Unless there’s economic growth, we’re not making progress
Unless the trucks rumble along the roads, we’re not making progress
Unless the engines of industry are turning, we’re not making progress
Unless the factories and mills belch out smoke, we’re not making progress
Unless our armies are on the move, we’re not making progress

.
In truth, until we respect the planet, we won’t progress.

.

[This article was initially published by Tigerquoll on CanDoBetter.net on 20090703 under the title ‘Victorian Bushfires: CFA ill-prepared and reliant on obsolete firefighting technologies‘].

The charred shell of a $350,000 CFA fire-tanker near Belgrave Heights, Dandenongs

Victoria in the aftermath of the 2009 Victorian Bushfires

(Photo:  Craig Abraham, The Age, 20090225)

.

The above fire tanker was fortunately able to protect three firefighters from an out-of-control bushfire as it burnt over them.

But in 1998, a burn-over incident during a bushfire at Linton, near Ballaarat, tragically killing five CFA volunteers.

A report by ABC journalist, Jane Cowan, 20090701, ‘Bushfire lawyers blast CFA’s Rees‘ states that lawyers assisting Victorian State Premier John Brumby’s Royal Commission into the 2009 Victorian Bushfires have in an interim report concluded that the Victorian Country Fire Authority (CFA) was ill-prepared for what has been labelled by the media as ‘Black Saturday‘ (7th February 2009).

The lawyers have criticised CFA chief fire officer, Russell Rees, as having been “divorced from fundamental aspects of the responsibilities” as chief officer, including the provision of public warnings and the protection of life and assert that Mr Rees “should have made himself aware of predictions forecasting the path of the fires.”

Criticism has also been made about the reliance by the CFA on obsolete fire fighting technologies. Bushfire consultant assisting the Commission, Tony Cutcliffe, has stated “We still have people running these organisations who are predominantly devoted to a firefighting technology that is no longer in vogue let alone being attuned to the needs of behavioural management and leadership.”

What is most disturbing of all is that hereon the CFA looks to continue business as usual.

The CFA says it has full confidence in Mr Rees and expects him to be at the helm again this summer. Mr Cutcliffe has expressed his concerns that:

.

‘Whatever changes are made, as it stands now the same management team that presided over the system which failed to cope on Black Saturday will be required to implement the new regime.  If the calamity of what happened to Victoria last summer won’t force an overhaul of firefighting in Australia, what will?

.

The CFA’s old-school firefighting culture dies hard:

• The CFA remains an emergency response organisation almost totally dependent on a disparate weekend volunteer base (not the fault of the volunteers who are effectively unpaid public servants);
• The CFA’s bushfire notification system is wholly reliant on public calls to 000;
• The CFA’s fire fighting response system is centred around urban fire trucks that cannot access remote ignitions and so must wait until accessible from a roadside, when the fire is by then often out of control.

.

Taking fire trucks into the bush to fight fires is deadly as the above photo shows;

• The CFA remains a public authority with carte blanche to allow and deliberately cause immense irreversible damage to Victoria’s remaining ecolgical habitat, yet with no ecological expertise in its management or ranks;
•  The CFA is grossly underfunded by state and federal governments.

Some questions:

1. Given that unprecedented extreme weather was forecast and known to the CFA, what commensurate planning, preparation and response did the CFA deploy and when?
2. What improvements in fire fighting practices have been implemented by the CFA since the 1983 Ash Wednesday fires to avoid a repeat?
3. Where are the statistics showing the fire fighting performance in respect to each reported ignition, namely:
• Elapsed time from estimated ignition time to detection time (CFA becoming aware of ignition)?
• Elapsed time from detection time and on site response time (CFA arriving at the fire site/front with fire fighting equipment)?
• Elapsed time from response time to suppression time (fire extinguished by CFA)?

These are the three core fire fighting performance metrics.

The 2009 Victorian Bushfire Royal Commission is following its terms of reference in assessing the specific facts and specific causes of the fires and logically as expected is starting to lay blame.

What’s the bet many findings are similar to those of previous bushfire investigations?

If the Royal Commission finds that the current system and structure of Victoria’s (read ‘Australia’s’) volunteer firefighting organisation was at fault, then this is a constructive outcome.

Only at such a legal level will change be forced on the system and culture. Previous internal debrief meetings and investigations (e.g. the 2003 Esplin Enquiry) have managed to have lessons from bushfire disasters ignored and fire fighting practices remain relatively unchanged.

If fire fighting is becoming more effective then how can such tragedies be continuing and growing in scale? How much more 20-20 hindsight is needed by the so-called ‘experienced’ fire fighting leadership before we can observe tangible improvements in fire fighting performance?

It’s all same old same old.

Given the dire inadequacies of this organisation, the culture has forced to become one of absolute defeatism – the only way it believes it can deal with bushfires is to slash and burn as much of the natural burnable landscape as possible, so that there is nothing left to burn. It’s as crackbrained as backburning through Belgrave Heights in order to save Belgrave.

Change cannot be brought to the CFA within the CFA. Change must come from Brumby and Rudd.

.

(Ed: While Victorian Premier John Brumby has since been dismissed by election, PM Kevin Rudd currently remains as Australia’s Labor Foreign Minister.  But Rudd has been discredited by this tragedy due to the grossly substandard emergency response, recovery, rebuilding and lack of proper emergency investment.  His tangible disregard for victims deserves him to be sacked.  Rudd has set the foundation for bushfire emergency history to repeat itself, all the while those who suffered still suffer; all the while Australia’s native wildlife are pushed by human ecological abuse and negligence closer to extinction, yet in absence of government care and funding.  Australia’s Liberal-Labor governments remain immoral ecological extinctionists, comparable in ecological terms to the Cambodian Khmer Rouge).

.

The Japanese kill bottlenose whales

(Photo:  Save the Whales)

.

If there is one redeeming legacy about previous British Tory Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, despite the recurring criticism of her policies and leadership style by many Leftists, is that she was a political leader of strong convictions who commanded respect from foreign powers at a time when it was critical for Great Britain to stand by its principles.

Thatcher defended British sovereignty – its land, its people, its currency.

Not so Australia’s Labor-apparatchik installed puppet Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, who in pursuit of Rudd populism guided not by internal principle but by factions and focus groups is our chair warming PM of unprincipled mediocrity.    Since her education revolution as Education Minister her costly results have been mediocre.  Where are her principles? – ‘there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead‘, her extravagant $47 billion NBN without any cost-benefit study, her Malaysian solution for asylum seekers, her selling uranium to India against Labor principles and her appeasing foreign interests at Australia’s expense – US pharmaceutical and military interests, China’s mining and manufacturing interests, India’s nuclear interests and free trade with Indonesia, Malaysia and now Mexico and South American nations.

Clearly Ruddism drives Gillard foreign policy.  All Gillard need do is fly in, deliver the speech and smile for the cameras, with Rudd up the back somewhere gesturing.  Gillard abandoned Australia’s free speech defender Julian Assange and sided with the US Military.   Japanese pirate whalers invade Australia’s Southern Ocean whale sanctuary to poach minke whales,  endangered fin whales and threatened humpbacks.  They now formal Japanese military support having brought their own guardian warship.  Gillard doesn’t know what to do. She has a policy vacuum when it comes to the Environment, just like Labor siblings Garrett, Wong and Burke.

Rudd failed to honour his 2007 pledge to  formally challenge Japanese whaling in the International Court of Justice.  Only public outcry forced the Gillard Government to lodge its case with the court in May 2010.   All Gillard does this time around with non-violent action group Forest Rescue boarding the Japanese whaling vessel Shonan Maru is to think legal and appeasing the pirate Japanese.  Gillard has slammed the actions of three anti-whaling protesters as “unacceptable” and warned that others who carry out similar protests will be “charged and convicted”. However, the government should be preventing crimes in our near oceans, and illegal whaling, not condemning the actions of law-enforcers trying to do what they should be doing!

Gillard is gutless.  Whaling is a sport. It is not scientific. It is not a primary industry because there is stuff all market for whale meat and the only way it is sold is because the Japanese Government subsidises the cost. Whaling is a cultural sport only and a backward cultural one at that. It is all about game.

The Japanese are traditionally a patriarchal society. Japanese males violating Australian waters for foreign whales for sport is consistent with Japanese male cultural history of violating foreign women they euphemistically called ‘comfort women’. Such Japanese culture is backward and foreign and has no place in Australian waters and the Australia Whale Sanctuaries that Australia is custodian for.

Japan‘s dogged pursuit of whales well beyond its shores in our Southern Ocean is more about preserving endangered cultural pride than science.

Japan‘s justifications for whaling are not commercial nor scientific, despite the official rhetoric.  They are culturally deep and desperately self-preserving, despite being wrong, wasteful and backward.  The scientific con is only to prevent flagrant breach of the Antarctic Treaty, to which Japan is a signatory.

Japan‘s arrogance is repeated with its refusal to respond with an apology to the request by acting Queensland Premier Lucas over Japan’s confirmed sinking of Australia’s hospital ship the Centaur in WWII.   Australian’s should never forget that Japan is the only nation ever to directly threaten Australia’s sovereignty. Three generations later Japan again defies Australian sovereignty.

Gillards’ pre-election promise of getting tough on whaling (or was that Rudd’s?) was an election promise; that’s it.

.

One of the famous quotes from ‘Iron Lady’ Thatcher was “I seem to smell the stench of appeasement in the air.“

Gillard’s appeasement of Japanese whaling is the stench of her followship.  Gillard is gutless.  Gillard has no trait as a leader, let alone a principled leader of our nation.

Gillard has no regard for Australian sovereignty. Like her predecessor Rudd, who continues to advise on all things foreign to Australia, Gillard’s raison d’être is to comply as a puppet, enjoy her time in the sun until the next apparatchik push.

Like Rudd, Gillard treats Australian values as second rate, as if a foreigner with cultural disrespect.
Rudd reneged on his 2007 election promise to send an Australian ship to monitor Japan’s annual slaughter of 1000 minke, humpback and fin whales.
Rudd reneged on his pre-election undertaking to exercise Australia’s right to take Japan to the International Court of Justice over its whale hunting expeditions in the Southern Ocean.
Rudd’s turned his back on Japan’s harpoon whaling in Australian Antarctic waters and let Japan pirate whalers refuel in Australia.

Japan flagrantly ignores Australia’s whale sanctuary and Australia’s sovereignty.  Japan condones an unprofitable, low demand and antiquainted 19th Century practice of whale harpooning, then tells international lies justifying some scientific spin that only discredits Japan’s reputation.

Japan’s Nippon Paper has been slaughtering Australian native forests for its immoral woodchip paper trade out of its habitat dead camp at its Twofold Bay mill at Eden.

How would the Japanese people like it if Gunns wanted to woodchip their sacred Aokigahara forest around the base of Mount Fuji?

Aokigahara forest, below Mount Fuji

.

[This article was first published by Tigerquoll on CanDoBetter.net on 20100416 under the same title].

.

Japanese contempt for whales, dolphins and sharks has highlihghted to the world the backward culture of this part of traditional Japanese society. Japanese whalers and fishing corporations have made Japan the pariah of the world’s oceans.

The Japanese lie of scientific whaling has become a cliched euphemism. Now the science has been officially confirmed as a fraud, as if we didn’t already know.

.
The following article has just been published in the online Science Daily:

.
‘DNA analysis suggests whale meat from sushi restaurants in L.A. and Seoul originated from Japan’

[Source: ScienceDaily (Apr. 14, 2010]

.
“An international team of Oregon State University scientists, documentary filmmakers and environmental  advocates has uncovered an apparent illegal trade in whalemeat, linking whales killed in Japan’s controversial scientific whaling program to sushi restaurants in Seoul, South Korea, and Los Angeles, Calif.

Genetic analysis of sashimi served at a prominent Los Angeles sushi restaurant in October of 2009 has confirmed that the strips of raw meat purchased by filmmakers of the Oscar-winning documentary, “The Cove,” came from a sei whale — most likely from Japanese “scientific whaling.”

Do you want dolphin with that? ‘Scientists have identified four species of whales and one species of dolphin from a plate of sashimi, like this one sold in a restaurant in Seoul. (Credit: Photo courtesy of Louie Psihoyos, Oceanic Preservation Society)’

“The sequences were identical to sei whale products that had previously been purchased in Japan in 2007 and 2008, which means they not only came from the same area of the ocean — but possibly from the same distinct population,” said Scott Baker, associate director of the Marine Mammal Institute at Oregon State University, who conducted the analysis.
“And since the international moratorium on commercial hunting (1986), there has been no other known source of sei whales available commercially other than in Japan,” Baker added. “This underscores the very real problem of the illegal international trade of whalemeat products.”

Results of the study were published in the Royal Society journal Biology Letters.  “The Cove” director Louie Psihoyos and assistant director Charles Hambleton gained the attention of international news media recently by covertly filming the serving of whale products at The Hump restaurant.

Following initial identification of the samples taken from the restaurant, the products were turned over to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s law enforcement division and in March, federal prosecutors filed a criminal complaint against the restaurant, which since has closed.  Baker said the samples taken from The Hump cannot conclusively be linked to an individual whale because genetic identity records of animals killed through Japan’s scientific whaling are not released by the Japanese government. In their paper in Biology Letters, Baker and 10 co-authors — including “The Cove” filmmakers — call for Japan to share its DNA register of whales taken from that country’s scientific whaling program and “bycatch” whaling.

“Our ability to use genetics as a tool to monitor whale populations around the world has advanced significantly over the past few years,” Baker said, “but unless we have access to all of the data — including those whales killed under Japan’s scientific whaling — we cannot provide resource managers with the best possible science.
“This is not just about better control of whaling itself,” Baker added, “but getting a better handle on the international trade of whale products.”

In their paper published in Biology Letters, lead author Baker and colleagues from the Korean Federation of Environmental Movements also report on 13 whale products purchased at a sushi restaurant in Seoul, South Korea, during two 2009 visits. The sushi was part of a mixed plate of “whale sashimi,” and genetic testing by Baker and OSU’s Debbie Steel determined that four of the products were from an Antarctic minke whale, four were from a sei whale, three were from a North Pacific minke whale, one was from a fin whale, and one was from a Risso’s dolphin.

Further testing by collaborators from Seoul National University confirmed the individual identity of the whale products by DNA “profiling.”  The DNA profile of the fin whale meat from the Seoul restaurant genetically matched products purchased by Baker’s colleague, Naoko Funahashi, in Japanese markets in 2007 — strongly suggesting it came from the same whale.
“Since the international moratorium, it has been assumed that there is no international trade in whale products,” Baker said. “But when products from the same whale are sold in Japan in 2007 and in Korea in 2009, it suggests that international trade, though illegal, is still an issue. Likewise, the Antarctic minke whale is not found in Korean waters, but it is hunted by Japan’s controversial scientific whaling program in the Antarctic.

“How did it show up in a restaurant in Seoul?”

Baker has developed an international reputation for his research in determining the origin of whalemeat products sold in markets around the world. His research on identification of dolphin meat contaminated with high levels of mercury was featured in “The Cove,” where he worked with Psihoyos and Hambleton. In their paper, the authors describe the long legacy of falsifying whale catch records, beginning with the Soviet Union, which failed to account for more than 100,000 whales it killed in the 20th century. This illegal, unreported or unregulated whaling “continues today under the cover of incidental fisheries bycatch and scientific whaling.”

.
Japanese love slaughtering dolphins too!

.
Each year at a cove near Taiji on the south east cost of central Japan, thousands of bottlenose dolphins and pilot whales are slaughtered by the Japanese. The cull is endorsed by the Japanese goivernment to commence on 1st September every year.

Bottlenose Dolphin, confimed as one of the most intelligent animals on the planet Typically, over six months the town’s fishermen will catch over 2,000 of Japan’s annual quota of 20,000
dolphins.   Dolphin slaughter turns sea red as Japan hunting season returns “In a typical hunt the fishermen pursue pods of dolphins across open seas, banging metal poles together beneath the water to confuse their hypersensitive sonar. The exhausted animals are driven into a large cove sealed off by nets to stop them escaping and dragged backwards into secluded inlets the following morning to be butchered with knives and spears. They are then loaded on to boats and taken to the quayside to be cut up in a warehouse, the fishermen’s work hidden from the outside by heavy shutters.

‘Tensions have been rising and the culls conducted in near-secrecy since 2003, when two members of the marine conservation group Sea Shepherd released several dolphins that were being kept in an enclosure ready to be slaughtered.

During our visit we were followed at almost every turn, ordered not to take photographs and questioned by the police, who seem to view every foreign visitor as a potential hunt saboteur. None of the residents who agreed to talk would reveal their names, and requests for comments from the town office were ignored.  Criticism of the dolphin hunts intensified this summer with the release of the award-winning US documentary The Cove, whose makers used remote-controlled helicopters and hidden underwater cameras to record the hunters at work. The film was released in the UK last October.

The film, with its graphic footage of the dolphin slaughter, sparked outrage after its release in the US and Australia. Last month councillors in the Australian coastal town of Broome suspended its 28-year sister-city relationship with Taiji after receiving thousands of emails protesting at the culls.

Japanese annual dolphin slaughter at The Cove, Taiji, Japan

.

Taiji is regarded as the spiritual home of Japan’s whaling industry. The first hunts took place in the early 1600s, according to the town’s whaling museum, but the industry went into decline after the introduction of a global ban on commercial whaling in 1986.  The town, a six-hour train ride from Tokyo, is dotted with restaurants serving whale and dolphin sashimi and cetacean iconography appears on everything from the pavements and bridge balustrades to road tunnels and a wind turbine.”

[Source: ‘Dolphin slaughter turns sea red as Japan hunting season returns’, by Justin McCurry, The Guardian, 14-Sep-09, ^http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/14/dolphin-slaughter-hunting-japan-taiji].

..

Call to boycott Japanese restaurants

.

This slaughter of whales, dolphins and endangered fish such as Bluefin and sharks confirms the barbaric backwardness of traditional cultures in east Asia. Japan clearly is making a point to highlight its backwardness.

Around the world, including in Australia, Japanese restaurants continue to serve up Bluefin Tuna and Shark Fin soup and probably ‘scientific’ whale meat and dolphin. It is a disgrace!
Bluefin is critically endangered and both the scalloped hammerhead shark and whitetip shark “have seen their numbers drop dramatically since the 1980s, due to rising demand for shark fin soup especially among China’s nouveau rich and for fish and chips in Europe. Surging demand for shark fin soup among Asia’s booming middle classes is driving many species of these big fish to the brink of extinction.”

[Source: ‘Sharks threatened by Asian consumers, says Group’ Michael Casey, AP, 16 March 2010, ^http://www.physorg.com/news187936927.html]

.

In this March 8, 2010 photo, a woman walks past shark fins displayed in a glass case at a dried seafood shop in Hong Kong.

Shark Fins for sale in Hoing Kong

^http://www.physorg.com/news187936927.html

.
The following example Japanese restaurants in Australia sell Bluefin and shark fin. It is time Australians boycotted such trades perpetuating wildlife extinctions.

* SYDNEY: Blue Fin Seafood Restaurant, Brighton-Le-Sands Amateur Fishermans Club, Bestic St, Brighton-Le-Sands NSW 2216
* MELBOURNE: Blue Fin, 342 Brunswick St, Fitzroy VIC 3065
* BRISBANE: Oishii Sushi Bar Shop2/70 Pinelands Rd Sunnybank Hills, Brisbane

 

Don’t buy Japanese – it only perpetuate’s Japan’s arrogance

.

Back in 2000, Australia and New Zealand sought an international ruling at the International Court of Justice under United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) against Japan’s fishing of Southern Bluefin Tuna in the Southern Ocean.

Ridiculously, the court found that it had no jurisdiction to make binding rulings on Japan’s access to high seas fisheries, and that Japan can make “its own unilateral decisions as to what to fish, and where.”

So Japan continued to unilaterally embarke on a three year “Experimental Fishing Program” (EFP), that…is we want the tuna and no-one is getting in our way!
Last month at CITES COP15 meeting, Monaco had called for a global ban on bluefin tuna fishing by CITES, arguing despite stocks having fallen by about 85%, the organisation responsible for managing the bluefin fishery – the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) – had not implemented measures strict enough to ensure the species’ survival. Australia voted against the ban, supporting Japan. ICCAT is due to meet on the bluefin issue on 14 June 2010 in Madrid Spain.

Meanwhile, in the Southern Ocean, the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna is a voluntary fishery management group comprised of Australia, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea and the Philippines as a formal cooperating non-member. Much of the Southern Bluefin Tuna catch ends up in Japan where it is prized as sushi and sushimi.
Australia’s tuna fishing industry is based in Port Lincoln in South Australia. Japanese, Korean, Indonesian and Taiwanese Bluefin tuna fleets use long line fishing which results in the incidental deaths of thousands of seabirds, particularly petrels and albatross.

For over 20 years Japan has plundered the Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery under its unilaterally imposed ‘Experimental Fishing Program (EFP)’, similar in deception as ‘Japanese scientific whaling’. According to Humane Society International, the Scientific Committee to the Commission has estimated the SBT population is at a mere 3-8% of its pre-exploitation biomass.

.
It is time to boycott Japanese sushi, sushimi, seafood restaurants and indeed all Japanese products, until Japan’s arrogant poaching of protected and endangered marine life is stopped!

.

Japanese carving up Minke Whale

.

.

This article was initially published on CanDoBetter.net 20090717 by Tigerquoll under the title ‘Victorian Bushfires – cost effectiveness of aerial fire-fighting [Bushfire CRC Ltd]’

..

In April 2009, Australia’s leading bushfire research organisation, Bushfire CRC Ltd, published another important report ‘THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF AERIAL FIRE-FIGHTING IN AUSTRALIA‘ by Gaminda Ganewatta & John Handmer, via the Centre for Risk and Community Safety, RMIT University in Melbourne.

The report has examined the cost effectiveness of aerial fire suppression in Australia and has made the following important and most relevant findings, which cannot be ignored by fire authorities and their politically disposed masters:

1. The use of ground resources with initial aerial support is the most economically efficient approach to fire suppression!
2. Aircraft are economically efficient where they are able to reach and knock down a fire well before the ground crew arrives!
3. Rapid deployment of aerial suppression resources is important, especially in remote or otherwise inaccessible terrain!
4. The sole use of aircraft is economically justified in the event of other suppression methods being unable to reach the fire event quickly!
5. Critical factors are speed of deployment and turnaround time!
6. Aircraft save more damage than they cost to operate, noting that high volume helicopters and fixed wing aircraft are economically more efficient in fire suppression, compared to small helicopters and large air tankers. Air tankers are less maneuverable compared to helicopters, thus their use in initial attack is not practical, unless used solely for large events!

.
So while Brumby’s Royal Commission ( Victorian Bushfires 2009) is working towards finalising its investigation into the Victorian Bushfires, this presents an opportunity for Fire Management to harness such relevant bushfire research.

Before next bushfire risk season key relevant bushfire research like this can be evaluated and the costs, budgets and business cases formulated to propose application to fire management operations.

But frankly can one lead a politicised brumby to water?

The following references provide useful illustrations and real life accounts of practical aerial fire fighting resource options out there (print them off and have a darn good read):
‘Helicopters: Stopping the Blazes‘ by Amanda N. Gustafson (2008) [Read publication]

[Source: ^http://www.rotormagazine.org/portals/24/pdf/winter2007_8/p64.pdf]

.

Tigerquoll
[Licensed Commercial Helicopter Pilot]

.

[This article was first published on CanDoBetter.net 20091025 by Tigerquoll under the title ‘Southern Hairy Nosed Wombat – “destruction permits” issued in Sth Aust.’  It was sourced from the ABC  ^http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/01/2701495.htm?site=news]

.

Southern Hairy Nosed Wombat (Lasiorhinus latifrons)
.

2009:

“Farmers are illegally slaughtering thousands of wombats in South Australia, a nature group says. Brigitte Stevens from the Wombat Awareness Organisation says burrows of southern hairy-nosed wombats are being bulldozed or blown up on Yorke and Eyre Peninsulas and in the Murraylands.

She says farmers can get permits to destroy a few wombats, but that it not a licence to wipe out the entire population.

“There’s not enough or not good enough regulations on what actually happens to the wombat if those numbers are being killed,” she said.  “Now I know it’s difficult because I know you need a lot of staff to be able to do that. But it’s really hard for us when we’re trying to stop people killing them illegally – if it’s allowed by the government through permits, how are we going to stop it?”

Ms Stevens wants the Department for Environment and Heritage (DEH) to act on evidence the group has gathered.

“We’ve also got evidence, photographic, and also I’ve kept all my correspondence with DEH, the RSPCA about places that we’ve reported that have ended up having destruction permits, but we’ve got evidence the animals are being buried alive, the entire population is being killed on that particular property,” she said.

Department for Environment and Heritage chief executive, Allan Holmes, says it will act when enough evidence is provided.  “You need to know where it’s occurred, when it occurred, it’s about providing evidence that will stand up in a court of law,” he said. “Again the issue for me is at the moment these claims are largely unsubstantiated.  “If the evidence is provided we will investigate them.”

Mr Holmes says mass killings with petrol bombs or bulldozing will not be tolerated.

“The only way that you can legally destroy a wombat is by shooting with a particular calibre rifle,” he said.  “And, as I said, given the evidence we will prosecute with the full force of the law.”

.

2011:    ‘Hairy-nosed wombats feel farmers’ wrath‘

[Source:  ‘Hairy-nosed wombats feel farmers’ wrath’ , 20110420, ^http://www.cfzaustralia.com/2011/04/hairy-nosed-wombats-feel-farmers-wrath.html]

.

They’ve always been uneasy bedfellows, but now Hairy-Nosed Wombats – a rare and protected marsupial – are being slaughtered in large numbers by South Australian farmers as their numbers boom thanks to abundant rain and plenty of food.

.
Nearly 900 southern hairy-nosed wombats have been shot with South Australian Government sanction since 2006, and there are claims that many more have been slaughtered illegally.

.

The Government also has rules which state that any young wombats found in the pouch of a shot wombat should be killed by decapitation, as this achieves “a sudden and painless death”.

Sickeningly, Parliament has been told that apart from the official deaths, hundreds more wombats are being killed illegally by landholders across the state.

As well as being the state’s animal emblem, the wombat is classed as a vulnerable species, but farmers claim its burrows destroy their land and damage farm machinery.

Like badgers in the United Kingdom, wombats are much maligned by the farming community and are seen as a menace, copping the blame for everything from soil erosion and breaking the legs of cattle (from falling into wombat burrows) to spreading disease.

Official figures show that between January 1, 2006, and December 22 last year, 139 permits were issued for destruction of South Australian wombats.

.

Hairy-nosed Wombats?

The much rarer southern hairy-nosed wombat has larger ears than the common wombat, and its snout is coated with fine hairs, whereas the northern hairy-nosed wombat is presumed extinct in NSW.

The southern hairy-nosed wombat prefers dry, open country  bu have become very rare, and until recently were thought to be extinct in NSW.  They are currently listed as endangered.

A wombat can reproduce after it reaches two years of age. Mating occurs between September and December, and usually results in one offspring. The newborn wombat, which weighs only 1 g and is less than 3 cm long, has to crawl from the birth canal into the mother’s pouch. This pouch faces backwards, which stops dirt and twigs getting caught in it when the mother digs. The young wombat will stay in the pouch for between seven and 10 months.

Because of settlement and agriculture, wombats in most areas have been pushed into the rugged hills and mountains. As long as they remain in these areas, wild dogs and collisions with cars are more of a threat to these marsupials than landowners. However, because of their habit of wandering down to the flats to enjoy the tasty morsels growing there (knocking down fences on the way), they are sometimes killed by farmers.

.

[Source: ^http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/npws.nsf/Content/Wombats]

.

‘Wombat Awareness Organisation‘

 

‘The Wombat Awareness Organisation (WAO) is a non-profit organisation specialising in large scale rescue, rehabilitation and conservation of the Southern Hairy Nosed Wombat (Lasiorhinus latifrons).

The Wombat Awareness Organisation is playing an instrumental role in preventing unneccessary suffering of the wild population of Southern Hairy Nosed Wombats in hope to conserve this incredible little Aussie for future generations.

When WAO established itself in the Murraylands of South Australia in 2007 we were overwhelmed at the lack of services and protective rights offered to SA’s faunal emblem. Battling the effects of drought and global warming, Sarcoptic mange, habitat destruction, vehicular accidents and culling both legal and illegal it was obvious that this species was in trouble. Getting back to basics and finding simple, productive alternatives of drought relief, mange management and coexistence strategies have become the main focus of the organisation by aiming to protect these beautiful wombats from suffering and minimise the need for them to come into care.’

.

Read More:    ^http://www.wombatawareness.com/

.

‘Going Khaki’:

Government wildlife protection has long been a joke and so much so that ‘Government wildlife protection‘ has become an oxymoron.  Community frustration is obviously a boiling point at learning about an endangered wildlife species being poached by selfish farmers for their own ends.

If there were a fund for taking out poachers of wildlife I would gladly donate to it.

If it were legal to shoot wildlife poachers I would be amongst the first to enlist.  It is legal to shoot wildlife poachers in parts of Africa where it is needed…

.

‘Among Africa’s Eco-Mercenaries’

[Source: ‘Among Africa’s Eco-Mercenaries’, by Nicole Davis, National Geographic, 200210, ^ http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/0210/life.html]

.

‘They’re trained to kill, with orders to shoot on sight. Could they be the saviors of Africa’s wildlife?

Writer Tom Clynes went deep into the Central African Republic to find out. Here he reveals the stories behind his new article, “They Shoot Poachers, Don’t They?”

This year Wyoming conservationists took their battle overseas into the savanna of the Central African Republic. With the permission of President Ange-Félix Patassé to shoot on sight, the group is raising a militia to patrol the eastern third of the African country for poachers.

Writer Tom Clynes spent nearly a month with the hired guns in this latest effort to stop the bush-meat trade, perhaps the pre-eminent threat to African wildlife today. The assignment was as complicated as it was fascinating.

“The good stories begin with intriguing questions. And in this case the questions were complicated and quite epic. You had a bunch of Americans who had basically convinced a leader of a Third World country to let them raise an army and take over a third of the country with shoot-on-sight authority,” says Clynes.  “I had a good idea how I felt about this kind of thing: Killing is wrong—end of argument.”

.

‘They Shoot Poachers, Don’t They?‘

[Source: ‘‘They Shoot Poachers, Don’t They?”, by Tom Clynes, National Geographic, 200210, ^http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/0210/story.html#story_1]

.
In the heart of central Africa, marauding bands of bush-meat hunters are terrorizing villages and slaughtering wildlife to the brink of extinction. Now a family practitioner from Wyoming has decided to recruit his own army to stop them.

The story, as I first heard it, had the zing of a Hollywood pitch: Led by a soft-spoken doctor, a band of American conservationists had persuaded the president of the Central African Republic to let them raise a militia and take over the eastern third of the Texas-size country. Their mission was to drive out the marauding gangs of Sudanese poachers who were rapidly wiping out the region’s elephants and other animals.

Their authority:    ‘Shoot on sight’

No one had been killed yet when I arrived in Bangui in early March. Throughout the dilapidated capital, signs of a November coup attempt were still fresh: Bullet divots scored the bricks of the Tropicana Club, and a curfew remained in effect. A detachment of Libyan paratroopers hulked in front of the mansion of President Ange-Félix Patassé, who had been bailed out, again, by his friend Muammar Qaddafi.

Most of the fighting had taken place in the northern reaches of town, where the American group, Africa Rainforest and River Conservation (ARRC), had rented a gated compound. As I approached the large whitewashed porch, it struck me that ARRC was well prepared for another flare-up. Scattered among the wicker furniture were several men in fatigues, a couple of AK-47s, a grenade launcher, and a very excited chimpanzee.

Dave Bryant, a 49-year-old South African who had been hired in August to lead the militia, extended his hand. “Welcome to bloody paradise,” he said. He introduced a slight, 26-year-old Iowan named Michelle Wieland, who was in charge of ARRC’s community-development component, and a thin 35-year-old named Richard Hagen, who had flown up from South Africa to help with security.

“And the little fellow jumping up and down is Commando,” said Bryant. “We rescued him from a Sudanese trader, and to show his appreciation he’s been crapping all over our floors.”

Bryant’s face seemed custom-assembled for bad-ass impact. Beneath a clean-shaven scalp, a towering forehead descended into a deep ravine of a scowl line, bridged by wraparound sunglasses. An expansive Fu Manchu mustache arched around a loaded cigarette holder, which dangled expertly from one side of his mouth.

“I guess you’ve heard that we’re in a bit of a cock-up,” he said. “We’ve been stuck in this shit-hole for five months now, trying to get out into the bush to do a reccy [reconnaissance] before the rains hit. We’re waiting for gear, we’re waiting for money, and we’re waiting for vehicles. And we’re waiting for people in this zoo they call a government to do something other than put their bloody hands out.”

The three were eager to hear about my meeting that day with the American ambassador, Mattie Sharpless. Sharpless had recently arrived in Bangui, and I had asked her what she knew about ARRC.

“The rumor is that they’re hiring South African mercenaries and diverting funds into diamond ventures,” Sharpless had answered.

Wieland winced when I relayed the quote, but Bryant smiled and leaned back in his chair. “Yes, well. We South Africans don’t usually like to use the term ‘mercenary.’ We prefer to say ‘playing at soldiers on a privately employed basis.'”

.

 Cathcart State Forest (NSW) being logged in 2011

[Source: Australian Forests and Climate Alliance ^http://forestsandclimate.net/newsouthwales]

.

Most of Australia’s native vegetation cover, over 75% of that predating the 1788 Colonial Invasion, has been ‘cleared’ – a euphemism for deforested, logged, destroyed, killed.

Today, as one travels around Australia and sees vasts areas of unproductive, degraded, denuded and abandoned farmlands – one questions why destroy more fragile environment?  Yet the exploitative bastards are still hell bent on killing more native forest and bushland, even though they can’t properly manage the ‘already ‘cleared’ lands they’ve got.  It is a short sighted insatiability, harking to a 19th Century ‘old blighty’ mindset of taming the land.  It is deluded thinking that just because the native vegetation is green and looks fertile that it can be replaced for pasture and cropping and that new cleared land will be any different to that already cleared.

The Liberal-Labor governments and their rural National mates haven’t given a toss throughout the entire 20th Century and still couldn’t give a toss.

 Recent land clearing in the Daly River catchment area

Northern Territory, Australia.

Photo: Environment Centre NT

.

Moree region New South Wales – mainly deforested

Visit Google Earth and zoom into any area of NSW and see that most of it has been deforested

(click image to enlarge)

.

Still across Australia in 2011, thousands of hectares of native forests continue to be deforested – albeit for farming, logging and development, or just bizarre bushfire abandonment.  Not only is this occurring on private land, but in State Forests, which most people think are protected.  Native forests on land are being cleared branded by State governments as ‘State Forests’ are simply not protected.

The native trees, flora and fauna are not protected from logging, bushfire, State-sanctioned arson (aka ‘hazard reduction‘), State napalming (aka indiscriminate ‘hazard reduction‘), indiscriminate State aerial poisoning with 1080, wildlife poaching, 4WD hooning, trail bike hooning, or even backpacker murdering.  The watercourses (and the interconnected groundwater aquifers), that flow through State Forests are not protected from fishing, stormwater run-off, mine tailing contamination, farm pesticide and herbicide, industrial pollution.

.

Helicopter Aerial Incendiary

Over Bindarri National Park, 20km south-west of Coffs Harbour, New South Wales

Yes, even our National Parks and Wildlife Service sets indiscriminate fires to National Parks!

.

For the likes of taxpayer funded government industrial loggers ‘State Forest’ is a euphemism ‘for not logged yet‘.  This applies to the likes of Forestry Tasmania, VicForests, Forests NSW, Forestry SA (spot the naming trend), as well as the more aptly Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, and likewise the Forest Products Commission of Western Australia.

It seems that doesn’t matter whether there is proof that there is an endangered and protected species such as the Long-Footed Potoroo in the Cann Valley State Forest or Drummer State Forest in Victoria, or protected Koalas in the Murrah/Mumbulla State Forests of New South Wales, or three identified endangered species, the wedge-tailed eagle, the swift parrot and the wielangta stag beetle in Tasmania’s Wielangta State Forests, the Liberal-Labor governments of those States turn a blind eye to deforestation.

It is only when self-funded local communities take the respective government logger to the Supreme Court and win that logging stops momentarily, such as in the recent Victorian Supreme Court case Environment East Gippsland Inc v VicForests [2010] VSC 335.   In 2006, the Victorian State Government committed to increasing the conservation parks and reserves within the broader Brown Mountain area.  Disregarding its elected master and ignoring any concerns for the ecological Precautionary Principle, State industrial logger VicForests, got stuck in with its mechanical clearfelling of old growth forests in the Brown Mountain area.

Not-for profit group Environment East Gippsland (EEG) self-funded and obtained numerous studies of the area indicated the presence of important threatened and rare species.  EEG requested the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Gavin Jennings, to make an interim conservation order to conserve critical habitat of the endangered Long-footed Potoroo, Spotted-tailed Quoll, Sooty Owl, Powerful Owl and Orbost Spiny Crayfish at Brown Mountain.  Even then, the Minister for Environment and Climate Chang did not grant a conservation order, but instead increased the conservation area surrounding Brown Mountain.    It took the overriding legal authority of the Supreme Court to stop the Victorian Government and its delinquent logger trashing protected old growth habitat.

Victorian Labor Minister for Environment (etc), 2007-2010

.

In March 2010, Forests NSW began controversial logging operations in the Mumbulla State Forest, south of Bermagui on the state’s far south coast.  Despite being criticised, after a recent survey identified the forest as a key colony for the region’s remaining koala population, Forests NSW Regional Manager Ian Barnes says the logging must go ahead across 240 hectares of the forest, in order to satisfy a supply agreement with the timber industry.

Deforestation is all about lining ones pockets out of ecological wanton exploitation

It’s a ‘wam bam thank you mam’ approach no different to what the Vikings did to the British in the eight Century.

Colonial Australians and their descendants are doing the same to Australian ecology in the 19th, 20th and 21st Centuries.

 

Mr Barnes says the logging will not affect the koala habitat.  “We’ve taken quite some effort to avoid any possible conflict there,” he says.  “As anybody who reads the recent report will know, the koalas have been found in the eastern side of the forest, and our logging is planned for the western part, as far away as we can get from the koalas.”

Despite assurances, anti-logging campaigners have organised a vigil in the forest in an attempt to stop the logging. Conservationist Prue Acton says the activity will devastate the koala population.

“Why risk the only healthy koala colony left in the far south coast. For what? “ she said.  “95% of what is going to be logged is going to end up at the Eden woodchip mill, be shipped to Japan for cheap copy-paper. What a disgrace.”

The Greens MP Lee Rhiannon says the Premier should put the protection of koalas ahead of the interests of logging companies.  “The New South Wales Government has refused to end logging in the south east native forest but they should step in and stop the destruction of the koala habitat,” she said.

[Source: ‘Logging begins near key koala habitat‘, ABC, 20100330, ^http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/30/2859615.htm?site=southeastnsw]

.

‘Loggers are clearing bushland at rising rate‘

[Source:  ‘Loggers are clearing bushland at rising rate’, by Ben Cubby, Sydney Morning Herald, 20111221, ^http://www.theherald.com.au/news/national/national/general/loggers-are-clearing-bushland-at-rising-rate/2399764.aspx?storypage=0]

The amount of bushland being cleared by logging in NSW soared last year to the highest level since state-wide records began in 1988.  An area equivalent to 138,400 football fields was cleared for crops, forestry or infrastructure, says a government report.

The Office of Environment and Heritage said the rise in logging was probably cancelled out by regrowth, leading to no net loss of trees, though its most recent survey took place in 2008, before the land clearing spike. It said the reasons for the logging increase were unclear.

”[The] most likely factors relate to market demand and favourable climatic conditions and [they] can be expected to fluctuate over time,” a department spokesman said. ”It is also possible that recent changes in forestry methods are more readily detectable by satellite monitoring.”

Environment groups said the annual vegetation report was evidence that logging companies were operating in an unrestrained manner.

Bushfires remain the biggest destroyer of forests in the state, leading to a net loss of 48,300 hectares in 2010, the report said.

.

But logging activities now come a close second, accounting for the removal of 42,700 hectares of trees in 2010. This is up from 31,000 hectares the previous year, and an average of about 21,000 hectares a year since 1988.

About 21,200 hectares of bushland was cleared in 2010 to make new areas for crops and grazing, while 5300 hectares were cut down to make way for roads, factories and housing.

”The NSW government is currently conducting a review of native vegetation controls,” said the chief executive of the Nature Conservation Council of NSW, Pepe Clarke. ”They should take this report as a warning – what is required are stronger land- clearing laws that do more to protect the environment, not weaker ones.”

The Wilderness Society said the government had ”failed in its promises to restrain land clearing, resulting in rapid and accelerating degradation of wildlife habitat and water catchments.”

The most recent State of the Environment report found that there had been no net loss of ”woody cover” across NSW between 2003 and 2008.

”This is because, although clearing has occurred over that period, there has also been an equivalent amount of regrowth including government sponsored environmental and forestry planting programs conducted by private landholders and state forests, within crown forests areas,” the department said.

”Notwithstanding no net loss over the whole state, some regions have experienced net declines in woody cover.”

The report uses the international definition of ”woody cover”, which includes land at least 20% covered by the crowns of trees higher than 2 metres, a description which would include relatively open country.

The introduction of a satellite monitoring system for land clearing last year appears to have increased the level of prosecution for illegal land clearing on private property. On crown lands, the number of prosecutions has increased threefold, from a low base, since 2007.

In 2010, the government received 471 reports of suspected illegal land clearing.

.

‘Landowners sent satellite images identifying land clearing‘

[Source: ‘Landowners sent satellite images identifying land-clearing’, NSW Department of Environment (etc), Media release: 14 May 2010, ^http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/media/DecMedia10051404.htm]

.

NSW Department of Environment Climate Change and Water (DECCW) today began a high tech education campaign to encourage compliance with native vegetation laws by sending letters to landholders including before and after satellite pictures identifying land clearing.

DECCW Director-General Lisa Corbyn said the letters were part of an ongoing education program to encourage compliance with the laws and inform landowners of the proper channels available to them if they want to clear native vegetation.

“We’ve been using satellite technology for some time to identify changes in vegetation cover that may warrant further investigation,” Ms Corbyn said.

“Now we are also using the technology as an education tool. From today, advisory letters will be sent to landowners including before and after satellite pictures showing that vegetation has been cleared on their land.”

Ms Corbyn said the letters aim to inform to the landowner that the satellite imagery has picked up that vegetation had been cleared and highlight the proper channels available to them under the legislation to allow clearing of native vegetation, such as property vegetation plans.

The letters support other tools used by DECCW to encourage compliance with the legislation, including strategic investigations, prosecutions, penalty notices, stop work orders, remedial directions, warning and advisory letters.

The letter also alerts landowners to incentive funding available to restore and protect native vegetation on their properties.

The Native Vegetation Act was introduced in 2003 to bring an end to broadscale land-clearing in NSW. Since then, more than 400,000 hectares of native vegetation has been conserved or rehabilitated on private land through property vegetation plans (PVPs) and 1.6 million hectares has been managed for thinning and invasive native scrub management.

.

Over 60 % of the native vegetation in NSW has been cleared, thinned or substantially disturbed.

.

The impacts of native vegetation clearing have included the extinction of 77 plant and animal species, soil erosion, increased dryland salinity and a decline in water quality.’

.

2003:   ‘Clearing rate in NSW 116,000 to 216,000 hectares per year: NSW Govt report’

[Source: ‘Clearing rate in NSW 116,000 to 216,000 hectares per year: NSW Govt report’, by Stephanie Peatling, Environment Reporter, Sydney Morning Herald, 20031117, ^http://www.sydneyalternativemedia.com/id64.html]

.

The equivalent of up to 200,000 football fields may be illegally stripped of native trees and grass each year in NSW, figures suggest.

The first estimates on the extent of the clearings, which the Department of Natural Resources field staff prepared for the Government’s vegetation taskforce, suggest the figure could be as high as 100,000 hectares a year.  The figures show between 150,000 hectares and 560,000 hectares were illegally cleared between 1997 and 2002.

The advice is the first official guess at NSW’s illegal clearance levels. The highest rates are in the Barwon, Central West and Far West regions where much of NSW’s remaining native vegetation is located.

The figures have shocked environmentalists, who stress the urgency of making changes to the state’s natural resource management system, which Parliament is debating this week.
A Wilderness Society campaigner, Francesca Andreoni, said: “The new system needs to be fair to everyone, particularly farmers doing the right thing.

“The shocking extent of illegal clearing confirms the urgent need for the Government to implement its decision to end broadscale clearing.”

Figures recording the rate of illegal land clearing each year are almost impossible to compile because it so hard to charge people who breach native vegetation laws. There is also a complicated system of exemptions which allow people to clear land for purposes such as maintaining fire access trails.

Monitoring illegal clearing is potentially dangerous for departmental compliance officers. After reports of illegal clearing earlier this year on a property near Nyngan, in the state’s west, department officers were prevented from entering the property by an angry crowd of up to 150 people.

.

When the amount of land illegally cleared is added to land that is legally approved for clearance, the department estimates between 700,000 hectares and 1.3 million hectares of land were cleared between 1997 and 2002.

.

The figures suggest clearing was faster than the Department of Natural Resources’ previously admitted figure of about 60,000 hectares a year. That figure would give NSW the second-highest clearing rate in the country behind Queensland.

Debate on the Government’s package to overhaul native vegetation laws, based on an election promise to end broad-scale clearing, will take place this week. Last month the Premier, Bob Carr, announced a $406 million deal between farmers and environmentalists to end broad-scale clearing.

Most of the money is expected to go towards such things as tree planting and fencing waterways to help counter salinity and erosion. But local authorities may also compensate farmers for not clearing land.  Clearing will still be allowed where it is deemed environmentally necessary.

Under the new system, natural resource management is being overhauled. Thirteen catchment management authorities will replace 19 catchment management boards, 20 regional vegetation committees and 33 water management committees.

Scientists often name land clearing as one of Australia’s most urgent environmental concerns. It contributes to soil salinity, loss of biodiversity and greenhouse gas emissions because carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere when the cleared timber is disposed of, usually through burning.

.

‘Green groups attack logging growth’

[Source: ‘Green groups attack logging growth’, by David Bancroft, My Daily News, 20111229, ^http://www.mydailynews.com.au/story/2011/12/29/green-groups-attack-logging-growth/]

.

Environment groups have banded together to criticise the level of logging occurring in New South Wales.  The Nature Conservation Council, The Wilderness Society, National Parks Association, the Northern Inland Council for the Environment and the North Coast Environment Council have issued a joint warning that iconic and endangered species are being threatened by land clearing.

Illegal deforestation for fire wood, near Taralga, on the western edge of the Blue Mountains

Source: ^http://www.orchidsaustralia.com/article_%20conservation_no3.htm

.

In a joint press release, the groups said the NSW annual report on native vegetation released by the Office of Environment and Heritage (Ed. yet another money wasting name change) this month showed 2009/10 was the “worst year on record for clearing of native bushland”.

.

The Wilderness Society campaigns manager Belinda Fairbrother said the report showed that in 2009/10 an area equating to 138,400 football fields was cleared for crops, forestry or infrastructure.

.

“This is higher than any other year since records commenced in 1988 and shows the NSW Government has failed in its promises to restrain land clearing, resulting in rapid and accelerating degradation of wildlife habitat and water catchments,” she said.

North Coast Environment Council president Susie Russell said the report made a sad end to the International Year of Forests.

“The area cleared for forestry in 2009/10 was almost five times greater than it was in 1988/89,” she said.

“It reveals a massive increase in the rate and intensity of logging in NSW, which will be causing untold damage to the extraordinary high diversity forests of north-east NSW.”

Nature Conservation Council chief executive officer Pepe Clarke said land clearing was recognised as the single greatest threat to wildlife in Australia.

“It causes the death of birds and animals, the extinction of species, leads to the poisoning of soils from salinity and makes a major contribution to global warming,” he said.

.

The Liberal-Labor Party ‘Island Vision’ for Australia’s State Forests

‘The Hill’ (Penrose State Forest, NSW) 2007, drawing by James King
^http://www.jamesking.com.au/drawings.html

.

[This article was initially published by Tigerquoll on CanDoBetter.net 20090626, in the aftermath of the Victorian Bushfires which conflagrated on 20090207]

.

The Australian Press Council has just dismissed a complaint against Sydney Morning Herald columnist Miranda Devine about her ‘opinion’ article back on 12-Feb-09 ‘Green ideas must take blame for deaths.’

But although provocative, Devine’s ‘opinion‘ article pales in comparison to the social implications of headline media reporting of extreme bushfire risk immediately BEFORE the bushfires! [‘Complaint against Devine dismissed’, SMH, 26-Jun-09, p.5]

Note that the date of the article was made while fires still raged. Also, note that the article was published on the front page of the Herald, indicating that the editor was unusually highly supportive of it. Normally, the Herald’s ‘Opinion and Letter’s‘ articles are printed way back around page 12.

The main inflammatory bits drawing criticism in Devine’s article were:

.

“It wasn’t climate change which killed as many as 300 people in Victoria last weekend…it was the power of green ideology over government to oppose attempts to reduce fuel hazards before a megafire erupts.” [and] “If politicians are intent on whipping up a lynch mob to divert attention from their own culpability, it is not arsonists who should be hanging from lamp-posts but greenies.”

.

Clearly, the article’s emotive tone expresses anger, frustration, retaliation and spiteful provocation. Perhaps this is understandable given the scale of the disaster and public shock, disbelief and for many, the personal loss. People react in their own way to tragedy. Devine’s article upset many and presumably it was intended to in order to unseat entrenched community complacency about Australia’s bushfire management generally.

If so I agree with her motive, but not her method.

The Australian Press Council considered the article’s lead paragraphs as ‘dogmatic’ and ‘confrontational’.  But the complainants asserted that the article breached a number of Press Council principles. Yet the Press Council’s principles or journalism are vague and advocate the rights of journalists rather than prescribing responsibilities. The principles include noble motherhood ideals such as being accurate, fair and balanced, not being misleading, acting in the public interest and not being biased against minority groups. So then perhaps the complainants were misguided and it is not surprising that the Press Council found that publicising the article didn’t breach any of these principles.

Devine was accused of incitement in her article, which is a fair interpretation.

On Crikey, Greg Barns questions whether Devine’s article incited violence. He suggests that in “these fraught times, where there is a smell of blood in the air as well as smoke, as communities, individuals and the media look to find someone to blame for the Victorian bushfires, are just the environment where incitement flourishes.” Barns goes on: “To date no one appears to have acted on the inflammatory statements of Ms Devine and her fellow sabre rattlers, but that does not matter, says the law. It is enough that the incitement to commit a offence occurs, it is irrelevant that no one acted on the statement made.”

[Source: ^http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/02/17/did-miranda-devine-incite-violence/]

.

In the press at the time, local anger in Gippsland was palpable and vigilante feeling clearly was at breaking point. But it was targeted at the arsonists.

No-one rationally can blame the conservation movement and its ecological principles for the Victorian Bushfires. The bush and its creatures were innocent victims of the fires, just like people, livestock and houses. Many tend to forget this in the wake of such enormous tragedy. But one must blame the arsonists.

Yet it wasn’t apparently just arsonists that caused the ignitions and it is the task of Brumby’s Royal Commission to investigate and find out the causes of all the ignitions. However, thereafter, the real problem solving should start, but I doubt Brumby will have the will and instead will want to close the political door on the bushfire tragedy – just like the bushfire investigations of the past and interstate.

.

But let’s turn more importantly to the media incitement before the bushfires!

The Age newspaper in Melbourne during the Victorian heatwave through January and early February 2009 immediately preceding the bushfires, ran headlines repeating the extreme bushfire risk. On 6 February 2009, the day before the fires started, indeed the Premier of Victoria John Brumby issued a warning about the extreme weather conditions expected on 7 February:

“It’s just as bad a day as you can imagine and on top of that the state is just tinder-dry.

People need to exercise real common sense tomorrow”.

.

Was this wise?

To serial dormant bush arsonists and to would be arsonists, this frenzied media excitement about such pending doom surely would have been been read by arsonists and I suggest directly incited the bush arson. Yet at the time there was no complaining or realisation of this.

If bush arsonists are found to have been the key causes of the ignitons and indeed of the most catestrophic firestorms that burt alive people for instance Marysville and Kinglake, then the investigation must focus on the root cause of the arsonist motivations. I argue that media arousal through its sensationalising of the bushfire risk and its portrayal of the bushfire threat is directly responsible and accountable for actual bush arson. Let’s see what the Royal Commission concludes.

.

Compare the Media Restrictions on Reporting of Suicide

.

Getting back to the subject of press responsibility, let’s look at where the Press Council actually prescribes reporting restrictions on journalists.

Take the subject of media reporting of suicide.

In the Council’s General Press Release No. 246 (i) (July 2001) on Reporting of Suicide, The Press Council:

“calls upon the press to continue to exercise care and responsibility in reporting matters of suicide consistent with government attempts to curb the suicide rate. Research shows that an association exists between media portrayal of suicide and actual suicide, and that in some cases the link is causal. So the Press Council recommends journalists avoid reporting which might encourage copy-cat suicides and which unnecessary references details of or the place of a suicide, or which uses language which trivialises, romanticises, or glorifies suicide.”

[Source: ^http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/activities/guides/gpr246_1.html]

.

So on the sensitive topic of suicide, the Press Council is quite prescriptive, moreso than in its broader principles for journalists rights.

Serious thought needs to be given by all levels of government and by the Press Council as the media industry’s representative body to the reporting of bushfire risks. Just as links can be drawn between the media portrayal of suicide and actual suicide, causal links can be drawn between the media portrayal of bushfire risk and bush arson arousal.

This is a matter for criminal psychology. Media sensationalising of bushfire risk and of bush arson is known to incite bush arson and copy-cat bush arson. This is a little known and neglected form of social deviant behaviour, yet it has become increasingly prevalent and deadly.

There is an urgent need for national level investment into bush arson criminology research and investigations. Media rights and responsibility for reporting bushfires play a critical role, perhaps more than many of us realise.

.

Editor’s submission to ABC Four Corners ahead of its programme ‘Two Days in Hell’ aired 20090216 

[Source: ‘Two Days in Hell’,  by Reporter Quentin McDermott, ABC TV Four Corners programme, ^http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2008/s2489831.htm]

Dear Quentin,

Thank you for highlighting this perennial problem.

The Australian Institute of Criminology reported last month that half of Australian bushfires are deliberately lit. Bushfire research needs to go further to evaluate whether in fact of the most damaging most are deliberately lit.

Test: If one excluded arson ignitions and their related spotover fires (between 29 Jan at Delburn to 8 Feb)  would the firestorms have occurred?  Assuming the answer is no, then clearly arson must be Australia’s key focus in combating the impacts of bushfire.  Unlike the other two causes of bushfire, (lightning and accident) which are random, bush arson targets the worst conditions, upwind of a specific target and often involving multiple ignitions.

The term ‘fire bug’ is too docile and to start seriously dealing with it, we must change the perception and the language.  Bush arson has become so deadly and catastrophic a crime that it warrants the term ‘pyroterrorism’.  See the application of this term in the recent California fires.  [^http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/thepyroterroristsarecoming.html]

The forthcoming Royal Commission into the Victorian Bushfires of 2009 risks concluding similar theme recommendations as the 2004 COAG Enquiry into the 2003 Canberra Firestorm, which itself repeated those of many previous bushfire enquiries. The implementation of any recommendations requires budget, timeframe and an independent federal watchdog accountable to the public. I will be analysing its terms of reference.

Aside from serious resourcing of bush fire fighting (nationalising it, building approvals, building codes, etc), the key systemic problem is the cultural disconnect between bushfire research and fire fighting practice.  Criminal arson investigation needs to be a permanent and dedicated arm of bushfire management, properly resourced with primary data collected from all Australia and overseas using the best criminal psychologists and with a proactive mandate.

In NSW, the government set up Strike Force Tronto to investigate serial bush arsonist after the Christmas 2001 bushfires.  Then the government got complacent, other priorities emerged and it was disbanded in 2005.

But following a series of arson bushfires in 2006 (with houses lost in (Picton and Cattai) the force was reinstated on 26 Sep 06 (Daily Telegraph p1).  Reactive sporadic resourcing of bush arson investigation clearly isn’t effective.

To seriously address the main cause of deadly bushfires, a national organisation needs to be permanently established and perpetually funded to focus on criminal investigation into bush arson/pyroterrorism with a mandate to recommend deterrent policies and practices across Australian bushfire fighting as well as the media.

Media reporting leading up to the 7-Feb-09 firestorms, simply incited dormant serial arsonists.  Go back and read The Age and television media in the days before and after 29 Jan when the first bush arsonist struck at Delburn (south wast of Churchill).  The front page of The Age on Saturday 7-Feb-09 read: ’44 degree heat “as bad a day as you can imagine”
– which was a quote from of all people the Victorian Premier made to the general public the day prior.

Just like the media policy of not reporting suicides due it being known to encourage copy cats, so too media reporting of heatwaves and of extreme bushfire conditions needs to be tempered to avoid inciting dormant serial arsonists.

.

‘The Fire Starters’ – ABC TV Four Corners programme of 2003 about bush arson in NSW, following a spate of bush arson

[Source: “The Fire Starters”, ABC TV Four Corners programme, 20030224, ^http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2003/20030224_fire_starters/default.htm]

.

‘It’s a summer ritual: fire fighters across Australia battling hundreds of bushfires, putting themselves at risk to save other people’s lives and property.  But these men and women are confronting dangers they should never have to face.  While most fires, like the recent Canberra inferno, are ignited by lightning strikes or by stray sparks, investigators say a growing proportion of fires are being deliberately lit – by serial arsonists playing havoc in the bush.

As Australia tallies the cost of one of its worst bushfire seasons, Four Corners looks at the devastation that firebugs wreak on the landscape and the fear they generate in vulnerable communities. Reporter Stephen McDonell focuses on two communities where a firebug has been at work.  In one case the arsonist has been caught and jailed; in the other the offender remains at large, apparently still living among anxious neighbours who suspect his every move.

McDonell builds a profile of offenders who typically crave power and status. For all their fundamental inadequacies, arsonists often presents normally enough to other people – even to their fellow volunteers in the local fire service.  Authorities are fighting a difficult battle against these elusive, superficially unremarkable people, whose crimes rely on secrecy, solitude and destruction of evidence.’

.

Interview by ABC journalis Stephen McDonell with NSW Police Assistant Commissioner John Laycock   (edited transcript):

.

STEPHEN MCDONELL: It’s been suggested by some people there should be a full time arson squad in NSW, do you think that we’re getting to the stage where that’s what we need?

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER JOHN LAYCOCK: Well there is at the moment. With the establishment of Strike Force Tronto last year, that will be ongoing on a needs basis and we saw very quickly in October this year how quickly that Task Force got up and running.

STEPHEN MCDONELL: You don’t think though there’s a need for developing some expertise in the area, have a team specifically designed just to look at arson?

JOHN LAYCOCK: Well, we have that now with Strike Force Tronto and in addition to the permanent team, we’re also training up investigators right across the state to look at the fire investigations across the board so we’re fairly well on top of that now.

STEPHEN MCDONELL: Can you just tell us the thinking that’s led to you having a team that is assembled as the need arises rather than having a full time squad?

JOHN LAYCOCK: Look Strike Force Tronto is virtually full time on a needs basis. We started off in 2001 with the large volume of fires in the state. It took a little time to get that up and running but that expertise and the database and the skill they’ve learnt from that has now flowed to, very quickly, starting up (Strike Force) Tronto II. So, whilst ever the actual need is there, the strike force will be there to assist. In addition to that, you’d normally find that between bushfires or wild fires there’s a three or four year gap. We have 94, 97, then 2001, on this occasion we’ve had two years in a row so the need this year is unusual to say the least.

STEPHEN MCDONELL: If you were asked if bushfire arson is getting worse, what would you say to that?

JOHN LAYCOCK: No I don’t think so. I think the reporting of it has improved. All our local area commands now are on the scene as soon as it occurs, they’re investigating the fires straight away. In the past that might not have always been the case. With Strike Force Tronto up and running, all fires are investigated and eliminated: whether it’s accidental or lightning or what have you and others are put aside for further investigation.

STEPHEN MCDONELL: So you don’t think we’re getting more bushfire arson?

JOHN LAYCOCK: I think the community’s become more up to date and aware of arsonists being involved. The majority of our people apprehended are done by information from the public and, in a lot of cases, actually apprehended by people from the community and people are just sick and tired of people being involved lighting fires so they’re doing something about it which is great.

STEPHEN MCDONELL: So, in other words, are you saying that while the statistics might bear out something of an increase, it’s really just that more people are being caught?

JOHN LAYCOCK: That’s one interpretation. In addition to that: our scientific skills, our forensic skills – with both the Rural Fire Service and the NSW Fire Brigade, with our own forensic people – have enhanced tremendously. Technology has increased. There’s a lot more out there that we can use, we can tap into, and plus the skill level of our people on all fronts has also increased.

STEPHEN MCDONELL: Just on the question of your ability to investigate bushfires, what would you say is the area that has come on the most, that is changing the fastest and is enabling you to catch people?

JOHN LAYCOCK: Look without doubt the technology, our forensics, the scientific people, our research people. We tap into overseas data; we tap into overseas experts. Our own local people here are well down the road to being able to fully investigate a fire, to track it from A to Z, with help from the community. Our crime scene investigation has enhanced tremendously and it’s improving all the time. There’s satellite inventory; there’s aerial photography; there’s video links; there’s a whole raft of things we can tap into now.

STEPHEN MCDONELL: I’ve seen some statistics that show that while the offending appears to be going up, the clear up rate remains static, what would you attribute that to?

JOHN LAYCOCK: Probably wouldn’t agree with that entirely and I think I can play with figures with the best of them. For example, in our 2001 fires, there were 22 people charged straight out with arson. There was another 130, 140 odd processed for various breaches, minor breaches of the Rural Fires Act and other Acts of parliament. None of those persons have re-offended again this year to our knowledge. Now most arsonists I think you’d have to agree are not sort of rocket scientists and one would expect that, if they were continuing to offend, they would be apprehended. That hasn’t occurred. So I don’t think the clear up rate has decreased per se. I think the instance of reporting and investigation activity has increased.

STEPHEN MCDONELL: What do you think that those statistics tell us about the impact that catching people has on their likelihood of them re-offending when it comes to bushfire arson?

JOHN LAYCOCK: Look, again, with the number of people we’ve processed – from those that went to gaol, to those who were fined, cautioned or were conferenced – none of those people have re-offended to our knowledge, which indicates whatever process did take place, whether it be gaol or a caution or bond or what have you, has worked in that case. In addition to that, all persons processed have been, their details have been given to our our local area command so at the first sign of an investigation being required, those people would have their names up as a possible suspect to get looked at so the heat is on if I can use that phrase for those people locally in the first instance.

STEPHEN MCDONELL: We’ve spoken to one person who suggested that part of the problem with catching people when it comes to bushfire arson is that crime scene can be totally destroyed, especially if the fire moves over it a couple of times, would you agree with that?

JOHN LAYCOCK: Probably to the contrary and our forensic capacity with the Rural Fire Service, the Fire Brigade, our own forensic people now has increased to the extent that we can get a lot of information from the crime scene long after the fire has gone.

STEPHEN MCDONELL: So, even if a big fire has moved through an area, there’s still a lot there at the crime scene?

JOHN LAYCOCK: There’s a lot of signs, there’s a lot of expertise, and we tap into a lot of stuff still left behind and, as I keep saying, cold fires leave hot trails.

STEPHEN MCDONELL: How sophisticated would you describe the bushfire arsonists as compared to other criminals?

JOHN LAYCOCK: Not very sophisticated: they’re certainly not rocket scientists. Arson is an unusual crime because there’s no financial profit or gain. There’s normally no great planning goes into it: it’s unusual, to say the least. I think that the people involved are possibly not of brilliant intelligence.

STEPHEN MCDONELL: Do you think that, across Australia, we’re doing enough to catch bushfire arsonists?

JOHN LAYCOCK: Look we can always do more but here in NSW the community is up and running. The number of reports we get through crime stoppers, continually, for the police to act upon is encouraging to say the least. The number of a people apprehended at fire scenes, lighting fires where people got out of their cars and physically grabbed hold of them where they’re capable of doing it and just hand them over to the police just shows a no nonsense approach. The three organisations working together -with the Rural Fire Service and the Fire Brigade – it’s ongoing, I think we’re doing a lot, we can always do more but, as each year goes on, our expertise increases.

STEPHEN MCDONELL: Do you ever worry about discussion in the media relating to bushfire arson: that it might encourage copycat behaviour?

JOHN LAYCOCK: And certainly I think that does occur (but) to what extent…? but we have to weigh up the public interest – the need for the public to know what is happening around them. We’ve found, with the community support, with the open campaigns we’ve been running, they’ve been nothing short of outstanding.

STEPHEN MCDONELL: If we could just look at why one of the cases that your team has dealt with, the Burgess case, can you just tell us, from the outset, what the idea was in terms of when you heard that he was hanging around this brigade in the Blue Mountains, what did you intend to do, especially in relation to that brigade?

JOHN LAYCOCK: We first got some information not long after the fire season started in relation to that offender and I can only speak in general terms. Information is fine but we needed sufficient evidence to place him before a court, it was obvious to us that he was a very firm suspect. We then tapped into the support from the Rural Fire Service. We spoke to the executive and we virtually placed him under surveillance. They did report issues to us. We had our surveillance teams actually follow him from site to site. In the meantime, in the background, our forensic people were linking the crime scenes together and, of course, you’re aware he’s virtually working from one part of the state to the other – from the Central Coast down to Albury and then up to the Blue Mountains, so a fairly wide area – but we were able to link him into all those scenes. Our surveillance people tracked him into places where fire had been lit, just a painstaking good thorough investigation by Strike Force Tronto Police.

STEPHEN MCDONELL: Now, for people who don’t know much about crime and the detection of crime, can you explain what this linking of the crime scenes was and how significant that was?

JOHN LAYCOCK: It was quite significant because each offender has their own way of doing things or committing a crime – quite, sort of, peculiar to anybody else – so no arsonists would work alike, as a general statement. So the way in which the fires are lit at all locations were almost identical and that gives us a guide only to the fact that he was the person responsible. But it’s not just the crime scene, it’s sightings, information from other people in the community, people from the Rural Fire Service that felt things weren’t quite right, that was all fed into our system to give us enough to get out and charge him.

STEPHEN MCDONELL: So, is this right, it was something like that there was a pattern to his behaviour, is that right, that he was doing similar sorts of things?

JOHN LAYCOCK: There was a pattern to the way he was committing the offences, which showed very promising signs to us.

STEPHEN MCDONELL: What could you say about Burgess’s behaviour that led you to actually apprehend him?

JOHN LAYCOCK: It wasn’t so much his behaviour, I think it was the investigation results from behind the scenes. Evidence from witnesses, admissible evidence we could place before a court, the linkages between the forensics at the crime scenes and the fact that we were able to place him at those particular sites either before, after or during a particular fire breakout. That’s the cold hard evidence that we need.

STEPHEN MCDONELL: I think you were saying something before about his behaviour being consistent and that, because he didn’t vary it so much, you were able to say right, bang, bang that he did all those, lit all those fires. Can you just tell us a bit about that?

JOHN LAYCOCK: Yeah, look we have to prove each individual fire by itself. We just can’t say that we think it’s him because all the fires appear to have lit the same way. We need admissible evidence to place before a court to put him at the scene and, what happens at the crime scene, there’s only a small part of the jigsaw. So each investigation needs to be complete and be able to stand in its own right but the common factor was the linkage between the crime scenes.

STEPHEN MCDONELL: Can you tell us a bit about how Cameron Burgess’s behaviour assisted police in catching him?

JOHN LAYCOCK: I think: in the way that he exposed himself to other members of the fire fighting fraternity; that he was always there at the crime scene, he was in the locations at the time when the fires went up; on occasions he actually went to help fight the fire, it didn’t do him any favours when we started putting the brief together.

STEPHEN MCDONELL: So you could see the same sorts of things coming up again and again?

JOHN LAYCOCK: There was a pattern there but there was also admissible evidence that we could use and place before a court.

STEPHEN MCDONELL: What was found out about Cameron Burgess’s mental state?

JOHN LAYCOCK: According to the psychologist’s report that was tended to the court at the time, he had no mental illness or condition, probably can’t comment too much further than that.

STEPHEN MCDONELL: Was there anything significant about this Burgess case?

JOHN LAYCOCK: Look all police investigations are virtually quite different but the one thing that struck out with him was that he was operating in such vast distances away from each other: the Central Coast, Albury, Wagga and the Blue Mountains, entrenching himself in with the local fire fighting sort of type community and committing offences of that nature. It was quite unusual. Most arsonists tend to work fairly close in one area.

STEPHEN MCDONELL: Why do you think he was moving from area to area?

JOHN LAYCOCK: I don’t really know, I never could find that out. I think he had contacts in all those locations and he entrenched himself in with the local community.

STEPHEN MCDONELL: Have you ever had a problem with other members of the volunteer brigades being arsonists?

JOHN LAYCOCK: Look occasionally with all large organisations you might have one or two, even a handful of people who fall through the cracks and obviously Burgess is one of those but probably no more than any other group from the community. We’ve found offenders from all walks of life so I don’t see that as particularly unusual or significant.

STEPHEN MCDONELL: How important do you think it is for the bushfire brigades to be vigilant in keeping an eye out for arsonists in their midst?

JOHN LAYCOCK: Very important. We work so closely together, we find that most captains of all the outfits, all brigades, do report anything unusual to us through their own chain of command. Obviously, if they’ve got one of their own out lighting fires, it’s a big risk. It does them damage so they are very supportive of the police and, on quite a few occasions, they have been entrusted and vice versa with sensitive details and they don’t breach security so the probability of that sort of continuing can’t be excluded but it’s small on the scale.

STEPHEN MCDONELL: Do you think that the checks are sufficient at the moment: the background checks of people wanting to join volunteer brigades?

JOHN LAYCOCK: Look that’s a question I think for the Rural Fire Commissioner, Mr Koperberg. Whether that would solve all the problems I don’t know. I don’t profess to be an expert. It’s a question of how far you go and what expense and what are the risks involved if you don’t…? There’s the odd one that falls through the crack but whether what you’re going to do is enough to weed them out I don’t know.

STEPHEN MCDONELL: If you could look into your crystal ball – 5, 10 years down the track – paint us a bit of a picture of the likelihood that you’ll be catching more bushfire arsonists.

JOHN LAYCOCK: I think, from what we’ve developed now, is that if you’re going to go out and start lighting fires, the probability of being caught is fairly high. Our forensics, our working with the other agencies, our scientific, our expertise, our skill base, our investigators, the probability of being caught is very high. As the years progress that capacity’s only going to increase and will get better and better. The end result will be that, if you’re going to be an arsonist, you better pack a toothbrush because you’ll be going to gaol.

.

October 2011:  Arsonist hits Blue Mountains again

.

Katoomba blaze the “perfect storm”

 

[Source: ‘Katoomba blaze the “perfect storm’ by reporters Krystyna Pollard and Michael Cleggett, Blue Mountains Gazette, 20111026, ^http://www.bluemountainsgazette.com.au/news/local/news/general/katoomba-blaze-the-perfect-storm/2336384.aspx]

[Ed:  Monday 24th October 2011 was the first hot day for some months in the Blue Mountains and it was a day where winds were forecast to pick up in the afternoon from the west.  The bush arsonist must have known this.  What were the media reports ahead of this?  What language did the media use on Sunday 23rd October to describe the weather forecast?]

.

‘Arson may be behind the Mountains’ second major bushfire outbreak in a month that saw hundreds of schoolchildren and residents evacuated, and damaged seven homes.

The blaze broke out shortly before 2pm on Monday, October 24 at Cliff Drive near Echo Point and forced the evacuation of 450 children from Katoomba High School and 25 residents from 12 nearby homes.

Tourists were also warned to stay away from the area and fears were held at the height of the blaze for landmarks including Katoomba’s Scenic Skyway, Lilianfels and Echoes Hotel, with the Skyway’s terminal scorched by the flames.

“During the blaze, seven homes sustained minor damage, and a garden shed was destroyed,” a police statement said.

Local detectives and Strike Force Tronto officers together with Rural Fire Service investigators are looking into the cause of the fire, with initial inquiries suggesting the fire “may have been deliberately lit”, according to a police statement.

Blue Mountains Crime Manager Inspector Mick Bostock told reporters yesterday (Tuesday) while the fire had “two points of origin”, investigators believed it was lit by the one arsonist. He could not say exactly how.  Police were interviewing one witness, an overseas tourist living in Bondi, who reported a fire in the area, he said.

Firefighters worked on Monday night to secure the fire edges and by Tuesday morning it had burned out 20 hectares of bushland and was no longer a threat to property.  Fire and Rescue NSW sector commander for the incident, Inspector Kernin Lambert, said he was amazed no homes had been lost, with conditions creating “the perfect storm”.

“On this occasion the timely response and some brilliant firefighting from Fire and Rescue NSW and the Rural Fire Service saved the day,” he told the Gazette.  “We are told that fire has not burned through that area for 35 years and the high accumulation of bush . . . the angle of the slope, wind direction, the aspect, it was like the perfect storm in terms of potential for fire disaster.

.

‘Blue Mountains bushfire: police investigate arson’

[‘Blue Mountains bushfire: police investigate arson’, Sydney Morning Herald,  20111025, ^http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/blue-mountains-bushfire-police-investigate-arson-20111025-1mgvj.html] .
‘A bushfire in NSW’s Blue Mountains, which was believed to be deliberately lit, is now under control after firefighters back-burned overnight.  Police are investigating if arson is to blame for a bushfire that is burning in the Blue Mountains for a second day.  The blaze, which started about 2pm yesterday, has scorched 19 hectares at Katoomba, west of Sydney, and forced the evacuation of a high school.Detectives from the Blue Mountains Local Area Command and Strike Force Tronto and the Rural Fire Service will investigate the circumstances of the fire burning between Cliff Drive and Katoomba Street.’

.

‘Arson investigators probe Katoomba blaze’

[Source: ‘Arson investigators probe Katoomba blaze’, ABC, 20111025, ^http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-25/arson-investigators-probe-katoomba-blaze/3598740] .
Detectives specialising in arson cases are heading to the Blue Mountains to investigate a bushfire that damaged seven homes at Katoomba yesterday.  Police believe the blaze was deliberately lit near Cliff Drive or Katoomba Street about 2:00pm (AEDT).  Officers would like to speak with anyone who saw any suspicious behaviour in the vicinity.

.