Bark an up the wrong tree

How did so many people lose their lives on Feb 7th? Clearly the warnings about the danger were totally inadequate !
If you are going to be effective in warning people, you have to aim very clearly at the real and current high risk factors. Miss the target even slightly , and you lose the attention of those at risk. This blog is about the real problem of noise (mixed messages) and how it was a real problem even before the tragedy; The noise crowds out properly focused attention to the real casual factors on any site. Take the real risk factor with bark and poor planning of its management.
The government is great at providing relief . But should you trust the government to protect you- I think not. I used to work there right up against the issues. I made a lot of noise about matters of reduced reasoning in relation to risk ( my profession ) and my words were not welcome.

Everybody has an opinion about the cause of tragedies. That's OK provided that incredible noise factor doesn't crowd out the real casual factors and the work of properly trained risk assessors - those who study and observe all their lives. The noise within the new reactionary style of government encourages empire builders to jockey themselves to gain the credibility that is increasingly in question . Its the risk planners who increasingly have been losing their jobs to the firefighters in government.
Noise rather than precision is, is the voice of this governmne on risk.
Imagine an edition of CSI where professionals were forced to focus investigation on phone calls from the public,( like so much media even 10 days after the fire ). Whats dissipation and distraction for the detectives and how the trail and interest would go cold ) If you encourage political expediency in risk management- you cultivate quickfix and firefighting rather than fireplanning . Awefully boring stuff planning !

Take the issue of bark from our native trees . IT MAKES THEM LETHAL . Our native mountain forests shed bark, not leaves ( as our early european settlers discovered) That bark , rather than the leaves and branches, makes living near many of our mountain forests absolutely lethal when there is strong wind and fire. It's bark that creates the main danger from ember attack forward of the fires.
Some houses were protected by Western district cypress (WDC)during the western district fires in 1983 . So its the type of tree that should be at issue, not trees in general. WDC is one tree which itself can burn easily , but its not directly lethal, as many of our native forests are .
Lack of the precision which we expect of professionals is also evident in the dumb and belligerant NVR regulations which for decades now talk about ground fuel removal, when bark itself will fall on fire ban days and create the hazard straight after you have removed it. Dead tree removals too have been a no no and they fall over on such days. Reasonablity has been replaced with regulation.
One lesson is clear : don't rely on the government to protect you - They are not as concerned with providing a competent service as they used to be - the information provided to you is not site specific and competent - its suits those still there to generalise. The dummies have replaced professionals(more here) with person willing and happy to read you the regulations instead of being reasonable with you about real risks in your situation.
Tragic for the environment and those who really care about living with it