The following article was initially posted by Tigerquoll on 20090326 on CanDoBetter.net:

.

On Thursday 26th March 2009, four people were charged in their efforts to save East Gippsland old growth forests at Upper Delegate River from being chopped down.

‘The Goongerah Blockade’

Protesting against logging of old growth forests in East Gippsland

….prepared to be arrested for habitat.

March 2009.

eco-warriors all!

.

Conservationists trying to conserve protected old growth forests have been charged with illegal conservation. Is Victorian Premier Brumby’s strongman stance seeking to emulate Mugabean democracy?

Is Brumby’s hypocritical law for conservationists that of prima facie guilt of conservation? Surely the need to conserve rare and remnant old growth forests makes conservation self-evident?

Premier Brumby’s DSE and VicForests under their own laws maintain these catchment forests under environmental protection legislation. Yet in breach of their own laws, Brumby’s environmental watchdogs have become lapdogs, watching loggers irreparably destroy these centuries-old Eucalypts and lay witness to Victoria’s disappearing natural heritage. It’s no different to Indonesia condoning destruction of Sumatran and Kalimantan rainforests.

When was the last time Brumby bushwalked through old growth Gippsland? Last year, or never?

A dedicated group of 20 forest conservationists prevented clearfelling in the upper Delegate River catchment up until now. “This particular old growth forest was recently surveyed by trained biologists and the result showed very high density of tree dwelling mammals”, said spokesperson for the group Carmel Roberts.

“The DSE is neglecting their responsibilities to protect endangered wildlife habitat, even though it clearly states in their Forest Management Plan that where high numbers of threatened species are found, habitat must be protected.

“The DSE are saying they are unable to protect these species’ habitat despite the logging being in clear breach of their legal obligations. The government puts more value on a months work by a few people than protecting endangered wildlife from extinction.

“In 2006, Premier Brumby made an election promise to protect the “last significant stands of old growth”. These forests are the very the last refuges for our rare species.”

“Since the devastation caused by the bushfires, East Gippsland’s forests are now even more critical to the survival of Victoria’s native species than before. Rare native wildlife could have been made locally extinct in other areas due to the fire damage.”

“Old growth forest habitats such as hollow-bearing trees, are critically important for the survival of these threatened species in Victoria. The logging industry can survive in plantations and regrowth, endangered wildlife can’t.”

.

 

---

.

Comments:

.

Woodchip mafia has Brumby well trained

March 28th, 2009 by ‘Blackdog’:

.
The Brumby government is truly the lapdog to the loggers. The woodchip mafia has him well trained. The rule book says the threatened species have to be saved. He destroys them and their habitat. The promise back in 2006 was to save the old growth – but all he’s done is cover for the increased targeting of prime areas.

Yep – no different to Indonesia or the Amazon. Only Brumby employs better media spin experts. Pity the public don’t wear it.

.

 

---

.

Lap dog governments are following Easter Island

On March 28th, 2009 Tigerquoll says:

Blackdog’s comments hit the mark.

I go further than black dog.

Lap dog governments are supporting destructionist loggers while publicly advocating environmental protection in another department.

This is gross hypocracy, a conflict of interest and corrupt.

I worry also that as more clever HSC graduates take on degrees in ‘communications’, which so frequently entices them into well paid jobs in government and corporate spin machines, that pure ethics is neglected at both senior school and at most university courses.

By denying our children skills and wisdom in worldly ethics, our children are being denied their rights to cope with ethical decisions. A degree without a base in ethics is a degree in propaganda, and don’t our lapdog governments lap them up?

Take the following example and ask why in our education system and supposed independent journalism, that Australians are more aware of the extremely rich celebrities than the natural and indigenous exploitation and neglect condoned by governmenst in Australia’s World region?

SOURCE: www.drmartinwilliams.com/conservation-and-environment/indonesian-forest-destruction-corruption-plays-a-role.html

“Since 1982, forest fires on a large scale in Kalimantan, Sumatra and Java have come with the onset of each dry season. A fire in Kalimantan in 1983, reportedly the largest in human history, destroyed 3.7 million hectares of rainforest, an area the size of the Netherlands.

In 1987, 2 million hectares, 1.4 million of primary rainforest, were destroyed in Kalimantan, Sumatra, East Timor, Sulawesi and mountain regions of Java.

In 1991 smoke and ash from fires blanketed Singapore, Malaysia and the Straits of Malacca, forcing Indonesia to call for international help.

Forest fires of this magnitude coincide with a rapid increase in logging and plantation activities which began in the early 1980s. In 1966, 82% of Indonesia’s land mass was covered by primary forest. By 1982 this had shrunk to 68%, and recent satellite photographs indicate that forest cover – including timber plantations – is now down to about 55%.

In late 1996, the Indonesian minister of forests said that 20 million hectares of forest were in a critical state and warned that this was increasing rapidly. The World Bank estimates 800,000 hectares of forest are lost each year.

Around 64 million hectares – one-third of Indonesia’s land mass – is devoted to commercial logging. In 1996 Indonesia became the world’s largest plywood exporter.
…
On September 9, Suharto reissued a 1995 ban on burning forest and called on the military to help enforce it. Companies were given until October 3 to prove they were not the culprits.

Laws allow up to 10 years’ imprisonment and a 100 million rupiah fine for polluters. Not one company, however, has ever been convicted. Even the environment minister, Sarwono Kusumaatmadja, admitted to Reuters on September 22 that environmental laws are not policed properly.

Soon after Suharto’s announcement, the number of fires increased, as companies rushed to clear as much land as possible before the deadline. Even if the deadline was strictly adhered to, it would only let companies finish clearing land at a time the normal rainy season would have forced them to do so.

…

But it is not just the greed of Suharto and the logging and plantation firms which has created this disaster.

Government investment and development policies which have promoted destructive land clearing practices are spurred on by market forces and capitalism’s endless drive for profit. Many of the projects were championed by and funded by institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF, which pressure countries such as Indonesia to increase exports.”

In 2009, we must learn from Easter Island’s ancient community and its unsustainable culture of nature exploitation which ended up condemning its civilization to extinction. Else, despite our iPods, in 2009 we risk the same fate.

.

 

---

.

 

Injustice rules the forests

March 30th, 2009 by Sheila Newman:

.

About time this shameful situation got coverage. I would like to see a story for EVERY charge against conservationists on candobetter.

It is quite true, as you say, that the Victorian Government frequently breaks the law in its forest activities. In fact it has practically torn up its own rule book.

Keep fighting!

.

– end of article –

Originally posted February 23rd, 2009 by Tigerquoll on CanDoBetter.net

.

In Victoria in 1992, some bureaucrat got the idea of changing the name (and focus) of the Department of Conservation and Environment to a Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, then in 1996 to a Department of Natural Resources and Environment, then in 2003 a split to (1) a Victorian Department of Primary Industries and (2) a Department of Sustainability and Environment.

[Source: http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/asaw/biogs/A002037b.htm – Note: this link has subsequently been altered by the University of Melbourne to protect its petty government funding and disclosing its forestry bias]

.

Currently this government department is known by an obscure acronym: ‘DSE‘.  But those out in the ‘tree face’ genuinely caring for old growth forests of Victoria, discard this acronym to mean either…’Don’t Support Environment‘ or simply the ‘Department of Sparks and Embers‘.  The reason in empirical.  The DSE has a reputation for Forestry Logging bias – facilitating old growth logging, habitat deforestation and related bush arson.

Meanwhile, across the border in NSW, in 2007, the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) was changed to the Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) so as to make it look like the NSW Labor Government publicly cared about climate change by delegating a name change.

.

While pandering to ‘climate change’ populism, the fundamental concept of ‘conservation’ has been dismissed by government.

.

All the DEC business cards and logos were changed to DECC at what impact on climate change?  At what cost this extra ‘C‘?  The cost has been to remove the Conservation imperative!

Rather than forming a dedicated research and response organisation to focus on climate change, the conservation was dropped from the existing department. Cynically, including ‘climate change’ as a name of one of its departments, government must feel cosy sending a message it is addressing climate change. For a while the department was headed up by The NSW Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water – a bucket of outdoor type activities that sounded good together.

Across the border in South Australia, they have the Department for the Environment and Heritage (DEH), which sounds borrowed from the federal Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (another collective bucket). It is hard to see how with so many diverse portfolios, a minister can dedicate any leadership to making genuine improvements to what’s left of Australia’s intact natural environment and its desperate need for conservation.

With all the money spent on names changing, the tens of thousands could have gone into on-ground conservation activities like fox control programmes.

by Editor 20100826.

East Gippsland, Victoria April 2009:

The senseless killing of a 500+ year old rare surviving Eucalyptus regnans

by VicForest contractors in April 2009.

( Photo courtesy of Environment East Gippsland)

 

---

Logging halted at iconic Bungywarr Creek (East Gippsland, Victoria, Australia)

29 April, 2009

‘Today independent forests conservationists are protecting ancient forests from logging in far East Gippsland.

“Two protestors are ‘flying’ a platform located thirty metres up in the tree canopy”, says spokesperson for the group, Ms Lauren Caulfield. “This platform is cabled off to four logging machines, immobilizing them.”

The tree-top protestors are supported by twenty-five forests conservationists on the site.

Bungywarr Creek was first blockaded in 1994, and has remained a contentious logging site ever since.

“Bungywarr Creek forest was identified as iconic almost two decades ago. The old-growth that remains at Bungywarr should be included in the Brumby government’s next round of forest protection”, said Ms Caulfield.

Earlier this month it was revealed that forests like the magnificent stands along Bungywarr Creek are sold to export woodchipping companies for less than the price of a Mars bar – a mere $2.50 per tonne.

“Selling our valuable and carbon-rich native forests for the price of a fast food snack is not making the best financial returns to Victorians”, said Ms Caulfield.

“For VicForests to continue to woodchip the remaining 8% of Victoria’s old-growth forests under Mr Brumby’s watch is a disgrace. Victorians expect and deserve management of our forests for a truly sustainable future.”

“Protecting nature is one of the most important ways to fight climate change”, continued Ms Caulfield. “The forest at Bungywarr Creek will do a better job fighting climate change if it is left intact and able to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.”

“While the Brumby government dithers on delivering the ageing 2006 old-growth forest promise, logging at Bungywarr Creek is making climate change worse”, concluded Ms Caulfield.”

[Media Release courtesy of Environment East Gippsland]

 

---

^© The Habitat Advocate    Public Domain

by Editor 2010330.

—————————————————————————-

 

Victorian Government’s VicForests is attempting to log old growth forests at Brown Mountain in East Gippsland, despite Brown Mountain being confirmed habitat for threatened and vulnerable wildlife. Local not-for-profit environment group Environment East Gippsland has commenced proceedings against VicForests in the Supreme Court of Victoria asking the Court for a permanent injunction to stop VicForests from logging Brown Mountain.

 

---

Reports:

(most recent at top)

 

 

---

Brown Mountain Landmark Court Case    [Melbourne Supreme Court, 23-25 March 2010]

Court case finishes – summary of the final 3 days.

Quoted Source:  Environment East Gippsland 20100330, http://www.eastgippsland.net.au/

 

‘The final days of summing up both VicForests’ and EEG’s arguments were heard in the Melbourne Supreme Court on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday (23rd-25th March). These were the last submissions presented to Justice Osborn who heard the 17 day trial that started on the 1st March.

‘In summary – both sides presented their condensed arguments from the past 3 weeks. Early in the case, the economic claims were not allowed as VF had not made any allegations in its defence about economic impact, and there was only summary evidence supplied by VF, without details. The arguments focused on the laws covering protection of threatened species and how VF did or didn’t abide by them. Justice Osborn has reserved his decision . Our legal team have said he could hand this down in a month or two or three … Despite some fairly revealing and insightful evidence being given and some quite startling information to come out of cross examination of witnesses, the decision will be looking at the complexities of the laws governing forests and wildlife management.

‘A support team of about 45 people attended the Melbourne start of the case to show that there was widespread interest in Brown Mountain (see pics). Thanks everyone who came along and who sat through the proceedings.

1st Day (Tues) – the defence (VicForests) lawyers had the stage on day 1 and delivered their case.

‘To those who hadn’t heard the facts, arguments and cross examinations of the previous 3 weeks, it could have sounded fairly reasonable and even worrying. Read our responses to their arguments below. VF lawyers’ arguments consisted of the following:

• EEG didn’t have standing to take the case to court as we are too small a group, don’t have a special interest in Brown Mountain, only an emotional or intellectual interest. The fact that we didn’t apply to be on the local Shire environment committee, and the claim that we didn’t take part in the Nat Estate study on 1990 – (but we actually did) and various other arguments were used to attempt to argue we shouldn’t be able to sue VicForests.
• It was DSE that should have looked out for threatened species, not VicForests. VF can’t change zonings.
• The Potoroo wasn’t ‘detected’ within the meaning of the action statement (FFG Act) – although the animals and the sites were confirmed, the full two weeks of footage was withheld by EEG (under instruction from our lawyers) until late 2009 – making the authorities suspicious of possible tampering and was the reason given by VF for not protecting the area.
• Language in the FFG Act and Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act, is not enforceable.
• VF noted that the Forest Management Plan was out of date (ended in 2006), which generated much discussion. Justice Osborn pointed out that if it was no longer applicable, then all logging in EG was illegal as the FM Plan is needed before forest can be logged. That point was then quickly resolved.
• The Precautionary Principle, which was a major argument in the whole case. It was first claimed by VF not to give rise to any legally enforceable obligation against it, and even if it did, VF claimed it had observed the PP even if it wasn’t thought to be regarded as enough precaution.
• VF claim Potoroo wasn’t ‘detected’ to their or DSE’s satisfaction,
• On Quolls – there are 75 already protected in EG and that was enough,
• For the new species of crayfish – it’s still being named and so doesn’t have a prescription for protection and the 100 metre buffer around the creek will protect it
• Sooty and Powerful Owls – only dusk calls detected but no confirmed nesting or roosting sites so no need to protect. Plus there are enough Sooty Owls Management Areas and Powerful Owl Management Areas, despite some evidence from DSE suggesting the protection zone targets had not been reached.
• Giant Burrowing Frogs – even if it is high quality and likely habitat, none have yet been detected.
• Hollow Bearing Trees – logging prescriptions are claimed to look after them.
• Gliders are there in high numbers, yes – but it’s not for VF to protect them and 100 mts along creek should do anyway.
• The Precautionary Principle requires caution, but not total infallibility. Actions to express adherence to the PP can be many. VF argued that a 100 metre buffer along the creek was caution enough for all the species.

2nd day of summing up (Wed) –EEG, the plaintiff’s case was presented.

Debbie Mortimer SC argued that:

• ‘The standards and conditions in the FFG Act Action Statements, Forest Management Plan and the Code of Forest Practices hasn’t been and can’t be complied with by VicForests.
• VicForests was the “agent of harm” about to begin clearfelling when we applied for the first injunction, and VF was as obliged to adhere to the law for threatened wildlife as was DSE.
• VF don’t need to have DSE declare a conservation zone for VF to adhere to the law or decide not to log.
• The Allocation Order (giving forests to VicForests from DSE), Timber Release Plan and the Code (for logging) all mention adhering to the Forest Management Plan.
• The issue of whether EEG has legal standing to bring the case to court was argued well for showing we did have standing. It had not been objected to by VF strongly before we embarked on the 17 day trial.
• If various surveys had not have been carried out (owls, Gliders, Crayfish and Potoroos), the court case would not have commenced. Surveys show a genuine interest.
• Obligation on VF are mandatory – they don’t allow them to ‘duck and weave’ around these obligations.
• The main law is the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act – it deals directly with Threatened Species, and binds the state/crown to protect endangered wildlife. The FM Plan and the Code both refer to it.
• Forests are a community property. Managed for common good into future. DSE’s position in the evidence given by Lee Meizis was that the Timber Release Plan gave ownership of forests to VF to exploit, but with the right to exploit comes responsibilities for conservation.
• FFG Act has strong ‘must do’ language and is imposed on government authorities. Important objectives of FFGA disregarded by VF. Action Statements within the FFGA are enforceable.
• Debbie Mortimer said “In every way, VicForests pushed away from its conservation duties” to benefit its access to forests for logging.
• VF is not abiding by the law by merely reading the Action Statements.
• Logging high quality Quoll habitat is endangering the animal’s survival. At odds with the Precautionary Principle because this species is only found at a functional level in East Gippsland now.
• Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act directly forced VF to adhere to the Code. Allocation Order also states VF MUST comply with CFP, PP, AS and FMP.
• Not complying with the Code was a breach. Acts refer to the Code being adhered to.
• VF must consider advice from relevant experts in Flora and Fauna. The advice of these internal DSE experts were ‘completely sidelined’ during the process that lead to the decision to clearfell Brown Mountain. It was also claimed that the Minister was not given important information on these species.
• The 100 mt buffer offered by VF would not protect the Gliders, Quoll, owls, Potoroo and Large Brown Tree Frog and was unknown if it would adequately protect the Giant Burrowing Frog, Brown Mt Crayfish and Square-tailed Kite. Leaving additional large trees while logging and burning the remainder would be unlikely to protect the habitat values of hollow bearing trees (85 out of 207 was all that survived the logged and burnt coupe across the creek in April 2009).
• The guideline to protect 100 ha for rich populations of gliders is self-regulating and doesn’t need major fuss – just needs to be mapped and complied with.
• Justice Osborn discussed decent reserve designs and ‘whacking in’ some reserve along the creek.
• The oft-cited ‘risk-weighted consequences’ of the precautionary principle the VF lawyers used daily, does not mention social or economic ‘balance’ and in context is only about conservation risks and consequences.
• We are dealing with some species in a demonstrable state of decline. Failure to halt damage is serious. There is lack of scientific certainty as there is no research or info on impact of logging.
• New reserves mean nothing unless we assess the quality and type of the habitat, logging history etc.
• BHP was used as an example of a company which must employ specialist ecologists/biologists if it plans to carry out potentially damaging work. VF either needs to employ biodiversity staff, or get in consultants to survey and advise forest planning.
• Potoroo detections 100% authentic – no questioning by VF of witnesses – fully accepted, yet despite 3 verified detections, VF made no attempt to consult with DSE biologists or protect 50 ha for each as stated in the FFGA.
• DSE set up its own ‘rules’ outside of existing legislation.
• DM asked for full injunction to logging.

Day 3 – Thursday – response from Defendant (VF)

• ‘Having to abide by the SFT Act could mean that every logger, truckie, contractor, roading operator must comply with these laws as well. Does that mean every worker has to set up a biodiversity unit and consult biologists?
• Argues again, it’s all DSE’s responsibility.
• Argues that the words for Greater Glider protection in the FMP says “approximately 100 ha” is unenforceable – how much is ‘approximately’?
• VicForests Lawyers couldn’t find any expert biologists to speak for them. They tried.
• Not being given the entire potoroo footage was the whole problem.
• The 400 ha reserve to the (drier, steeper) west is a benefit for all the species.
• Crays were found in the creek next to a previously logged forest so therefore they can survive OK.
• Potoroo no 2 (on camera) wasn’t used in original evidence (it was actually discovered after writ was served but this was overlooked by VF lawyers).
• The hair tube evidence of the Potoroo near proposed coupe 19 didn’t come with a copy of the note when it was sent off for analysis – so how do we know where it really was?

This ended the long trial for the wildlife of Brown Mountain. We await Justice Osborn’s final decision …”

---

Court Case:

‘Environment East Gippsland Inc v VicForests [2010] VSC 53 (25 February 2010)’

(Supreme Court of Victoria)

SOURCE: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSC/2010/53.html

JUDGE:	OSBORN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	25 February 2010
DATE OF RULING:	25 February 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Environment East Gippsland Inc v VicForests (Ruling No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 53	Revised 4 March 2010

HIS HONOUR:

1 ‘The background to this proceeding is stated in the decision of his Honour Justice J Forrest made last year, and granting injunctive relief to the plaintiff. The injunction restrains logging and associated works within coupes located at Brown Mountain in East Gippsland. The underlying basis on which the plaintiff seeks relief in the proceeding, and upon which it sought and obtained injunctions is that the coupes in issue have such conservation significance that logging of them would be unlawful, having regard to applicable legislative and governmental controls which seek to protect such significance.

2 The plaintiff by summons dated 23 February 2010 now seeks leave to amend its statement of claim in accordance with a form of amendment appended to the summons. That application is resisted by the defendant insofar as the amendments raise allegations of the presence of the three animal species within the relevant area, which have not previously formed the basis of the plaintiff’s claim. The matter is fixed for trial at Sale commencing on Monday next, and has been the subject of a framework of pre-trial directions intended to ensure that it would be ready to proceed at that date, and to ensure that the defendant was accorded procedural fairness. The defendant wishes the matter to proceed next Monday whether or not the amendments are permitted, because any delay will result in the continuation of the injunction which it submits is causing it continuing economic loss and prejudice. The plaintiff contends that the amendments can be made at this very late stage without the necessity of any adjournment of the trial, and that the trial can proceed with adequate procedural fairness from the defendant’s point of view. I accept the relevant principles relating to the application were restated by the High Court in the case of Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v ANU.

3 For present purposes it is sufficient to repeat what was said in the judgment of the plurality: An application for leave to amend a pleading should not be approached on the basis that a party is entitled to raise an arguable claim, subject to payment of costs by way of compensation. There is no such entitlement. All matters relevant to the exercise of the power to permit amendment should be weighed. The fact of substantial delay and wasted costs, the concerns of case management, will assume importance on an application for leave to amend.

4 The underlying objective of the court must of course be to achieve a just resolution of the dispute between the parties. That notion in a case such as the present extends to the objective insofar as it is reasonably possible of ensuring that justice is seen to be done with respect to the real matters in dispute between the parties. In the present, case I accept that the amendments in issue arise out of circumstances to which the plaintiff was alerted by advice given to the plaintiff by a series of expert witnesses who have carried out ongoing site investigations for the purposes of preparing reports for the trial. If the amendments are refused, and this evidence is excluded, the evidence will not be the best evidence available as at the date of trial of the conservation significance of the land.

5 In my view, such a refusal would not only on the face of it prejudice the plaintiff’s case, but also necessarily detract from the credibility of the evidentiary basis on which the Court proceeds to determine the matter. And I am further of the view that this issue is of particular significance in the present case because it raises issues of the public interest both from the point of view of the position of the plaintiff and the defendant.

6 Accordingly the amendments should be allowed in the absence of prejudice to the defendant, which can be said to outweigh the prima facie desirability of the amendment. The notion of prejudice is to be approached broadly as the decision of Aon makes clear. In the present case, it is first submitted on behalf of the defendant that there has been delay on the part of the plaintiff which should preclude the granting of any indulgence to it. In particular, reference is made to the identification of a new species of crayfish in a report dated 7 December 2009 prepared by Dr McCormack.

7 The substance of this report was not the subject of advice to the defendant’s solicitor until 18 February this year. I accept the delay was regrettable and contrary to the intention and indeed the spirit of the directions made previously by the court in order to put the case in a proper position for trial. Nevertheless, the relevant expert retained by the defendant has now had the opportunity to consider and respond to the report in issue, and I am not persuaded that delay with respect to this aspect of the matter justifies refusal of the amendment.

8 Next it is submitted the defendant will suffer significant procedural prejudice if the amendments are allowed. It is not submitted that repleading the defence will occasion undue difficulty. And on the face of it, the probability is that the defence will be repleaded in parallel terms to the pleas which have previously been made in relation to other species which the plaintiff alleges are present in the relevant area.

9 The problem from the defendant’s point of view is in respect of obtaining expert advice responsive to the material now put forward in respect of the alleged presence of bird and frog species only recently identified as relevant on behalf of the plaintiff. This difficulty is exacerbated due to personal circumstances affecting the expert whom the defendant has retained in this matter, and proposes to call to give evidence.

10 Although the question is, I accept, finely balanced, I have come to the view that the procedural prejudice in issue can be significantly ameliorated and it may reasonably be hoped avoided, if an appropriate basket of directions is made by the Court. First, I would not fix a time for the filing and service of an amended defence, but simply direct that such an amended defence be filed and served as soon as is reasonably practicable.

11 Secondly, I would direct that save with the consent of the defendant, the plaintiff call all evidence other than that relating to the matters of fact alleged in the amendments prior to calling evidence concerning such matters. Thirdly, I would direct that Professor Ferguson be at liberty to respond to evidence relating to such matters by viva voce evidence with no written notice of the substance of such response. And fourthly, I would specifically direct that the defendant be at liberty to apply for further directions relating to the evidence concerning such matters.

12 It seems to me that if these directions are made, then having regard to the pleadings as a whole as they currently stand and the expert evidence foreshadowed in the documents that have been filed with the Court, a fair trial should be reasonably possible. I should further record that during the course of argument I indicated to counsel for the defendant that the court would adopt a flexible approach to the giving of Professor Ferguson’s evidence if that should become necessary.

13 In addition to the procedural concerns which the defendant has expressed, the defendant also submitted that it could not be satisfactorily compensated by an order for costs thrown away in respect of the consequences of any amendment. It was submitted that there was a real prospect that an order for costs would not be able to be met by the plaintiff, and reference was made to the debate in the practice court with respect to this aspect of the matter at the time of the hearing relating to injunctive relief.

14 I have come to the view that such prejudice will be minimised if I fix an amount in respect of such costs and order that it be paid within a relatively short time. The parties have now agreed that it would be appropriate to order that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs thrown away by reason of the amendment of the statement of claim, fixed in the amount of $12,000, and that that amount be paid by 5 March 2010.

15 Finally I should add for the sake of completeness that it was submitted on behalf of the defendant that certain amendments proposed with respect to the statement of claim by way of deletion of factual allegations do not go far enough. I am not persuaded that the pleading is on the face of it materially inadequate in relation to the matters raised, for the reasons I discussed with counsel during argument. It seems to me that the underlying issue is one which will have to be resolved at trial and in the light of the evidence as it emerges during the course of the hearing.

16 Accordingly, I propose to make orders generally in accordance with the oral reasons I have just given. First, that the plaintiff have leave to file and serve an amended statement of claim generally in accordance with the form appended to the summons dated 23 February 2010. I say generally because the proposed paragraph 80D needs to be denoted as such in the amended statement of claim.

17 Secondly, that the defendant file and serve an amended defence to the amended statement of claim as soon as is reasonably practicable. Thirdly, save with the consent of the defendant, the plaintiff call all evidence other than that relating to matters of fact alleged in the amendments permitted to the statement of claim prior to calling evidence concerning such matters. Fourthly, that Professor Ferguson be at liberty to respond to evidence relating to such matters by viva voce evidence with no written notice of the substance of such response to the plaintiff.18 Fifthly, the defendant be at liberty to apply for further directions with respect to evidence relating to such matters. Sixthly, that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs thrown away by reason of the amendments, including the costs of this application fixed at $12,000, on or before 5 March 2010.’

---

© The Habitat Advocate    Public Domain

Victorian Government’s VicForests is attempting to log old growth forests at Brown Mountain in East Gippsland, despite Brown Mountain being confirmed habitat for threatened and vulnerable wildlife. Local not-for-profit environment group Environment East Gippsland has commenced proceedings against VicForests in the Supreme Court of Victoria asking the Court for a permanent injunction to stop VicForests from logging Brown Mountain. 

.

Reports:

(most recent at top)

 

‘The Brown Mountain landmark trial has concluded in the Supreme Court on Thursday 25th March – after a 16 day trial.’

© Environment East Gippsland 2010 ^ http://www.eastgippsland.net.au/

East Gippsland residents  outside Victorian State Parliament in early 2010

protesting against the Victorian Government’s immoral and illegal logging and scorched earthing

of old growth forests of Brown Mountain in East Gippsland Victoria, Australia.

.

The photos show a Greater Glider [Petauroides volans].  The Greater Glider is strictly nocturnal, and largely solitary, arboreal species of undisturbed eucalypt-dominated woodland habitats.  It is endemic to south eastern Australian forests including Brown Mountain and  its population is decreasing largely due to land clearing for agriculture, logging, and bushfires.

[Source:   Environment East Gippsland,  20100327, ^http://www.eastgippsland.net.au/]

.

‘Justice Osborn has reserved his decision. It could take anywhere from one month to six months to hand down a finding, but of course we are hoping sooner.

The four week trial has been marked by finger-pointing between government logging bodies VicForests and DSE about who is responsible for endangered species. The behavior of those charged with protecting our wildlife has been exposed to public scrutiny and the Supreme Court’s enquiry.

We believe the government doesn’t survey for endangered wildlife before they log old growth forest, because they don’t want to find anything that would prevent logging. The Court heard that VicForests doesn’t employ wildlife experts, and EEG has argued that both VicForests and the DSE sideline the opinion of the government’s biodiversity unit.  We now hope the Minister is fully informed about the very high conservation values in this area.

EEG presented evidence of a new species of crayfish in Brown Mountain Creek, plus experts claiming the stands of old growth are high quality habitat for two species of rare frogs, and the Spotted-tailed Quoll. The evidence for the Spotted-tailed Quoll was heart-breaking – the three last remaining viable colonies are in East Gippsland.

This case has been all about whether irreversible damage would be caused by logging. And as our legal team stated:

“You can’t get damage that is more irreversible than extinction.”

The outcome of this case is important for the protection of wildlife in other stands of high conservation value native forests under threat of clearfelling.’

.

---

.

‘The Brown Mountain landmark trial has begun!’

[Source:  Environment East Gippsland, 20100315, ^http://www.eastgippsland.net.au/]

.

‘After months of preparation, our legal team and supporters have gathered in Sale and begun the two-week Brown Mountain landmark trial.

Everything is going very well so far. It’s difficult to report on a hearing that is in progress, particularly since we are the plaintiff, so this article might lack a few things.

Our lead barrister, Debbie Mortimer SC, spent Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning in Court outlining what we say are the facts and the law, in a fascinating opening submission.

She spoke about the beautiful native wildlife that is central to our case, and the Court was treated to large pictures of the critters. It was almost surreal, but quite appropriate in our view, to see a team of lawyers in black gowns and wigs defending the furry, the feathered, the cray and the frog.

She said that VicForests has a number of legal responsibilities towards the environment, including endangered species, and that those responsibilities are inconsistent with logging at Brown Mountain.

For a more detailed summary of the first day’s hearing, read this excellent article by The Age journalist Kate Hagen, who is attending the hearing Click here Journalists from ABC Radio and Win TV (channel 9) are also attending the hearings.

VicForests’ lead barrister Ian Waller SC started outlining VicForests’ case this afternoon. When Court adjourned today, he said he still had about an hour to go, so we haven’t got the full picture yet.

But generally speaking he contended that VicForests’ responsibility to the environment wasn’t anywhere near as strong as we made out, and was balanced by its requirement to create economic and social benefits. He said that, to the extent to which VicForests has responsibilities to the environment and native wildlife, it has fulfilled them.

Today (Wednesday), Justice Osborn and the legal teams are having a look at Brown Mountain first hand. It’s not just a bushwalk, though; they will observe first hand some places and concepts about forests, logging and post-logging practices that will later on be discussed in Court.

On Thursday morning, VicForests’ opening submissions will finish, then Environment East Gippsland will bring out our witnesses.’

 

---

.

Fate of native Forest Hangs on ‘David v Goliath’ Court Case

Source:  Environment East Gippsland, (EEG), 20100301,   ^http://www.eastgippsland.net.au/

.

Environment East Gippsland Inc (EEG) v Vic Forests Brown Mountain Court Case, Sale, Monday, March 1

‘The fate of a native forest with trees dating back to Joan of Arc’s time is at stake in a Supreme Court case to be heard at the Victorian centre of Sale from Monday (March 1).

‘The landmark Brown Mountain case has national implications for all native forests in Australia and major political implications, with the green vote likely to be vital for both State and Federal Labor Governments in an election year – which is also the UN’s Year of Biodiversity.

‘In a David and Goliath battle, Environment East Gippsland (EEG) is seeking to stop state-owned logging monopoly VicForests from clear-felling Brown Mountain, a rich and ancient forest which is “chockablock” with threatened and endangered species.

‘The action marks the first time a Victorian court has been asked to grant a permanent injunction against state-sanctioned logging. It will also raise the fundamental conflict in Australia’s Regional Forest Agreement – where the State Government charged with protecting the forests is also the logger.

‘That was underlined in Victoria last year when Environment Minister Gavin Jennings gave the go-ahead to logging at Brown Mountain, declaring there were no threatened species in there. That very morning an EEG camera captured footage at Brown Mountain of a Long-footed Potoroo, one of Victoria’s most endangered species.

‘In the absence of government protection, EEG was forced to take legal action to defend the forest – an enormous and costly step for a community group.

‘In an Australian first, EEG last year won a temporary injunction on logging at Brown Mountain, ahead of the full hearing, with Supreme Court Justice Forrest comparing images from the forest to the WW1 battlefields of the Somme.  But even if successful with their action, conservationists anticipate the Victorian Government may favour the logging industry and over-ride the court’s decision as has happened in previous high-profile cases in both Victoria and Tasmania.’

.

---

.

Brown Mountain Background

Source:  Environment East Gippsland  ^http://www.eastgippsland.net.au/

.

‘Brown Mountain, in East Gippsland in Victoria, contains old growth forest with ancient trees, one carbon-dated to 600 years old. It is prime habitat for threatened species including the Long-footed Potoroo, Spot-tailed Quoll, Sooty Owl, the Large Brown Tree Frog, the Square-tailed Kite, and the Giant Burrowing Frog. It is also a hotspot for arboreal mammals, like the Greater Glider and the Yellow-bellied glider.

‘Environment East Gippsland (EEG) alleges that logging four coupes on Brown Mountain is unlawful because it breaches provisions to protect endangered and threatened species in the Victorian Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004 and the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. In particular EEG says that VicForests has failed to comply with the Code of Practice for Timber Production 2007.

‘In the 2006 election, the Bracks Labor Government promised to protect “the last significant stands of old growth currently available for logging”. Brown Mountain should clearly have been included but, instead, 20 hectares were logged in summer 2008-09. Threatened species surveys triggered a moratorium in February 2009 followed by more surveys over winter and spring and, in August 2009, an EEG survey camera recorded the presence of a Long-footed Potoroo, one of Victoria’s most endangered species, despite the government’s declaration – earlier that same day- that there were NO threatened species at Brown Mountain.

‘In September 2009, EEG successfully obtained an interim injunction against VicForests to prevent logging in the coupes. In granting the injunction, Justice Forrest likened photographs of logging to ‘pictures of the battlefields of the Somme’.

‘Already the case has delivered important precedents:

• The Supreme Court refused VicForests’ application for up to $163,000 in security from EEG before a court injunction was granted to stop logging on Brown Mountain. Having to pay such a large sum would have stopped the community group being able to challenge critical habitat logging.
• The interim injunction, granted late last year, was also a groundbreaking decision because no Victorian court has ever ordered an injunction on logging before.

‘However there are concerns that the Victorian Government could override a logging ban, if the EEG case is successful.

‘Greens Leader Bob Brown successfully brought a court case to halt logging at the Wielangta forest in Tasmania because it threatened the endangered Swift Parrot, Tasmanian Wedge-tailed Eagle and Wielangta Stag Beetle. Then Prime Minister John Howard and Tasmanian Premier Paul Lennon amended the Regional Forest Agreement to permit logging to continue.

‘In 1998, logging at Goolengook in far eastern Victoria, the site of Australia’s longest running forest blockade from 1997 to 2002, was found to be unlawful because it was within a protected area next to a Heritage River. The Victorian government changed the law retrospectively to make the logging legal.’

.

---

.

Member’s Statement: VicForests – Brown Mountain old growth forest

SOURCE:  Victorian Greens, 20090402, ^http://mps.vic.greens.org.au/node/1057

‘Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — The Waikato Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory at the University of Waikato in New Zealand has confirmed that a tree cut down by VicForests in the Brown Mountain old-growth forest was between 550 and 600 years old. Until now foresters have claimed that these large trees were between 200 and 250 years old. Others have assumed that between 300 and 400 years would be the age limit before the trees succumb to rot. The tree was young when Joan of Arc lived and Christopher Columbus discovered America. It measured 11 metres around the stump close to the ground. Other trees on Brown Mountain have girths of 12 metres and more and could between 700 and 800 years old. They would have been mature when Marco Polo travelled the world. These trees are ancient relics and part of our precious national heritage.

‘VicForests and the Brumby government cannot replace these trees once they are cut down. They are logged on a 50-to-80-year rotation. It would take until 2600 AD for a tree to grow to the same size.

In 2006 Premier Brumby promised to protect the last significant stands of old-growth forests. Since then hundreds of hectares of these ancient forests have been cut down. It is not good enough for the government to claim that VicForests is independent and that the government can do nothing to save Brown Mountain. The government must act now to protect all remaining old growth forests in East Gippsland.’

.

---

.

Brown Mountain to stay green – for now

SOURCE:   The Wilderness Society,  http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/forests/brown-mountain-to-stay-green-2013-for-now

.

‘Brown Mountain, in Victoria’s East Gippsland, is home to magnificent old-growth trees as well as endangered species like the Orbost spiny crayfish and the Long-footed potoroo.

‘One of the giant Brown Mountain trees that will hopefully be saved by the Supreme Court Injunction.

(Photo: Luke Chamberlain)

.

‘But despite previous promises from the Victorian government to protect the last significant stands of old-growth forests in the state, Brown Mountain still has no protection against logging by VicForests.

‘Early in 2009, things were looking dire.  Ignoring community outrage, VicForests’ bulldozers continued to destroy trees as old as 500 years.

‘Supported by the Wilderness Society, along with many concerned residents, volunteers and other concerned Victorians, Environment East Gippsland brought a last-minute court injunction against the logging at Brown Mountain.

‘Environment East Gippsland is Victoria’s longest running community forest group working solely for the protection of Victoria’s last and largest area of ancient forest in the state. Environment East Gippsland drew a line in the sand, and submitted for a court injunction to halt the logging.’VicForests, the Victorian Government’s commercial logging agency, stood up in court and argued for logging to begin as soon as possible.

Incredibly, VicForests said that it is not their responsibility, nor is it possible for them to comply with endangered species legislation!

‘Supreme Court judge Justice Jack Forrest commented on photographs showing the ”apparent total obliteration” of an old-growth logging coupe in Brown Mountain and subsequent burning off, saying they reminded him of the battlefields of the Somme.

”To put it bluntly, once the logging is carried out and the native habitat destroyed, then it cannot be reinstated or repaired in anything but the very, very long term,” he said.’

An injunction against logging was granted just in time. But an expensive trial over the issue will be heard in March. The Brown Mountain forests will need all the help they can get.

---

.

Minister ‘on two fronts’ in forest

SOURCE:    Kate Hagan, The Age, 20100303, ^http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/minister-on-two-fronts-in-forest-20100302-pgg1.html

.

‘Environment Minister Gavin Jennings moved to protect significant areas of old-growth forest in East Gippsland at the same time as releasing some of it for logging, a court has heard.

‘Ian Waller, SC, for the state government’s commercial timber agency VicForests, said the minister announced new parks and reserves in the vicinity of Brown Mountain last year along with other measures to protect threatened species in the area.   ‘They included a 100-metre buffer zone around Brown Mountain Creek and the retention per hectare of at least five hollow-bearing trees, which are important for habitat and breeding, where they were present in sufficient numbers.

‘VicForests is defending itself against a claim by Environment East Gippsland that logging of about 60 hectares at Brown Mountain would breach legislation aimed at protecting endangered and threatened species.

In an opening address yesterday to the Supreme Court sitting at Sale, Mr Waller said much of the newly protected area had never been logged, despite claims to the contrary by the environment group.  ‘He said VicForests was meeting its obligations under various pieces of legislation and took a great deal of care in preparing its timber release plans, which had to be approved by the secretary of the Department of Environment and Sustainability (DSE) before logging could occur.

“‘It is not a random exercise by which areas of forest are deemed suitable for harvesting and only then checked for difficulties,” Mr Waller said. ”The entire process from beginning to end is one of checks and balances, where precautions are observed in identifying areas to be harvested as well as the manner in which harvesting is to occur.”

Mr Waller said it was the DSE, and not VicForests, that had the power and responsibility to create special protection zones where they were warranted. He said that logging might not pose a risk to the long-footed potoroo, listed as endangered by the federal government, because surveys after logging showed prevalence of the species had increased.   Mr Waller said there was evidence that factors other than logging were threatening spot-tailed quolls, since the species was not secure even in areas of plentiful habitat.   He said the guaranteed survival and flourishing of flora and fauna, as specified in legislation, was an ”aspirational goal” rather than an enforceable requirement. ”If a complete and utter guarantee had to be enforced in all respects it may be that harvesting would cease absolutely,” he said. ”Yet it is obvious the regime is to promote and allow harvesting.”

The trial is due to continue before Justice Robert Osborn, who today will view the contested site.’

.

---

.

Logging ‘a threat to wildlife’

Source: Kate Hagan, The Age, 20100302, http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/logging-a-threat-to-wildlife-20100301-pdlh.html

 

‘STATE-SANCTIONED logging of old-growth forest in East Gippsland poses a risk to threatened and endangered species and is at odds with the government’s own legislation, an environment group has said.

 

Environment East Gippsland is suing VicForests, the government agency responsible for logging in state forests, over plans to log about 60 hectares at Brown Mountain, which greens and the timber industry see as a symbolic battleground.

 

The group won an injunction last year preventing logging in the area before the trial, which began in the Supreme Court sitting at Sale yesterday.

The group acted after Environment Minister Gavin Jennings lifted a seven-month moratorium on logging at Brown Mountain, saying government scientists had found no evidence of endangered species there.    But in an opening address yesterday, Debbie Mortimer, SC, for Environment East Gippsland, said VicForests relied on ”desktop planning”, using often outdated records that were at odds with evidence from field experts on the ground.

She listed nine species in the area that were recognised as being ”in a demonstrable state of decline” and prone to extinction, including the square-tailed kite, powerful owl, spot-tailed quoll and giant burrowing frog.

 

She said the long-footed potoroo, which the federal government listed as an endangered species, was particularly vulnerable.

”To an outsider it’s tempting to characterise this as a case about trees and whether they should be cut down,” Ms Mortimer said. ”In our submission that is to see this forest only as a kind of farm … for the purpose of harvesting trees.

 

”Our case is to see it as an ecosystem that grows and decays on its own cycles. Flora and fauna depend on it. It is complex and not fully understood.”

Ms Mortimer said logging in Brown Mountain was incompatible with a ”suite of legislation” enacted in Victoria aimed at protecting and conserving biodiversity.

 

She said the legislation was ”not intended to turn tracts of forests into islands where isolated populations of species inevitably lack biodiversity and the optimal breeding conditions and habitat range to recover and flourish.

 

”We do not dispute that native forest logging involves very different, frequently competing interests. What we seek to demonstrate is that logging of old-growth forests inhabited by many threatened species … under the present administration by VicForests favours logging in a way that the legislative and regulatory scheme does not envisage or allow.”    She said forests were a ”community resource” that belonged to all Victorians.

 

The case before Justice Robert Osborn is due to continue today, when lawyers for VicForests are due to respond. ‘

 

---

.

‘Old-growth trees logged at Brown Mountain over 500 years old’

Source:  The Wilderness Society, 20100301, ^http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/forests/old-growth-trees-logged-at-brown-mountain-over-500-years-old

.

‘The Brumby government’s 2006 policy to protect old-growth forests in East Gippsland has been put to shame by VicForests who has been caught out logging trees over 500 years old.

In a state first, radiocarbon dating has confirmed that a tree logged and killed at Brown Mountain began growing before Christopher Columbus ‘discovered’ the Americas. The carbon sample shows that there is a 68% chance that the tree started growing between 1435 and 1490 AD, and it is believed that there are even older trees being logged.

In 2006, the ALP state government promised to protect the last significant stands of old growth forests.  In a move that can only be described as environmental and political vandalism, VicForests sent the bulldozers into the first of three logging coupes at Brown Mountain in October last year.

Recent flora and fauna surveys have revealed that Brown Mountain is extremely rich in arobreal species and contains endangered species such as the Orbost Spiny Crayfish and the Long-footed Potoroo.

However, VicForests continues to ignore community calls to end the logging at Brown Mountain and has refused to remove two more coupes planned to be logged any day now.

VicForests must be reigned in from destroying East Gippsland’s last remaining unprotected old-growth forests.’

.

by Editor 20091216.

Cann River Fire started by VicForests

———————————————————————————

The Reported Fire Facts

On Wednesday 16th December 2009, during peak summer on a day of high fire danger, a VicForest logging operation started a fire near Cann River in East Gippsland, which got out of control (again) and this time burnt over 7000 hectares [3/4 the size of Phillip Island].

The story goes that logging machinery was responsible while carrying out ‘thinning’ operations.   The burn got out of control and threatened the town of Cann River (pop.230).

The temperatures at the time stretched into the 30s.  The fire has since destroyed over 7000 hectares of East Gippsland forest habitat (which firies demonise as ‘fuel’).  The firefighting response involved over 150 firefighters and over 40km of bulldozed control lines.  It took over a week to control.

But the fire was not extinguished and blew up into a bushfire again on a day of TOTAL FIRE BAN on 12th January 2010.

Out of Control Again

The same fire “jumped containment lines” grew in size and threatened the town of Cann River and the hamlet of Tonghi Creek (5km east along the Princes Highway) plus numerous holidaying campers in the area. The new blaze was an outbreak from the larger fire that started at Cann River about a month prior.

Fire Fighting Performance

The DSE standard excuse is that the fire was “burning in dense, inaccessible forest” and standard firie practice is “to let it burn itself out.”  Of course this assumes the wind won’t pick up and rain will do the firies job for them.  At the same time the DSE will contradict itself saying “it’s the sort of country that burns very, very quickly and with the (wind) change heading towards it, that can be unpredictable fire behaviour that we have to deal with.’’  So clearly, the DSE policy of letting a remote fire burn itself out is recklessly irresponsible.  Time and again such negligence leads to flare ups.

Low and behold the wind did pick up, the fire jumped containment lines and spot-fires stared forming 200 metres ahead of the fire front.  The bushfire grew “rapidly from 5 hectares to about 60 hectares” and with wind changes stoking it got “out of control.”  Multiple roads including the Princes and Monaro Highways were closed.

So the firie reaction ramped up again – “two dozen fire trucks had joined three water bombers, three helicopters and a heavy-duty helicopter from Melbourne in fighting the fire.  Eight CFA strike teams and six aircraft had been dispatched to the fire and DSE fire crews were in there too.”  Over 170 DSE tankers fought the blaze.

Total Cost of Fire Accountability

As to the Total Fire Cost, including forest loss, economic losses including the consequential transport costs of closing Highway 1, and businesses in Cann River being forced to close.  As usual will not be measured.  VicForests won’t accept responsibility, let alone compensate.  Even if it was it would remain a state secret since it would show up the failings of Victorian fragmented firefighting.

Then they have the cheek to demand residents have a bushfire survival plan.  Residents need to be vigilant against forest arsonists operating in the area and then mindful that the emergency response will be half-hearted, so they better be super ready to evacuate if there is fire anywhere within 50km.

Fire Investigation

What investigation?  The DSE with the Victorian Police conducted an investigation but no information has been published.

So, unsupervised, VicForests is causing 2nd degree bush arson and getting away with it.  VicForests is not only a reckless environmental vandal; it is a State-sanction arsonist.

Questions:

Will the logging contractor or VicForests have to pay for the firefighting efforts and costs?

Will VicForests pay compensation for the loss of tourism to the area during these weeks?

Take Home Message:

It is time the Victorians community demanded Brumby hold his three stooges VicForests, DSE and CFA criminally and financially accountable for all prescribed burns and abandoned bushfires.

Fuel reduction is a firie myth.  It encourages dense regeneration of highly flammable vegetation which only exacerbates future fuel loads. It’s like mowing grass.  Once you start, you have to mow for life.   Bushphobia is a defeatist response to under-resourced firies throwing their hands in the air and saying we can’t cope, so burn it before it burns.

Prescribed burning and uncontrolled bushfires have become the greatest cause of native flora and faunal extinctions and possibly the greatest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions across the state.

Recommendations:

The buck stops with Victorian Premier John Brumby.

• Brumby needs to hold VicForests accountable for the consequences of prescribed burning getting out of control.

• Brumby needs to recognise the grossly inadequate capacity of DSE and CFA to detect, respond to and suppress bushfires especially remote ones in difficult terrain and that at times the CFA now deems of ‘catastrophic’ risk the CFA considers itself almost a useless force.

• Brumby needs to recognise that bushfire management requires respecting Victoria’s forests as rare and vital natural assets, not as fuel to be burnt before it burns.

• Brumby needs to legislate to prevent further housing approvals in bushfire flame zones and to introduce building standards that enable dwellings to be defendable in bushfire emergencies.

Reckless Fire History of Gippsland:

 

In early and mid-November 2009, prescribed burns by VicForests in East Gippsland escaped including one 2km west of Mallacoota and another left to burn months before (from still-burning underground peat from an autumn burn) around the Conran area.

When contained, the fires had burnt out several thousand hectares.

“On 1 December 2006, over 70 fires were caused by lightning strikes in the Victorian Alps, many of which eventually merged to become the Great Divide Fire Complex, which burned from December 2006 to February 2007 (69 days) across approximately 1 million hectares. Fifty-one houses were ultimately lost in the fires. One man died in a vehicle accident while assisting a property owner to prepare for fire impact.

By the 7th February, lasting 69 days and having merged to burn a total of 1,154,828 hectares [6 Port Phillip Bays].  The bushfires were the longest in Victoria’s history.  More than 1,400 firefighters had been injured (including bruises, cuts, blisters, burns, dehydration, broken limbs and spider bites). More than 400 St John Ambulance volunteers, including doctors, nurses and first aid officers provided first aid. On 16 December, eleven New Zealand firefighters were injured while fighting the fire in the Howqua Valley in north-east Victoria.”  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006-07_Australian_bushfire_season

Reported lightning strikes across north and east Gippsland and over the Great Dividing Range into NSW in early January 2003 were allowed to burn to 7^th March (two months) and wiped out over 1.12 million hectares of parks and forests (this figure includes the large number of lightning-caused fires that were contained in the first weeks of January) and destroying around 75,000 hectares of farmland, 41 houses, 200 other buildings.

On 31 January 1983 (Ash Wednesday), a fire starting at Cann River eventually burnt out 120,000ha to the north and west of the river.  It wasn’t brought under control until 12th February.   Then on 4th March, a second fire started, escaping from the first fire, and burnt a further 140,000 ha, and threatened the town of Mallacoota. It wasn’t controlled until 12th March.  So a quarter of a million hectares [or 2600km2] of forest burnt.   Port Phillip Bay is 1930 km2, to give a sense of scale.

Fires that burnt around Gippsland’s Mitchell River in 1965 wiped out the local population of Yellow Bellied Gliders;

References:

1.       AAP (via The Age) , 19-Dec-09, ‘Fire crews battle Cann River blaze’,

2.       Herald-Sun, Anthony Dowsley, Stephen McMahon,18-Dec-09, ‘Rain & gallant firefighters save Cann River’

3.       EMA Disasters Database – Country Fire Authority Victoria, Publication/Report – Fires of the Past by Andrea Carson.

4.       Fairfax Media (vie the Age), 12 Jan 10, Darren Gray, ‘New Cann River fire ‘out of control’

5.       DSE website – ‘Fire season 2002 – 2003’

6.       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006-07_Australian_bushfire_season

---

© The Habitat Advocate    Public Domain