Eastern side of Wilson’s Promontory (coastal Victoria)  near where
the fire started. Photo: John Woudstra

.

I have been monitoring the Jan-Feb 2009 Victorian bushfires from NSW and have turned my attention to the bushfire management in a natural area – Wilsons Promontory.

I note satellite observations of the fire with concern showing the lighting ignition on the east coast started 9th February, but had almost extinguished itself by the 13th. Then a wind change drove it out of control. A week later it has burnt out 22,000 hectares (almost 50% of our precious 50,000ha Prom)!

While the Country Fire Authority (CFA) has paid special attention to non-imminent bushfire risks to rather distant private property. The CFA says “the fire does not currently pose a threat to the Yanakie community.” Backburning the Prom is given as the only bushfire response strategy. So do we interpret this as a noncommittal response by the CFA for the Prom – that is since no human lives or private property are at threat, the CFA’s bushfire response is to just ‘monitor’ the fire and put out the spot fires threatening private property to the north?

The CFA reports read as though CFA policy for active and damaging bushfires in important conservation areas is to wait for rain, but otherwise ‘let it burn’.

And yet the Bureau of Meteorology forecasts hot and windy conditions for tomorrow Monday, 23 Feb 2009.

Wilsons Promontory where thousands of hecteres have been burnt.
Photo: John Woudstra

.

I interpret this bushfire management by Victoria’s CFA as one that respects only human life and property, but does not rate the natural asset values of fauna and flora habitat of the Prom with any respect. It seems at best an opportunity for de-facto hazard reduction that it would normally not get permission to do, and at worst an inconvenient distraction for CFA crews.

If this is the prevailing attitude of rural firefighting then clearly the CFA has no interest in natural assets, and no mandate to protect them from fire in the same passionate way it does private property? There seems no difference in approach or skill set by the CFA to that that would be exercised by urban fire brigades.

So why do we have a Country Fire Authority?   Because professional fire brigades are expensive.

Whereas luring local volunteers is cheap for government, so long as the propaganda is correctly instilled – ‘locals protecting local assets…’

Government has a bet each way.  If the local volunteers put out the fire and save lives and property, they are heros and the organisation is justified.  If the local volunteers fail and people die, governments defend the local volunteers for doing their best and reject criticism of fire fighting as criticism of local volunteers, and pleads the unAustralian line.

With this premeditated social strategy, successive governments have got off scott free when people die in bushfires.  Government bushfire fighting strategy is this to have a bet each way and when catastrophe eventuates to hide behind the ‘Volunteer Firefighter Facade…

Such has become the politics of negligent government.  For decades hiding behind the ‘Volunteer Firefighter Facade  has proven effective in persuading a gullible media, so the policy and practice perpetuates in absence of an independent public watchdog.

Public class action for damages is long overdue.

On this basis, it is overdue for the CFA to be incorporated within the urban fire brigade structure. While this initial structural change won’t save Victoria’s vast tracts of wildlife habitat in the short term, it will sure will remove the false premise to the community that the CFA respects and defends natural wildlife habitats.

What does Victorian Government’s Department of Sustainability and Environment have to say for itself? It is charged with the Promontory’s protection.

See also: “Crews unable to slow Wilsons Promontory blaze” on ABC online on 17 Feb 09, “Huge blaze threatens the very heart of the Prom” in the Age of 19 Feb 09.

Cattle at Indonesian Abattoirs (Photo Getty Images)

.

Those who choose to live by the immoral sword…

Why bailout an immoral trade like live cattle and live sheep export?  The immoral trade was entered into by buggering the northern savannah ecosystems of Australia, treating them as cow paddocks. The participants have been fully cognisant of the inhuman shipping conditions, have turned a blind eye to the primitive ‘slit throat while facing Mecca‘ ritual and well aware of the fact that the weight limits are such that the likes of Indonesia are buying livestock live to eventually eliminate livestock imports anyway. The whole live export bizzo is short term profiteering, buggering everyone else in the process. It is a backward attitude feeding off a backward culture.

Those who choose to live by the immoral sword… well no sympathy for participants going to the wall, faster the better!

Taxpayer $30 million bailout is akin to bailing out people smugglers, drug traffickers and slave traders..

Tigerquoll
Suggan Buggan
Snowy River Region
Victoria 3885
Australia

.

.

Editor’s comment:

.

“If farm workers, helicopter pilots, truck drivers and indigenous workers face an uncertain future” (David Crombie, former chairman of Meat & Livestock Australia) because of the Australian Government’s ban of live cattle to Indonesia, then find a sustainable trade option.

The animal cruelty issue is been appropriately grilled in the media and by government.  But what the live cattle and sheep export industry has ignored to its detriment is Risk Management Governance, particularly external risk analysis. Poor risk management allowed an obvious risk to shut down Australia’s live cattle trade to Indonesia in June 2011.  That risk was the Australian public’s exposure to the cruel practices of Indonesian abattoirs.  How long can an industry survive on a lie?  The industry had over two decades to self-regulate the supply chain to ensure it complied with Australian standards, including RSPCA guidelines.  It didn’t.  One film crew changed all that, and it was only a matter of time.

When a trade is too good to be true, it usually is.

.

.

‘Slaves to profit’

.

“I object (“Gillard’s team Australia’ pledges extra $30m to cattle growers“, July 1).

By making a lot of noise, the live cattle industry has extorted a compensation package from a weak government.  This is taxpayers’ money.  Don’t tell me these people didn’t know what was going on in Indonesian abattoirs.  They’ve been raking in profits from their cruel trade for years.  When we abolished the slave trade there was no compensation package for slave traders.  So why should there be compensation for these latter-day profiteers from cruelty?

David Oakenfull, Asquith, NSW