to gain entry into houses through inadvertent openings. Houses-by-house, those that survived were due to vigilant intervention by those present putting out small fires after the fire front had actually passed. CSIRO Research (1999) into causes of building loss from bushfires in Hobart (1967), Blue Mountains (1968), Otway and Macedon Ranges (1983), and Sydney 1994) confirmed the same and advocated focus on landscaping and building design strategies. Out of the 2001/2002 NSW bushfires, Sydney Councils recommended Sydney Water increase mains water capacity during bushfire crises.
Research literature is not widely promulgated, which means that the wider community must re-learn lessons in the wake of subsequent bushfires.
Perhaps like all residents, I wholeheartedly commend the dedication of RFS fire fighters fighting bushfires. I reaffirm this in rebuff to the misrepresenting tirade from Blue Mountains Bushfire Committee boss, Mr Luscombe (BMG 31-5-06).
The big local environmental issue continues to be the hundreds of Blue Mountains hectares cleared every autumn under the pretext of defending houses.
Mr Luscombe agrees the main cause of bushfire damage to houses is ember attack AFTER a fire front has passed. But he contradicts himself by justifying the need for hazard reduction in autumn BEFORE the risk season even starts. Clearly, hazard reduction is about thinning bush to minimise the intensity of a possible fire front, yet we agree the fire front itself isn’t the cause of house damage. Mr Luscombe is putting out the wrong fires. A sledgehammer approach to bushfire risk management won’t prevent wildfires or embers, but it will stuff forest ecology. I say it again – ‘hazard’ reduction is land clearing – an environmentally unsustainable practice all participants should critically question.
Extensive field research by Catling (1991) of the CSIRO Division of Wildlife Ecology has shown that “vertebrate fauna of south-eastern Australia is most abundant in forests with a dense understorey.” “If shrubs, litter and ground cover are removed, reduction in complexity of forest structure leads to a reduction in abundance and species diversity of small mammals” (Lunney 1987, Royal Zoological Society of NSW). Frequent, low-intensity burns in autumn reduce and eventually eliminate dense understorey – because rain and warm weather needed for regrowth are denied. As understorey is lost, threatened ground-dwelling native mammals (Tiger Quolls, Eastern Pygmy Possums, Rufous Bettongs) lose habitat protection, while many exotic species (foxes, feral cats, black rats) are advantaged.
On 28th April, ‘hazard’ reduction burning was prescribed for 347ha of the World Heritage Jamison Valley.
.
.
Counter reply by editor 20060719:
.
‘Slowly Cooking Habitat’
In the landmark book advocating the now famous Bradley method of bush regeneration by the Bradley sisters, ‘Bringing Back the Bush’ (1988), Joan Bradley challenged the 1940’s hazard reduction practices which still perpetuate unchecked today:
“One of the many myths about Australian vegetation is that occasional fire is essential for its renewal and that only natives are affected in this way by fire. But natives are not the only plants to flourish on an ashbed. I do not know of a single bush invading weed which does not respond in exactly the same way. Seeds germinate in abundance, and (weeds), like dahlias, lasiandra, cotoneaster, lantana and privet shoot from their base like gum trees.”
“Hazard-reduction fire is completely different from a real bushfire. Burning is done at the time of the year when the bush is dormant, and on the ground the leaf mulch is heavy and moist. For this reason it must be deliberately lit, frequently many times, whereupon it smokes, smoulders and steams. This type of burn consumes only the understorey. The ground smells like a garden rubbish heap, not a bit like bush after a bushfire, because the mulch is left to steam at high temperatures, and then putrefy.”
“It should be remembered that in the cooler seasons, plants and trees are storing food in their roots, ready for the surge of growth in spring, so this is not just an unnatural and unwelcome interruption to the vital feeding process. It is a major setback, as it was intended.”
“A prescribed burn has a disastrous effect on native plants and an absolutely explosive effect on weeds. With the understorey gone, the soil…is exposed to light which weeds thoroughly enjoy. The slow and uneven growth of the native plants (during the cooler seasons) does little to keep (weeds) in check.”
.
Result of defacto hazard reduction below Govetts Leap, Grose Valley, Blue Mountains
Photo by editor 20061209 free in public domain.
On Thursday 7th July 2005, while volunteering as Honorary Director of the Colong Foundation for Wilderness, the editor took a phone call at the Colong office from a Medlow Bath resident, who reported in that the Rural Fire Service had extensively graded the Six Foot Track in late June 2005. In the resident’s opinion the grading had occurred to such an extent that substantial damage had been caused to native flora, riparian zones and so warranted community reaction.
That same day I contacted the legal manager of the Six Foot Track, Jon Guyver of the Lands Department, based at Orange and heard his view, learning that the grading was requested by the Rural Fire Service and authorised by the Trustee using grant funding from the Federal Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS). I then phoned Greg Wardell, acting BM head of the Rural Fire Service to hear his view. In each case there is a strong sense of righteousness in the grading. The justification for the grading was to create a Primary Fire Trail, but this RFS action breached many of the conservation provisions of Six Foot Track Conservation and Management Plan 1997, including the Policy 7.2 (d). [Refer References below].
On Sunday 10th July at the resident’s request I undertook a first hand inspection of the track, using topographical map ‘Katoomba 8930-1S’ and proceeded to Grid square 66 South, 48 East, which shows the Six Foot Track following the winding Megalong Creek south-westerly. On return that evening, I emailed the following report to the Blue Mountains Conservation Society’s Land User Officer:
“Noticeable evidence of grading activity starts at a bend in the track NE of the words ‘SIX FOOT TRACK’ . There is the remains of a stone fireplace here, as well as bush and topsoil graded into the bush toward the creek. Between this site and the concrete bridge at Devils Hole Creek I counted 6 fresh mitre drains. Between Devils Hole Creek and the locked gate [Grid Ref 642458] passed the horse paddocks, I counted another 15 fresh mitre drains, before reaching Corral Creek. I didn’t continue west beyond Corral Creek.
There are three obvious environmental impacts from this bulldozing activity:
Over-clearing of bushland
Leaving topsoil exposed to rain and erosion
Grading bush and topsoil into the Corral Creek
The disregard and disrespect for Aboriginal culture in the area appears to have been totally ignored/discounted. You are very right in bringing this issue to the attention of the public, stakeholders and authorities. Your efforts deserve recognition by the Blue Mountains conservation community.
Having this primary data, I agree that this environmental destruction deserves to be made very public and the process abuse exposed. The voluntary RFS are not a law unto themselves. RFS culture needs a wake up call to its unchecked environmental accountability.”
.
On Sunday 17th July, the Land Use Officer of the local Blue Mountains Conservation Society drafted a letter to the General Manager of the Blue Mountains Council which read as follows:
RE: Nellies Glen Rd – Six Foot Track – Breach of development consent conditions
“The Society wishes to raise two questions about the recent work undertaken on a section of Nellies Glen Road, which forms part of the Six Foot Track. The section in question is:
Legality of Re-location of a section of Road
A section of the road was rerouted. Extensive clearing has been undertaken.
It does not appear that the Dept Lands is exempt from the provisions of the LEP when widening or re-locating a road.
LEP 91 clause 17.7 exempts the Crown from “carrying out of any development required in connection with the construction, reconstruction, improvement, maintenance or repair of any Classified Road, except the widening, realignment, or relocation of such road”
Furthermore as the Six Foot Track is listed in Schedule 2 of LEP 91 as Heritage item MG6, Clause 25 applies.Clause 25.1 statesA person shall not, without the consent of the Council, in respect of a building work, relic, place or tree that is a heritage item –
(a) demolish or alter the building or work; or …..
(c) damage or despoil the place or tree; or
(d) damage or remove any tree or horticultural features on the land on which the building, work, or relic is situated or on the land which comprises the place.”
Did council give consent to the widening and re-location of the section of the Six Foot Track? If consent was given, was a heritage assessment undertaken? If no consent was given, what steps does council intend to take to penalise the land manager and/or to require restoration?
Pollution of Watercourses
The Society understands that Council has regulatory powers to enforce the NSW Protection of the Environment Operations Act.
We request that Council investigates the
Excavation of mitre drains within 10m of creeklines
Extensive clearing of vegetation around the constructed within 20m of watercourses, causing sediment to flow into the creek.”
.
.
‘RFS Bulldozes Six Foot Track’
[written by editor and published in the Blue Mountains Gazette, 27th July 2005].
This is what a bulldozer can do midweek when nobody’s watching.
The Six Foot (Bridle) Track is a State icon, first negotiated on horseback in 1887 as a shortcut from Katoomba to Jenolan Caves. The track is ‘protected’ under the Central Tablelands Heritage Trust by the Department of Land and Water Conservation. The area holds important Aboriginal cultural value. The Track passes through a significant River Oak Forest vegetation community and the topsoils along this river valley are particularly sandy, and once exposed are highly susceptible to erosion and weed infestation.
RFS choice of contractor has bulldozed the heritage Six Foot Track out to a 66 foot speedway and fresh mitre drains to channel the new runoff problem into Megalong Creek. Once the rains come and the exposed topsoil’s washed into the creek, flat chance the bush’ll come back.
This is not fire trail ‘maintenance’. This is road making. How ‘strategic’ anyway is a track deep in a bush valley over two kilometres from Katoomba? Strategic for arsonists perhaps. Anyone else would need development consent to bulldoze bush – and probably would be rightly rejected. The privileged exemption status granted to the RFS is for times of emergency. It is not a carte blanche for cowboy contractors.
This sad muddy bog left at the Corral Creek crossing is testament to the loose procedural controls of the bushfire committee. Such actions cannot help the RFS’ otherwise high community standing.
Following the publishing of my letter, correspondence from the Blue Mountains Conservation Society’s (ConSoc) Land Use Subcommittee, of which I was an active member, when silent.
My email to the Subcommittee on 14th August read as follows:
Re: LUC Meeting Item 2 ‘Firetrails
“Can someone please advise what actions may have been taken since the RFS bulldozing events in late June on the Six Foot Track (SFT) and on the track
on Fairy Bower Reserve at Mount Piddington (and possibly other bush tracks we are yet to find out about).
The minutes of the LUC August meeting indicated that ConSoc is to write to RFS “again”, so this suggest correspondence has already been made. I would appreciate any copies of correspondence please. What was the outcome (agreed actions) of the midweek meeting between ConSoc, >the RFS and trustee Jon Guyver back on or around 14 Jul 05?
Has the RFS agreed to remediate the bulldozing of the SFT site with endemic plantings, sediment controls?
Has the RFS or Jon Guyver been able to provide any minutes or correspondence regarding the decision making of the bushfire committee to authorise the bulldozing in June?
The silence on this has been ‘Council-esk’ and no public comment appears forthcoming from the RFS.”
.
Regulation of the Six Foot Track
“As per the previous LUC meeting on 13 Jul 05, I have enquired into the possible existence of a trust deed governing management and legal conditions concerning the control of the Six Foot Track.
The Land Department Office in Orange confirms no trust deed as such exists, but rather the SFT is governed by a Reserve Trust under the provisions of
the NSW ‘Crown Lands Act 1989’ and ‘Crown Lands (General Reserves) By Law 2001’ as Reserve No. 1001056.
Jon Guyver is the official administrator of the Six Foot Track Heritage Trust and he has provided me with a copy of the relevant sections of the Act, a complete set of the By laws applicable to the SFT and the Six Foot Track Conservation Management Plan Volumes I and II. The latter cost me $22. Lyn has indicated that she already has a copy of the Plan of Management – I assume this is the same. Volume I is 137 pages and Volume II is 142 pages. I am presently reading through Volume I.
From my reading so far, the bulldozing breaches the Management Plan’s ecologically sustainable development principles, although “the plan is
intended to serve as a guide to conservation and management of the entire Track, but is not a statutory plan which is binding” (Vol. I, p 8).
Jon says he is commissioning an updated version, so I suggest it would be useful for ConSoc to participate in the drafting of this updated version.”
.
[No answer was received from ConSoc, yet on 16th August the editor received a warning from a leading figure within the ‘conservation movement’: “Please do not cast aspersions against RFS people in Con Soc.”]
.
Then on Tuesday 23rd August, the editor emailed the following researched feedback to the Blue Mountains Conservation Society:
“All, Way back on 7-Jul-05, a call was made to the Colong Foundation advising that the Six Foot Track had been severely bulldozed near Megalong Creek. As a member based in Katoomba, I have followed this up, along with enquiries by other ConSoc LUC members.
I proceeded to acquire first hand information, walked to the site and have obtained extensive documentation from the trustee on the Plan of Management
and legislation governing the Track. I am still yet to find out what actions others have taken. I am still yet to receive a response to my email below.
Avid Gazette readers may have come across a small press release from someone in the Gazette’s Mountain Murmurs on 13-Jul-05. After no news, I submitted
my letter of 27-Jul-05 alerting the Mountains community to inappropriate destruction of native habitat and important heritage values of the Six Foot Track [the editor changed my heading]. The thrust of my message was to try to highlight the cause of the problem in an effort to prevent it re-occurring. I referred to the “loose procedural controls of the bushfire committee.” Last week, three mixed response letters arrived, one targeting the contractor, but all ignoring the problem source – the actions of the bushfire committee. Still no public statement has come from the RFS, despite this public call for accountability. I note that ConSoc’s latest Hut News (Aug-05, p3) contains a useful account of the “informative gathering” on 21-Jul-05 by representatives of various stakeholder organisations agreeing on the need for rehabilitation work. But what is still unaccounted for are the actions of the bushfire committee.
Is this bushfire committee made up of these same representatives?
Well, in the absence of feedback, I have continued my investigations and discovered that the underlying cause is the Bushfire Mitigation Programme
of the federal government Department of Transport and Regional Services. I direct you to the following website, the introductory extract and the
attached spreadsheet that lists the following ‘Fire Trails’ in the Blue Mountains for targeting as well as another undisclosed areas of the Blue Mountains National Park.
Question is, have all these locations been subjected to similar bulldozing that we don’t know about yet?
The Six Foot Track bulldozing is a drop in the ocean. The RFS Bushfire Assessment Code refers to complying with the >principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development, which seems nothing more than greenwashing.
Reserve / Activity Name Treatment Area (km) NSW Allocation
Cripple Creek Fire Trail Stage 2 5kma $15,000.00
Cripple Creek Fire Trail Complex 5 km $10,909.09
Caves Creek Trail 0.4 km $5,000.00
Edith Falls Trail 2 km $2,040.00
Boronia Rd – Albert Rd Trails 1km $1,360.00
Perimeter Trail – North Hazelbrook 1.5km $1,360.00
McMahons Point Trail – Kings Tableland 7km $1,000.00
Back Creek Fire Trail 3.2 km $816.00
Mitchell’s Creek Fire Trail 3.5km $204.00
Northern Strategic Line -Primary 8km $11,000.00
De Faurs Trail – Mt Wilson -Primary 2.8km $7,540.00
Mitchell’s Creek Fire Trail – Primary 3.5km $1,836.00
“Fire trails are important resources in the facilitation of prevention and mitigation works. An effective fire trail network increases options available in implementing hazard reduction to protect communities and their social, cultural, environmental and economic assets.
In September 2004 the Prime Minister announced the allocation of $15 million for a Bushfire Mitigation Programme, over three years, for the construction, maintenance and signage of fire trail networks to assist local communities to better prepare for bushfires.
About the Programme
The Bushfire Mitigation Programme is a national programme aimed at identifying and addressing bushfire mitigation risk priorities across the nation. It funds construction and maintenance of fire trails and associated accessibility measures that contribute to safer, sustainable communities better able to prepare, respond to and withstand the effects of bushfires. The specific objective of the programme is to enhance the effectiveness of fire trail networks and as a result increase the:
Safety of fire fighting personnel involved in a fire suppression effort;
Rapidity with which fire suppression agencies are able to access a fire; and
Type of resources that can safely be made available to a fire suppression effort.
The programme is administered by the Australian Government Department of Transport and Regional Services. “
.
[Again, no answer was received from ConSoc.]
.
‘Six Foot Track Abused’
[Published by the editor in the Blue Mountains Gazette, 31st August 2005, page 12].
.
The June bulldozing or grading of the Six Foot Track near Megalong Creek was not only wrong, unnecessary and excessive; it breached the statutory provisions of the Crown Lands Act 1989 under Crown Lands (General Reserves) Bylaw 2001, which prescribes rules for the Track’s environmental protection, heritage and public recreation.
For instance, By-law 23 (2) (n) prohibits conduct in the reserve involving defacing or removing or disturbing any rock, sand, soil, stone or similar substance. It appears no written consent was provided by the Trustee of the Six Foot Track Heritage Trust to the RFS.
The bulldozing also breached the Six Foot Track Conservation and Management Plan of 1997 (two volumes totalling 279 pages). Section 2.1.1 prescribes the need for ecologically sustainable development principles to be followed for all management and planning associated with the Track. Bulldozing or grading is not ecologically sustainable. Policy Statement (7.2) (d) states that the physical elements of the Track including examples of the original alignment, works and sites of Aboriginal and European significance and remnant stands of vegetation should be retained and conserved wherever possible. Numerous threatened species of flora and fauna are recorded as likely present in the Six Foot Tack environs and are listed in Volume I of the Plan. The Plan also states at Section 8.2.5 that “Where development consent is not required an environmental impact statement should be undertaken where there is likely to be an adverse impact on the environment.”
The Plan proposes the following general management objectives for the Six Foot Track:
(1) To ensure that all management decisions fully recognise the considerable cultural and heritage significance of the Six Foot Track
(2) To seek to recover and retain the Track’s original character by the preservation and restoration of identified sites and Track features.
.
.
Reader feedback at the time:
.
.
.
RFS Strategy Misguided
[Published by the editor in the Blue Mountains Gazette, 5th October 2005]
It has been revealed that the June bulldozing or grading of the Six Foot Track near Megalong Creek was a mere drop in the RFS Bushfire Mitigation Programme. Across the Blue Mountains, some twenty natural reserves including the Six Foot Track were targeted under the RFS 2004-05 fire trail strategy – Edith Falls, McMahons Point, Back Creek Cripple Creek plus some 95 hectares inside our National Park. According to the federal Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS) website, $151,195 was granted to the RFS in the Blue Mountains alone, bulldozing 144 hectares of bush in the name of “addressing bushfire mitigation risk priorities.”
The Six Foot Track Conservation and Management Plan 1997, Vol II lists numerous vulnerable species of fauna recorded near Megalong Creek – the Glossy Black-Cockatoo (Clyptorhynchus lathami), Giant Burrowing Frog (Heleioporus australiacus), Spotted-tailed Quoll (Dasyurus maculatus). The RFS contractors wouldn’t have had a clue if they were within 100 metres or 1 metre of rare, vulnerable or threatened species.
The RFS is not exempt from destroying important ecological habitat; rather it is required to have regard to the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD). Yet the RFS policy on hazard reduction is woefully loose on the ‘Bushfire Co-ordinating Committee Policy 2/03’ on ESD – advocating protection of environmental values and ensuring that ESD commitments are adopted and adhered to by contractors. Experience now confirms this policy is nothing more than ‘green-washing’.
The critical value of dedicated RFS volunteer fire-fighters fighting fires is without question. What deserves questioning is the unsustainable response of the RFS ‘old guard’ to fire trails and hazard reduction with token regard for sensitive habitat. Repeated bushfire research confirms that bushfires are mostly now caused by arson and that the prevalence of property damage is a result of more residential communities encroaching upon bushland.
.
.
Reader feedback at the time:
.
.
Aftermath
.
Following the above publicity and the on site survey of the grading damage by Andrew Scott on behalf of the trustee (Department of Lands -Soil Conservation Service), soil remediation of the Six Foot Track was carried out later in 2005 at a taxpayer cost estimated at $27,000. The RFS has continued to contract out its grading of thousands of kilometres of fire trails across New South Wales, federally funded by the Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS). In 2008, DOTARS ceased online publishing the details of its funded fire trails activities.
The Blue Mountains Conservation Society Land Use Subcommittee (LUC) effectively ostracised the editor from all LUC meeting notifications, minutes and communications despite the editor emailing repeated requests for inclusion (all records remain on file). The logical conclusion drawn from this action is that due to the involvement by key influential members of ConSoc with the local Rural Fire Service and Blue Mountains Council’s Blue Mountains Bushfire Management Committee a conflict of interest existed in which the vested interest of the latter held sway. The Land Use Officer subsequently joined Blue Mountains Council. The editor (as Honorary Director) was also reprimanded by the Director of the Colong Foundation for Wilderness for taking a principled stand against ConSoc’s condoning of damaging bushfire management practices.
This issue has become a regrettable chapter in one’s exposure to questionable principles of the NSW conservation movement. On 19th January 2009, on principle the editor resigned from both ConSoc and the Colong Foundation for Wilderness to embark on designing an independent voice in The Habitat Advocate website. In November 2010, the editor renewed his membership with the Colong Foundation for Wilderness.
For United Nations credibility, Cancun had to be better than the Copenhagen shemozzle. Remember when US President Obama’s last minute token promise failed because he hadn’t secured a US Congress mandate.
A memorandum of understanding between the ‘have’ nations and the ‘have not’ nations seems to be a follow-the leader approach to dealing with human-caused climate change – aka ‘pollution’ rebranded. Problem is the responsible leader, the United States is AWOL, delusional that its 20th Century economics can restore its capital prowess in our 21st Century society.
Assuming global warming is real and being caused by human carbon emissions, the overarching aim of the United Nations is to reduce carbon emissions and so minimise global warming and its consequential problems of sea-level rise, mass extinctions and associated climate catastrophes – droughts, floods, heatwaves, massive storms and exponential human misery.
Toward this ideal, COP16 has been the 16th annual Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP) and the 6th Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP). This year COP16 was hosted in Cancun, Mexico.
So what was the outcome of the conference this time around?
Well, according a summary by The Climate Institute the delegate at COP16 broadly accepted the ‘Cancun Agreement‘ on 14th December 2010. Three important areas of achievement should be noted:
Anchoring of national mitigation commitments: formal recognition and ‘anchoring’ of existing pollution targets and commitments from all major polluting countries, covering around 80 per cent of global emissions. This is the first time pollution commitments from US, China and all other major economies (both developed and developing) have been captured in a formal UN agreement.
New ‘Green Climate Fund’: agreement to establish a new fund to help mobilise US$100 billion a year by 2020 to support low pollution economic development; protecting tropical forests and helping the world’s most vulnerable people build resilience to change impacts. However, there was no decision on how to raise the public and private money for this fund.
Improved transparency: measures to improve transparency and verification of domestic efforts to reduce pollution, including a process for international review of countries’ actions by technical experts.
.
According to Greenpeace, “the talks did not deliver a global climate deal but have placed the building blocks for that strong deal to be created.” There are acknowledgements of the gap between commitments on emissions cuts and scientific evidence, the establishment of a climate fund and an agreement on REDD [United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries].
However, we are still missing the actual commitments on lower emissions, a way to deliver that climate fund and some critical parts of the REDD agreement to make it a strong one. Now we must continue to demand our leaders redouble their efforts to drive change at home.
So in other words, nations are gradually coming around to the climate change problem, but still a bit slow working out what to do. They’re getting there.
There are positive signs of progress, and moreso than the token promises by the United States like at Copenhagen. For instance, there is at least now general agreement that greater pollution reduction effort is required. There are sources of financing by the World Bank to make this happen. There are now common accounting rules, and a legal framework.
Tangible promises have also been committed by Mexico, the host nation of this year’s conference, including a promise to reduce 51 million tons of CO₂ in 2012, securing a US$500 million loan with the World Bank to finance technological assistance and increase scientific knowledge in relation with current sources of emissions and carbon sinks. Mexico has also promised to ensure that in 2012, 26% of the electricity produced will come from renewable sources. Mexico will also receive US$15 million from the Norwegian government to reduce emissions through soil conservation and reforestation.
While the worst polluter and most conspicuous carbon consumer, the United States, has been AWOL and navel-gazing; this time China has promised to cut 45% of its greenhouse gases by 2020.
However, the conference has not been without its criticism. The editor of the Sydney Morning Herald makes the following observations:
“There are no binding targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and the world is not on course yet to avoid the worst climate change scenarios. Developed and developing countries still cannot agree to concerted action, developing countries arguing they should not have to bear an equal burden, because they have not had polluting industries as long, or on the same scale, as the developed world.
The US and China are still circling each other warily, and (President) Obama is now forced to negotiate any agreement through a Congress that, following the midterm elections, will contain significantly increased numbers of climate-change sceptics and Sinophobes.”
It’s all happening one year at a time. Next year’s conference will be in Durban, South Africa.
In between, some individual countries are already moving unilaterally. May be the United States could show some leadership next round; dare this mean Republican warmongers pulling back from high carbon- intensive imperial war games in Afghanistan and Korea!
The U.S.S. George Washington has left its home port and is sailing to the Korean Peninsula. (Please not again)
The Aircraft Carrier, with 75 fighter aircraft and 6000 Sailors and Marines will be participating in exercises in the region. What will be the carbon footprint of this ego? Meanwhile, North Korea said on Friday it would strike again at the South if a live-fire drill by Seoul on a disputed island went ahead, with an even stronger response than last month’s shelling that killed four people. The North had said its November shelling was a response to South Korean “provocations” after an artillery battery on the island fired in what Seoul said was a routine drill.
<<The Murray-Darling Basin draft plan is riddled with holes and should not be used as a guide to save the ailing river system, the nation’s peak farming lobby says.
The National Farmers Federation released its submission to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority‘s draft proposals today.
The submission coincides with a meeting of the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council in Albury.
The NFF argues that the draft plan is “fundamentally flawed” and needs to be dumped in place of more detailed research and infrastructure spending.
It wants a more collaborative approach between environmentalists, communities, and the agriculture industry to develop better environmental targets.
“We want to get the balance with the environment right, it is critically important to the communities that that happens,” NFF president Jock Laurie told ABC Radio today.
“I don’t believe you can deliver … without the communities working as part of the process [alongside] agriculture and environmentalists.
“They all need to work together to deliver .. and get that balance right.”>>
<<The federal and state governments must stand firm on developing a robust Murray-Darling Basin plan to fix over-allocation and salinity, and ensure water security, South Australia’s River Murray Minister Paul Caica says.
The minister is attending a Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council meeting in Albury today, where he will seek to ensure the basin plan remains on track to deliver a functioning healthy river system.
Mr Caica said in a statement the plan must restore environmental values and provide for viable and productive industries and communities into the future.
“The development of a robust basin plan provides a once in a lifetime opportunity to address over-allocation, manage salinity issues and achieve improved environmental and water security across the basin and we cannot let this opportunity go,” he said.
“There is no doubt the launch of the guide could have been handled better, but equally, some of the reactions to the guide have also been overblown and we must be careful not to let this distract us, or weaken our resolve to deliver this important reform.”
Mr Caica said the the Murray-Darling Basin was a complex system undergoing a challenging reform that had not been done anywhere in the world at this scale.
“We can only succeed in this very challenging task by working together,” he said.>>
<<AN EXTRA $5 billion could be needed to achieve the controversial reforms to the Murray-Darling River system, according to one of the nation’s top water market firms.
Broking firm Waterfind has also warned that a conflict of interest exists so long as the federal government is the biggest buyer in a water market which it ultimately controls.
Waterfind analysed progress on the Murray-Darling reforms in its annual report and found the government’s existing $8.9 billion spend would not secure enough water to reach the minimums sought in October’s Guide to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.
The guide said that a minimum of 3000 billion litres needed to be returned to the river, but Waterfind estimated the government’s $8.9 billion would only yield about 2500 billion litres.
If government buybacks of farmers’ water continued at the prices paid to date, Waterfind estimated an extra $1.6 billion would be needed to reach the 3000 billion litres minimum.
Returning 4000 billion litres to the river, as many environmental groups have requested, would cost an extra $5 billion according to Waterfind’s estimates, which the report said were ”conservative in the extreme”.
The Gillard government has previously acknowledged their spending may not be enough to satisfy the basin plan, and the government has promised to spend whatever is necessary to meet the requirements of the plan.
Waterfind also reported that government buybacks had so far deflated the price of water in the Murray-Darling.
The report said Australia boasted the world’s most advanced water market, yet it was still undermined by arrangements which made the federal Water Minister both a buyer and regulator of market.>>
Burnt Blue Gum Forest
[Photo by Nick Moir, Sydney Morning Herald, 20-Dec-2006]
.
The catastrophic Grose Valley wildfire in the Blue Mountains between 13th Nov to 3rd Dec 2006 destroyed 14,070 hectares of high conservation value bushland in and around the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area including raging through the ecologically sacred Blue Gum Forest, regarded as the ‘birth of conservation‘ in Australia.
No one has since tried to estimate the loss of fauna, not even the National Parks and Wildlife Service charged with protecting this World Heritage.
Walking through the Grose Valley now no native animals can be seen because they are probably now locally extinct.
In the days that followed came natural human responses from many:
a mix of wanting to know what happened and why
of questioning the response
of questioning the delay in putting out those early fires
why the massive back burning that itself become more of a threat to property at Blackheath
to operational judgment and decision making
to over-ruling interference from bushfire command
to communications problems
why the precious Grose Valley was not defended?
to value judgments that reduced National Park values to a hazard reduction opportunity
why was the Zig Zag Railway station fire bombed during the operations?
why was hazard reduction along Hartley Vale Road initiated at the time?
Did it in fact get out of control, cross the Darling Causeway and become he main fire front contributing to the conflagration of 23rd November?
why were many volunteers too scared to come forward to tell the truth at the time ?
was bushfire management culture that intimidating?
.
The bushfire management authorities – the NPWS, RFS, NSW Fire Brigade and the Blue Mountains City Council convened an ‘internal review’ into the Grose Fire(s) at Katoomba on 17th December 2006 . The public were not invited nor permitted to attend. There were no publicised minutes nor notes nor action items.
.
Burning Issues / Fire and the Future
.
A number of concerned residents (143 to be exact) from Blackheath and across the Upper Blue Mountains met and drafted an open letter in the local Blue Mountains Gazette newspaper.
It’s final draft of 29-Nov-2006 read as follows:
.
‘As long-term residents we are very familiar with the serious bush fire threat in the Blue Mountains. Fire will continue to be a part of the local environment and residents’ lives.
We gratefully acknowledge the efforts of everybody involved in working to control the recent Grose Valley fire – the volunteers, professionals and all agencies. We note that the overall Grose Valley fire operation was successful in protecting the community, that there have been many improvements in fire management and that no fire operation can be perfect.
We also love the World Heritage bushland in which we are so lucky to live. As a community we have undertaken an obligation to protect this unique World Heritage area and to manage it in a truly sustainable way for future generations.
The Grose Valley fire has highlighted some major fire management concerns for residents, the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and its fragile ecosystems.
Backburning
Fire suppression is a very complex and challenging task where judgments have to be made in what can be very difficult circumstances. Backburning can be one of those choices. We support well-planned backburning and appreciate that it can be a very useful tool.
However, we are concerned that large-scale backburning in severe fire weather can also be a highly dangerous option, spreading the fire, placing more lives at risk, swelling costs and causing wider damage to property and the environment.
Local involvement
Local knowledge and experience are vital to efficient and effective fire strategies and operations. Local volunteers and others should be given the involvement and support they deserve during fire events. The generosity of volunteers should be honoured with sound decision-making.
More fire
Large parts of the Grose Valley have now been burnt three times in 13 years and four times in 24 years. Most of these fires have been of human origin. The ecosystems cannot sustain such frequent fire without damage. This time the beautiful Blue Gum Forest has felt the full brunt of the crisis with the understorey and much of the tree canopy burnt.
Research and recent experience shows that severe fires are happening more often. If we don’t learn how to manage fires better in this landscape there will be increased threat to local communities and dire consequences for Blue Mountains ecosystems.
Cost
It has been stated that the cost of aircraft alone was $500,000 a day during the Grose Valley fire. The final cost will be at least $10 million – without including the ‘hidden’ costs for volunteers. The ongoing cost of the impacts, repairs and restoration will add more. This exceeds the total annual funding for the million-hectare World Heritage Area, and is many times the budget for fire planning and management across the Blue Mountains.
Looking to the future
Lessons can be learned from the Grose Valley fire. We must grasp this opportunity to review what was done, so improvements can continue for the Blue Mountains and other fire-prone areas.
We call on the New South Wales government to:
Undertake a thorough, independent review of the Grose Valley fire, with particular reference to the following points:
whether initial suppression was timely and adequate,
whether resources were used appropriately and supported properly,
whether the strategies adopted were the best available under the circumstances,
whether other strategies of closer containment could have offered lower risk to the community, better firefighter safety, higher probabilities of success, lower costs and less impact on the environment, and
whether the costs were appropriate.
Fund more research for a better understanding of fire in the Blue Mountains landscape and methods for fire mitigation and suppression.
Improve training in strategies for controlling fires in large bushland areas.
Improve pre-fire planning to assist decision-making during incidents.
Ensure adequate funding is available for post-fire restoration, including the rehabilitation of critical damage in the World Heritage area.
Improve systems to ensure that local fire planning, knowledge and expertise is fully utilised during incidents, and that the protection of the natural and cultural values of World Heritage areas and other heritage assets are fully considered.
It’s easy to breathe a sigh of relief and just be grateful that it’s all over. That would be a mistake – because there will be a next time, perhaps sooner than we all hope.
Supported by the following citizens of the Blue Mountains’.
(143 citizens names were listed)
.
.
Blue Gum Lessons
On 20-Dec-2006, the Editor published a letter to the editor in the local Blue Mountains Gazette as follows:
“One of our most precious natural heritage assets, the Blue Gum Forest, has been allowed to be scorched by bushfire. This demands an independent enquiry into current fire fighting practices to ensure such a tragedy is not repeated.
Not a witch hunt, but what is needed is a constructive revision into improving bushfire fighting methods incorporating current research into the issue. The intensity and frequency of bushfires have become more prevalent due to disturbances by man, including climate change.
An enquiry should consider the assets worth saving; not just lives, homes and property but natural assets of the World Heritage Area. Fire fighting methods should seek to protect all these values. It seems back-burning, however well-intentioned, burnt out the Blue Gum. This is unacceptable. What went wrong? The future survival of our forests depends on how we manage fire.”
.
.
Official Report by the Rural Fire Service of the Grose Valley Fire(s)
On 8-Feb-2007, RFS SuperIntendent Mal Cronstedt, released his official report into the fire. It conspicuously avoided detail and explanation of events from the first ignition on 13th November to 14th November inclusive. Instead, his report starts on Wednesday 15th November 2006.
A copy of the report entitled Lawsons Long Alley Section 44 Report, dated 8-Feb-07 may be viewed in the Habitat Reference Library, GoTo Ref. HT010005
.
.
Grose Valley Fire Forum
On Saturday, 17th February 2007, the Grose Valley Fire Forum was held at Mt Tomah Botanical Gardens in the Blue Mountains not far from the Grose Valley. It was attended by bushfire industry representatives and selected others. Again the public was not invited. On 8th March 2006, a progress report was received by the Editor from the Blue Mountains World Heritage Institute (BMWHI) . It included some 52 follow up recommended actions in relation to bushfire management in response to the Grose Fires. The Editor at the time contributed feedback to this report to the BMWHI ahead of the report’s public release. However, no response was ever received back from the BMWHI and none of the fedback information was included in the final report. It was a politically convenient white wash.
A copy of the ‘Grose Valley Fire Forum Report [Final]’ dated 2-Apr-07, may be viewed in the Habitat Reference Library, GoTo Ref. HT010006.
.
.
Contributory Input to the Progress Report of the Grose Valley Fire Forum
The following report was submitted by The Habitat Advocate to the Blue Mountains World Heritage Institute co-ordinating the bushfire management review process. Progress Report extracts are shown in bold black text.
No response was ever received.
Lawson’s Long Alley Fire taken probably Tuesday 14-Nov-06 shown heading up Fairy Dell Creek toward the Darling Causeway (left of photo) east of an abandoned shack. On ground evidence just weeks afterwards confirmed the fire was hazard reduction.
[from Progress Report] “In November 2006, fire caused by lightning strikes burnt a significant area of the Grose Valley in the upper Blue Mountains of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area (GBMWHA). Like many areas throughout the GBMWHA, the Grose Valley is an area of high natural and cultural value, including the iconic Blue Gum Forest. The two original ignitions were designated as the Burrakorain Fire and the Lawson’s Long Alley Fire, and they came jointly under the jurisdiction of an emergency declaration under Section 44 of the Rural Fires Act.”
[Habitat Advocate:1] An assumed but unverified lightning strike on Monday 13th November 2006 in the vicinity of Lawson’s Long Alley and a second presumed lightning strike on the eastern end of Burra Korain Ridge that same day, sparked what has become known as the Grose Fire of 2006 (s44 Report, p1).
[Habitat Advocate:2] The following report on the RFS website 17-Nov-06 is pertinent: “Dubbed the “Lawsons Long Alley Fire”, the main fire started on Tuesday afternoon near Hartley Vale, in the Lithgow District, and quickly spread up to the Darling Causeway – blown by strong westerly winds – and has now burned out around 1,370 hectares. A second fire, known as “Burra Korain Fire” is burning to the north of Blackheath and covering an area of approximately 100 hectares.”
[Habitat Advocate:3] The Bureau of Meteorology rainfall records show that the Mt Boyce weather station (situated 4km to the south west of Lawson’s Long Alley) shows no rainfall occurring on the reported date of ignition of this fire. [Refer Appendix 2] Dry lightning has been used as the presumed cause. However, ground truthing conducted by the author 22-Sep-07 still provides evidence of clearly delineated prescribed burning around an abandoned shack, her the fire was purportedly really started. The weather conditions on Saturday11th, Sunday 12th a Monday 13th November 2006 were conducive to hazard reduction burning. The maximum temperature was a mild 16-21 degrees Celsius and winds speeds were below 40kph. Given that Mt Boyce is situated at high altitude, the likely wind speed down near Hartley Vale would have been far less.
[Habitat Advocate:4] Two days later on 15th November a Section 44 incident declaration was made by the fire authorities. (s44 Report, p1). Two weeks later on Monday 27th November, some 14,470 hectares had been burnt, caused by both the escalated burning of the two wildfires and considerable front-burning and back-burning by the fire authorities. (s44 Report, p10).
.
“Community members called on the State Government to undertake a thorough and independent review of the management of this fire, involving all stakeholders.”
[Habitat Advocate:5] This statement seems to be a quote sourced from a statement by local resident, Ian Brown, in a local Gazette newspaper article by journalist Shane Desiatnik of 7-Feb-07 headed ‘Pollies fan the flames’. Brown was one of 143 residents who first called for an independent review of the bushfire.
[Habitat Advocate:6] Other members of the community, the author included, following the Grose Fire called on the State Government to undertake a public and independent review of the management of this fire, involving all stakeholders. The justification for this call was on the fact the burnt Grose Valley and its rare Blue Gum Forest are natural public assets and the fire authorities responsible and accountable for quelling the fire are entirely publicly funded. So any justification for denying public accountability has no merit. The fire response was a public operation that went wrong and the public has a right to know why and to be reassured that systemic changes are being put in place to safeguard against a similar recurrence in the Grose or elsewhere in the Blue Mountains region.
.
“Principal among the issues raised by the concerned residents were backburning, impacts of frequent fires, under-utilisation of local expertise, and economic costs. The community members also called for adequate funding for rehabilitation and environmental restoration works, to conduct more research and training in certain areas of fire management, to improve pre-fire planning and to develop management systems to better capture and utilise local knowledge.
Local Member for the Blue Mountains and Minister for the Environment, Hon. Bob Debus responded to these concerns by proposing that community members be given an opportunity to discuss their concerns with fire authorities and be encouraged to contribute to the development of revised fire management strategies, policies and procedures which may arise from the routine internal reviews of the 2006-07 fire season, and particularly the Grose Valley fire.”
[Habitat Advocate:7] Records show that in fact six community meetings were convened by the fire authorities in December at various locations around the mountains to discuss the fire operation [see Appendix 1]. This information has only recently become available to the author. However, the opportunity for community members to contribute to the development of revised fire management strategies, policies and procedures has still not been provided.
[Habitat Advocate:8] On 20-Dec-06 in the local Blue Mountains Gazette it was reported that: “An interagency debriefing will be conducted on December 19 to assess the response to the fire. Commissioner Koperberg expressed hope that lessons ill emerge as part of the service’s objective of continuous improvement.” The public were denied access to this debriefing and subsequent requests for minutes or a report of that meeting by the author to the Katoomba RFS and to RFS Headquarters at Homebush have received replies that none exist.
.
“The Minister also noted the opportunity for the community to be informed of, and contribute to, the development of future research projects concerning climate change and fire regimes.”
[Habitat Advocate:9] Then NSW Environment Minister Bob Debus MP placed a public notice in the Gazette shortly after the fire notifying the Blue Mountains community that a follow up review process into the Grose Fire would be undertaken.
.
“The Minister invited the Blue Mountains World Heritage Institute (BMWHI) to organise and chair a forum of representative community members and fire authorities.”
[Habitat Advocate:10] The Mt Tomah forum was closed to the members of the public from attending. Bob Debus is quoted in the BMG 20-Dec-06 in rejecting the need for an independent inquiry on the basis that “that would inescapably create the public perception of an investigation into significant operational or strategic failure on the part of fire-fighting agencies.” Environmentally it would be fair to argue that that is exactly what happened. Debus continued with a less committed stance, stating “there is every good reason to encourage dialogue between the agencies and the community to increase understanding and further development of fire-fighting methods.”
.
“The Institute is an independent non-profit organisation that supports the conservation of the natural and cultural heritage of the GBMWHA, with a key objective to “support the integration of science, management and policy within and adjoining the GBMWHA properties.” The purpose of the forum was to:
• Brief the community on the management of the Grose Valley fire and the framework and context for the management of fire generally within the World Heritage Area”;
[Habitat Advocate:11] How could this have been possible when members of the general public were denied access to the forum?
.
• “Identify any issues that relate specifically to the management of the Grose Valley fire, and that haven’t already been captured and/or responded to within the s.44 debrief report”;
[Habitat Advocate:12] A prerequisite of the forum proceeding ought to have been the provision of the s.44 Incident Controllers Report [dated 8-Feb-07] to all forum participants. Indeed, propriety ought to have insisted that this official summary report into a major fire affecting public land should have been made available on the RFS’ own website once endorsed by RFS Head Office. There is no detail in this report, such as issues of privacy or confidentiality that would have prevented the report’s timely release. The benefit of releasing the report to forum participants is that in doing so it would have armed participants with knowledge about the specific events, actions and issues pertinent to the Grose Fire.
[Habitat Advocate:13] Many in the community, however, consider the main reason for the report not being released was politically motivated. It is likely that its release would have caused adverse publicity to the chances of the RFS Commissioner, Phil Koperberg, (who assumed ultimate responsibility for the Grose Fire) in his nomination for the seat of Blue Mountains in NSW State Election held just weeks later on 24 March 2007.
.
• “Identify longer term and landscape scale issues relating to the management of fire in the Greater Blue Mountains WHA, particularly in this time of climate change;
• Develop an action plan, which responds to any unresolved issues identified above. In accordance with the Minister’s (Debus) brief, the following organisations were represented at the forum:
1 NSW Dept of Environment and Conservation;
2 NSW Rural Fire Service; Blue Mountains Conservation Society;
3 Nature Conservation Council of NSW;
4 Blue Mountains City Council;
5 NPWS Regional Advisory;
6 Committee and the GBMWHA Advisory Committee.”
[Habitat Advocate:14] Additional participants of the forum as listed in Table 1.1 on page 10 included Professor Ross Bradstock of the Centre for Environmental Risk Management of Bushfires, University of Wollongong and Carol Cooper, a local indigenous woman, her performed a welcome to country ceremony and which was listed as an observer. Professor Bradstock is a keen supporter of the risk management policy and practices of fire management, that is ‘hazard’ reduction. The fire authorities have relied upon Professor Bradstock’s advice over the past number of years. It could be that some of his research funding has been provided by the RFS. It could be fairly deduced that Professor Bradstock is a strong supporter of the RFS and the fire authorities.
[Habitat Advocate:15] More impartial and detached views ought to have been sought to participate in the Mt Tomah forum, for instance from independent academics with expertise on fire ecology. Possible inclusions could have been:
Kevin O’Loughlin, CEO of Bushfire Group Research Centre (CRC)
Dr Kevin Tolhurst, Fire Ecologist at the University of Melbourne
Dr Kevin Hennesy, Climate Impact & Risk Group, CSIRO
Prof. Andy Pittman, Environmental Life Sciences, Macquarie University
Phil Cheney, Honorary Research Scientist and fire expert, CSIRO
Prof. David Lindenmayer, Centre for Research and Environmental Studies, ANU
Each of these people provided valuable contributions in the ABC television Four Corners documentary ‘FireStorm’ hosted by Quentin McDermott, which went to air on 5 March 2007. It would be helpful to watch this doumentatry and to make contact with these people to gain further insight into fire ecology and fire research. In addition, local fire ecologist, Nic Gellie, who wrote a well-informed critique of the management of the Grose Fire in the local Gazette, ought to have been included in the forum.
[Habitat Advocate:16] It is disappointing that Carol Cooper was only invited as an observer. An invitation to participate in the forum ought to have been made to members of the local indigenous people, who have a direct cultural connection to the Blue Mountains, namely the Gundungurra, Dharug and Wiradjuri.[1]
[Habitat Advocate:17] Otherwise, each of the above organisations is in one way or another a member of the Inter-Agency group responsible for fighting the Grose Fire. The GBMWHAC is a BMCC committee. The invited participants were members of organisations pre-selected by Bob Debus. So effectively this set up the forum as a closed shop of the protagonists. How could it then possible be expected to meet expectations of the community, with the community denied access and participation? The forum failed on any test of independence, public access, public accountability and transparency. No wonder “the plan of action risks not being practical or achievable.”
“A list of the participants is shown in Table 1.1. In addition to senior representatives of the agencies involved, representatives also came from the principal community-based organisations that had expressed concern and called for a review process. It should be noted that one of the main public calls for a review was made by an informal coalition of residents that was not formally represented at the forum, but a number of these residents were members of those organisations represented.”
[Habitat Advocate:18] The only members of that informal coalition of residents that were listed as participants of the forum were members of the Blue Mountains Conservation Society (a member organisation of the fire ‘inter-agencies’ and which is also a member organisation of the Blue Mountains Bushfire Management Committee. Those particpants were Ian Brown, Dr Brian Marshall, Don Cameron
[Habitat Advocate:19] A one-day forum was never going to allow sufficient time to properly hear and debate the gamut of issues raised, nor to mould achievable actions for future improvement to local fire management. Allowing for the introductions and breaks the agenda indicated that about 5 hours was allocated to achieve all this. How ‘enormous ground’ was gained within this forum is questionable. Much after work appears to have been done to enable the many issues and actions to be documented in so much detail.
[Habitat Advocate:20] It is not surprising that the intentions “collective” given the like minded mix of participants coming rom the one side of the table.
[Habitat Advocate:21] Possibly one of the more intangible yet most enduring impacts of the Grose Fire that was not covered at the Mt Tomah forum has been the significant damage caused to the reputation of the RFS and the level of trust it has in the eyes of many in the community. The negative publicity in the local Gazette newspaper by local letter writers invited very defensive public responses from RFS management and crew alike. There was also a noticeable increase in the positive advertising and articles on the RFS in the Gazette throughout 2007. This negative publicity must have had noticeable consequences on the RFS in terms of morale, membership retention and ongoing recruitment. This is a vitally important issue that deserves appropriate but sensitive discussion.
[Habitat Advocate:22] Refer to Appendix 3 below for quoted extracts of letters in the local Blue Mountains Gazette newspaper that either challenged the fire authorities in its management of the Grose Fire or else vehemently defended the RFS and its volunteer fire fighters. The community became polarised on this subject, with few correspondents offering a middle ground perspective. The comments provided in these letters and articles should be factored into the review into the Grose Fire. The author has collected nearly all letters and articles published in the Gazette newspaper on the subject of fire management since 2002.
.
.
.
APPENDIX 1: Copy of a public notice issued by the RFS on its website Saturday 2 Dec-2007 calling for a series of community informational meetings into the Grose Fire.
[Editor’s note: No minutes, notes or actions have been publicly released as a result of these forums.]
“Following the recent bushfire activity in the Blue Mountains and Lithgow Districts, a series of Community Meetings will be held several locations throughout the Mountains.
The purpose of these meetings is to:
Operations:
• Provide an overview of what happened and didn’t happen
• Detail what was done and what wasn’t done, and why.
Community Liaison and Public Information:
• Provide information on the Community Liaison process,
• Obtain feedback from you, our community, on how well we did it this time and how we might be able to do it better in the future,
Recovery:
• Explain what is going to happen in the coming days and weeks,
• Provide details of who to contact if you need assistance,
• Provide information on what we can do, as a community, in the future
Our overall Aim is:
Better integration between emergency services and the community.
Who will be attending:
• Your local fire brigade members, officers and Group Officers
• Members of the Community Liaison Team
• Members of the Incident Management Team
• Representatives from the Rural Fire Service
• NSW Fire Brigades
• National Parks and Wildlife Service
• Blue Mountains City Council.
Who should attend:
• Community members directly or indirectly affected by the recent bushfire
activity,
• Community members who want to know what happened and why,
• Community members who would like to obtain information about how to
prepare for bushfires.
Remember — This is only the start of the bushfire season, not the end of it. Now is not the time to become complacent or to think that it won’t happen again this summer.
For information about preparing your home, or to make a written bushfire action plan, visit our website: www.bluemountains.rfs.nsw.gov.au or call 02 4782 2159 during business hours.
Date and Time
Location
Thursday, 7 Dec @ 7:30pm
Winmalee Rural Fire Station, Cnr Coramandel Ave & Hawkesbury Rd
Friday, 8 Dec @ 7:30pm
Leura Golf Club, Sublime Point Rd Leura (Opp. Fairmont Resort)
Saturday, 9 Dec @ 10:30am
Mt Tomah Rural Fire Station, Charleys Rd, Mt Tomah
Saturday, 9 Dec @ 3:00pm
Clarence Rural Fire Station, Chifley Rd
Saturday, 9 Dec @ 7:30pm
Blackheath Golf Club, Brightlands Ave
Sunday, 10 Dec @ 10:00am
Faulconbridge Rural Fire Station, Railway Pde
These meetings are being facilitated by the Community Safety Group of the Blue Mountains Bush Fire Management Committee. For further enquiries, please call 02 4782 2159 during business hours, Mon-Fri.”
Inspector Eric J Berry JP, Community Safety Officer
APPENDIX 3: Selected quoted accounts of letters in the Blue Mountain Gazette newspaper [BMG]
.
Noticeably, the contributors were either decidedly critical of the handling of the Grose Fire, or otherwise vehemently defensive of the RFS organisation and its volunteers.
.
‘The burning alternative’
[BMG 13-Dec-06]
(Extracts only below due to the article being nearly 1000 words)
“…Tragically, the lack of resourcing of the initial attack with helicopters and remote area crews in the first two days of the fire contributed to the expansion of the fire area. A well directed initial attack may well have avoided the huge cost of later suppression – and the damage to heritage values that we must now count.
Hopefully a truly independent inquiry will soon enough tell us what really happened in the Blue Mountains…”
“…During dry thunderstorms on the afternoon of the 13th November, lightning started a fire near Burrakorain head in the Grose Valley. Helicopters and remote area crews were deployed to contain the fire. A day later*, a separate fire, cause unknown, spread up to the Darling Causeway and spotted across the road into the Grose Valley and the national park, about 2 kilometres east of its source.
Because of the failure to suppress the spot-overs on the Darling Causeway and the remote lightning strike, it was decided to burn out the Upper Grose valley and enlarge the fire area.”
“…Management of a World Heritage area or national park must be based on a sound set of fire risk principles that protect the natural and cultural assets of the park system, as well as adjoining human assets. Whether it is Kosciusko, the Wollemi of the Blue Mountains, our parks are suffering. And potentially fire fighters, people and property are being put at greater risk as a result of a ‘back-burning’ dominated strategy at times when the weather is urging caution.”
“Frustratingly there is an alternative – …During periods of dry thunderstorms and forecast extreme fire weather, we went on high alert and put out lightning started fires immediatey with direct attack using remote area crews and helicopters.
To succeed, you need a knowledge support system based on a detailed understanding of the park’s landscapes, biota, fire spread, and historical and current fire weather. With this, you can develop fire strategies that minimise risk to both nature’s and people’s assets.
“…To implement this new approach, we need teams of people, including volunteers, trained to manage our fire-prone landscapes more effectively. These people should come from a range of scientific and cultural backgrounds, with close knowledge of biodiversity, heritage and community values.”
Nicholas Gellie is a fire ecologist an former fire manager with 30 years experience with various agencies, including the NSW NPWS. He is currently completing a MSc thesis at the ANU on the topic of ‘Exposure of the ACT region to severe drought, fire weather and lightning ignition’.
*[This account differs from the Secton 44 Report that states the Lawson Long Alley fire started on the same day.]
.
‘Job well done’
[BMG 13-Dec-06]
“Now that things have calmed down on the local fire front, I would like to convey my thanks to the local community and its fire-fighters for a job well done.
Volunteer firefighters of the RFS, together with colleagues from the New South Wales Fire Brigades and the National Parks and Wildlife Service have spent countless hours over the last weeks protecting our communities.
Their efforts have meant that there has been no private property lost, no people hurt and the fire’s size has been much less than similar events in past years. Well done everyone.”
SuperIntendent Mal Cronstedt
Blue Mountains RFS.
.
‘Questions on Fire’
[BMG 13-Dec-06]
“Firstly I would like to say how much I admire and appreciate the dedication
of the men and women who work and volunteer in fire-fighting and emergency crews. They spend their precious time and risk their life and limb to keep people and property safe, and they are having a very hard time of it in the Mountains at the moment. They all deserve to be paid a proper wage for their work, and they do not deserve to be put in unnecessary danger.
Secondly I have some questions for those higher up in the chain of command. Why was the fire in the Grose Valley allowed to burn for a week while the weather was cooler and the fire was moving slowly in the undergrowth rather than leaping through the treetops?
Why weren’t enough resources thrown at the problem before the expected weather change?
It seems as if there is a policy of allowing our national parks to burn, in fact the situation seems to have been used as an excuse for the backburning which increased the fire front which now threatens people and homes.
Our national park is also our property and is a home for many species, it is also an important tourist attraction in the Blue Mountains. It is not good fire or resource management to let our Blue Mountains National Park burn.”
“The Rural Fire Service commissioner Phil Koperberg has stood firm against calls for an independent review of last month’s Grose Valley bushfire, rejecting claims backburning intensified the fire threat.
His defence of the fire fighting effort has been strongly backed by the State Government with Blue Mountains MP Bob Debus criticising local rumours that backburning got “out of control”.
Political heat over the bushfires started last week when more than 140 Blue Mountains residents took out a full page advertisement in the Blue Mountains Gazette calling for an independent review of the fire. Their concerns were given weight this week when fire ecologist Nic Gellie criticised the fire fighting effort, and Colong Foundation for Wilderness director Keith Muir called for an independent inquiry…
…The latest criticisms centre on supposedly “out of control” backburning and subsequent damage to the Blue Gum Forest. But Mr Koperberg angrily rejected the claims when he spoke to the Gazette last week. He said the situation would have been much worse if the backburning operations weren’t carried out.
“The reality is this is the first time in half a century that a fire at the head of the Grose did not consume all of the Grose Valley which it would have done if we had not intervened with backburning”, he said. What I would like to know is this – does anyone believe the fire would have gone out if we had not intervened? Well, it wouldn’t have. It would have just went on its merry way and we would have been fighting it in every town and village in the Blue Mountains, and the Grose would have burnt from end to end…”
.
.
Questioning the questioners
Monday, 18 December 2006 BMG
I was interested in the letters in last week’s Gazette questioning the RFS’s approach to the recent Grose fire. In particular I was wondering if Dr. Jackie Janosi and Susan Ambler had, before writing to the Gazette, considered the following questions:
Has the Blue Gum forest burnt before ?
If so how many times in recorded history and how many times prior to white man’s arrival in this country and what was the frequency of fire before and after our arrival?
During previous occasions how intense was the fire ?
If intensities varied from this time why ?
Were the fires prior to the exclusion of cattle from the forest more or less intense ?
Was the lack of hazard reduction in and around the forest a contributing factor to the intensity of the fire ?
Could the forest, and indeed the whole of the Grose Valley, be better managed or is it inevitable that fires will occur in the Grose Valley every 10 – 13 years because fuel levels generally build to a point that will sustain fires that are difficult to control within that time frame ?
If fire is inevitable what should fire authorities set as their prime focus – firefighter safety, protection of people and their assets or protection of the natural assets ?
I put these questions to provide some balance to earlier comments in relation to a complex subject.
Donald Luscombe, Winmalee (RFS)
.
.
‘Blue Gum Lessons’
[BMG 20-Dec-06]
“One of our most precious natural heritage assets, the Blue Gum Forest, has been allowed to be scorched by bushfire. This demands an independent enquiry into current fire fighting practices to ensure such a tragedy is not repeated.
Not a witch hunt, but what is needed is a constructive revision into improving bushfire fighting methods incorporating current research into the issue. The intensity and frequency of bushfires have become more prevalent due to disturbances by man, including climate change.
An enquiry should consider the assets worth saving; not just lives, homes and property but natural assets of the World Heritage Area. Fire fighting methods should seek to protect all these values. It seems back-burning, however well-intentioned, burnt out the Blue Gum. This is unacceptable. What went wrong? The future survival of our forests depends on how we manage fire.”
The Habitat Advocate
.
‘Try blowing it out’
[BMG 20-Dec-06]
“The next time there is a large blaze in the Blue Mountains, perhaps we should get fire-fighters to make a big circle around it and blow it out like a big birthday cake?
That won’t require precious water, expensive air support or back burning. I’m not sure if it would help put the fire out though.
Let’s just allow the real experts to do their jobs, ask the pretend ones to keep their mouths shut and be thankful that this time, we al still have homes to live in.”
Brian Fischer-Giffin, Hazelbrook
.
.
‘Residents repeat call for fire review’
[BMG 14-Feb-07]
“The group of residents who supported the “Fire in the Grose Valley’ statement published in the Blue Mountains Gazette last year [6-12-06] have repeated their call for an independent scientific review.
“We fully support the Rural Fire Service, National Parks and volunteers. We want them backed up with more fire research, funding, planning and training. This is all about a better fire management system for the future,” they said in (their) statement to the Gazette.
“We think independent scientific analysis is critical to achieve this. We feel even more strongly about this now than two months ago. There are many in the community who would like more information and answers to their questions.
“Could the fires have been better contained earlier and kept to a smaller area? Were there enough remote area fire-fighters? Could some of the impacts on the World Heritage Grose Valley have been avoided with better resourcing? Some people think that any fire is ok and it can’t hurt the bush. It’s not true”, said the statement. Frequent fire is listed as an ecologically threat under NSW legislation. And excluding fire is damaging too. The Blue Mountains bush is complex, and each community is adapted to a particular pattern of fire. Surviving animals need time to mature and breed. If the bush burns too often then some plants and animals – perhaps unique to the Blue Mountains – will be eliminated.
“The most constructive approach is to work on flaws in the system that get in the way of best results. We have written to the government outlining the sort of review we would like – a thorough and objective technical review, with community input and feedback – the same as what the Blue Mountains City Council voted to support.
“It has to be constructive and blameless and it should happen routinely after every big fire.”
(Article – probably drafted by Ian Brown, co-ordinator of the informal coalition of residents).
.
.
‘Not buckling’
[BMG 14-Feb-07]
“In reply to Helen Buckle (BMG 7.2.07): the call for an independent review of the 2006 Grose Valley fire being used as a political football lies with responses such as your letter which implies that the purpose of the review is nothing more than an attack on a particular candidate. This narrow approach irresponsibly discourages an ongoing comprehensive evaluation of our responses to major and possible devastating fire events.
The position of councillors who supported the recent motion calling for an independent and public review reflected the opinion of a large number of Blue Mountains residents, including the 143 citizens who called on the State Government to conduct a review by way of a full page statement in this paper on December 6.
To trivialise this issue and groundswell of public opinion as being merely my “own select community of Blue Mountains residents’ is nothing more than a denial of views existing in the community which do not happen to coincide with one’s own.
This is a serious matter which should not be allowed to be sidelined or marginalised because of the particular make-up of the candidacy for the seat of Blue Mountains in the imminent State election. Cheap political shots do nothing for the measured level of consideration which this issue requires.
An independent and publicly accessible review of the fire and our responses, called for at this point in time, can only be held after the election and presumably, to be effective, before the next fire season, i.e., during the winter months. Hopefully, by then, shallow and reactive responses will be exhausted, and a rational and constructive evaluation will allow us to continue to develop effective and efficient strategies for the Mountains, its communities and fire-fighters, in the face of the certainty of large and intense fires in the future.”
Clr Pippa McInnes, Faulconbridge
[Editor: This independent review seems to have been forgotten].
.
.
‘What Really Happened’
[Published BMG 10-Oct-07 under a different heading: [‘RFS resources limited’]
“The official RFS Section 44 Report into last year’s Grose Fire found that “there (were) not sufficient RAFT crews” despite multiple spot fires in difficult terrain and “the likelihood of fire escape during severe fire weather (being) certain.”
“Suspected” dry lightning sparked two ignitions last November on Monday 13, one oddly mapped to a grass paddock within easy fire truck access off Walton’s Road, Hartley Vale. But these fires were “not detected until the following day.” On Tuesday 14, with a gusting westerly and a fire index of 25, numerous spot fires had progressed into steep bushland inaccessible to fire truck crews. Despite it becoming apparent to fire authorities that these fires “would present problems beyond the resources available locally”, the decision to declare a Section 44 escalated response wasn’t taken until Wednesday 15.
Multiple broad-acre backburning became the “fall-back strategies” despite “spot-over” fires occurring “some 12 kilometres distant from the main fire” north of Linden, showing up backburning as ineffectual. A new burn was lit along Hungerford Track inside the Grose and “aerial incendiary” was dropped “north of Blackheath on Sunday 19. An RFS burn south of Bells Line of Road became “a concern” on Wednesday 22 (“blow-up day”) before it coalesced with the wildfires into “a major run” through the Grose Valley. A massive 6km pyro-cumulous cloud developed “visible from much of the Sydney basin”. Some 14,470 hectares of bush habitat had been burnt.
The report documents insufficient aerial support, “deployment was less than satisfactory”, “radio communications (were) poor”, bulldozer contractors were unsupervised and RFS RAFT crew standards “were questioned”.
Lack of early detection resources, of rapid initial suppression and ineffective resource management were inferred as key operational concerns behind the Grose Fire. Surely, fire fighters protecting both community and public assets deserve first class management, resources and funding.”
The Habitat Advocate
=== End of Report ===
References:
[1] Smith (Jim), ‘Wywandy and Therabulat – The Aborigines of the upper Cox River and their association with Hartley and Lithgow’, paper No. 49 originally presented on 22-Oct-1990, ISBN 0 85866 0997.
"We're coming to you from the custodial lands of the Hairygowogulator and Tarantulawollygong, and pay respects to uncle and grandaddy elders past, present and emerging from their burrows. So wise to keep a distance out bush."
Eastern Grey Kangaroos
(Australian Geographic)
Kangaroos around Canberra herded into pens for the slaughter
.. then butchered for packaging into cat and dog food
Photo by Andrew Taylor
[Source: ^http://www.smh.com.au/news/conservation/welfare-groups-outraged-as-kangaroo-cull-starts/2008/05/19/1211182703329.html]
‘A bonobo, most human-like of the great apes, killed for meat’.
© AP, [Source: ‘Illegal bushmeat sold on Paris streets’, AP, The West Australian,20100618,
http://au.news.yahoo.com/odd/a/-/odd/7419656/illegal-bushmeat-sold-on-paris-streets/]
Eastern Grey Kangaroos
Kangaroos are commonly killed to save crops and private property
(Photo by Michael Parsons)
[Source: Australian Geographic magazine, ^http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/dingo-urine-saves-kangaroos-study-says.htm]
