Catastrophes or Calamities in the Australian Bush December 2019

Post 3rd January 2020 large areas of coastal NSW south coast and in East Gippsland are still burning.

When the smoke finally clears from the angst of the new millenniums latest worry focus,  it will finally be recognized that a huge part of the reason for out of control fires in public land in the early summer of 19-20 is due to how that land in managed .
The problem was obvious when Canberra was burnt, but nothing effective has been done to make our management of bushfires and forests  better since.
I know because I not only  worked in the bush and farms with fires, government   and studied risk and our approach , but I know HOW and why a more effective system of bush fire containment works.
State government incompetence is well known 
I am not alone in insisting that State Governments have largely no idea of how to manage fire in forest , let alone manage forests themselves ( eg they have a largely no touch policy )  Since many of us quit working for "Greenlabor government idealism' years ago  , competent operators and  public servants has been silenced and the system corrupted.

Bucketing in solutions from on high 

The media and wannabes have no idea that the States have been following policies of public land management that greatly increase the risk of them and their neighbours burning . : 
Better systems of containment, fuel reduction  and public forest management have  been largely abandoned. 
The ascendancy of agencies with "high responsibility" has been escalated ; thereby corrupting the old system of departments based on grounds experience . Yes the talk is always about experience but the commitment of government now is to  experience of those qualified in  the new myth of mastery in management ; The focus of politics in people management experience is one of the most unsound . 
   A single agency to coordinate  is a clear example of this stupidity.  Just another bureaucracy.
 



It won't suit to discuss it in detail now ( 3rd January 2020) because the fire damage and risk is still serious and the battle lines have been hard drawn .


Some of the things that need to be reviewed after the fires 

1. Whether the States have effective containment policies that work , and why not 
2. Why aren't our government not training more people for on ground management. 

--How many men on the ground for every helicopter for example. 

1. Whether we have learnt the lessons of the parks fires which burnt into Canberra over 10 years ago 
2. Why ABC would get itself into a situation where its own programs ( Q and A) insist on " more helicopters " 
3. Whether media are helping by not showing the less acceptable machinery required to provide sensible and safe fire lines ( eg bulldozers in bush)  
4. why up until today no one has encouraged the Prime Minister  to direct monies to ensure States fund fire management staff who focus in effective containment in particular. 
5. Whethet an  elephant in the room is the increasing numbers of people  ( including friends of Russel Crowe) who insist in leaving fuel close to their houses and assets . Previous ( pre millenium ) 50 and 30 meters cleared zones were considered ESSENTIAL around buildings by the CFA . Anything less is still indefensible -even allowing for position and aspect . .
6. Whether Australains can afford to protect the assets of people who chose to take very high risks 
7. Whether popular and political opinion  is one of the most dangerous reasosn fro reducing competencies 

If you want to keep a calm and objective view,  listen to those who study and show ourselves approved.https://20943.mc.tritondigital.com/OMNY_NIGHTSWITHSTEVEPRICE_P/media-session/ceafffe4-2a0a-44af-8292-b301ef96939d/d/clips/88b564ea-a9a6-4751-910a-a5d800019396/a6a367c7-1cf2-4270-ba85-a6d600339454/28ec5162-006b-4cb7-baf2-ab36005a4419/audio/direct/t1577942955/Retired_fire_brigade_Captain_Ralph_Barraclough.mp3?t=1577942955&ttag=omny_clip_id%3A28ec5162-006b-4cb7-baf2-ab36005a4419%2Comny_clip_title%3ARetired%20fire%20brigade%20Captain%20Ralph%20Barraclough%2Comny_program_name%3ANights%20with%20John%20Stanley%2Comny_program_slug%3Anights%2Comny_network_name%3A2GB%2Comny_organization_id%3A88b564ea-a9a6-4751-910a-a5d800019396%2Comny_playback_source%3Apodcast&fbclid=IwAR1c_x1mDy1qFtzWMWdXQgnQQjYRyxCpJHU5rnHUeQnslJ4nTvi__9CRmcQ

January Fire Risks Victoria 2015

This site is NOT meant to be definitive about HOW YOU should respond to BUSHFIRE risk .
This POST is just a brief note WITH CHECKLIST at bottom ( Why necessary ? Because "much advice is best "and because many who work HIGH risk territory ( like the authors)  would not want anyone to be left to the media machine and practices of the government of this day- many of us used to work FOR them when they worked better,
Much advice and much LOCAL advice and phone contact should be sought .

Question Kids ask naturally are we at risk ? ( to MUM or DAD),,,Answer  ,  If you have big native trees or bush nearby-- YES you are and esp if its to the north or west of YOU   see posts below and links

Why this confusion?
Unfortunately with the intense love of the bush, there is a bit of denial . Time to give this up for realism if you live near bush and ...........leave early - if you can . If a bush fire is near or day progressing  you leaving maybe too late . In old days someone would often  come and tell you if it made sense to do so and where to go.
---Maybe ask your CFA friends  to do that because in this days and age of all talk and no responsibility you have few  better guarantees


Should you trust the government?  Well YES BUT sadly NO -----to the extent that trees have become sacred in their eyes , they and their processes TOO are in denial  PLUS they don't really understand and commit to local risk management ( its a local thing YOU have to be in charge of ) use own resources eg phone ; the internet and specific sites can go down as will some communication lines .Find a TWITTER feed that makes sense to you if you use it .( less likely to go down and quick)

CHECKLIST ( not definitive )

1. 
   
2. Wise up and trust your own judgement and those who live with similiar risks nearby  .
3. Carry woollen blankets, overalls ,phone nos ,lots of water and chainsaw ( if you can) in any car you use 
4. Carry LOCAL resource phonenumbers .low use local web and weather links eg http://otwaysonline.blogspot.com
5. If you do go somewhere safe , plan to come back late ( usually less risk) 
6. Expect electricity outages. If need power/ water supply find other sources, store water in smaller containers  
7. Add here ........................

When is it reasonably safe to stay where you are when bushfire front hits?

Difficult to give a definitive, but as a guide ONLY .Get more advice on your local situation and the nature of fuel in your area .Assumming a fire front and wind from the north or west .
1. In a car     when the grass around you is low and no native forest within 30 metres ( preferably more )The higher the timber, the greater the distance needs to be between you and the fuel .If stuck ,stay in the car and cover yourself with a woollen blanket . If you have to get out wear overalls .
2. In a house Much the same as above but houses will be much more susceptible to windows breaking and embers starting fires on the ground or in the roof .If there is no tall easily burnt fuel to the north or west of where you are, its probably reasonably safe but embers could mean you need to go outside to put fires out .
3.On a hill  if at all possible stay on the lee side of hills or landscape features ( east side of road cuttings is generally safer in high wind situations.
4. In a town   Native Trees in particular anywhere near houses can be very dangerous .Embers must be watched should they occur .

When to go and When to stay

NATIVE FOREST TREE  BOUNDARIES  ONLY

I accept that these guidelines may not be the best, or in any way complete ( mainly focused on road use decisions with cars near native tree forest in southern Australia ) but they seem to be better than always talking about "a plan" . Please advise on any needed adjustments.Posted  January 2013 .

This post was made because the car death a few days ago at Seaton illustrates the EXTREMELY HIGH RISK people are taking by living in and staying in a native forest situation.

(Most Australian Native forests are constantly shedding bark and leaves , contain lots of wax and oil and shed these things even more during dry windy periods )

USE ALL SOURCES of information TO MAKE FINAL DECISIONS












STOP  
The only reasonably safe place to be in a car is when the car is at least the distance away from Native forest species as that specified below ( Forest should be at least twice the distance away as it is high ) . In otherwords if the fire is in grassland staying in cars is  reasonable to be considered .Staying in cars is :not normally safe in cars in forest. That is, there is probably no safe space near native forest species forest.


GO
if you haven't got at least 30 metres ( by which I mean should be at least 40metres  - see CFA guidelines which includes an aspect consideration )of cleared ground between you and the fire you probably shouldn't be there. While wind speed and aspect makes a big difference to the degree of risk . No way you should stay if wind speed is even moderate or expected to be so on the day  .If the land slopes to the north or the west away from you the need to go is clearer still _think of open forest as standing kindling .

USE WIND SPEED , ASPECT OF LAND and FUEL AMOUNTS to help make decisions and see earlier posts .Study previous events and note safer places nominated .

Places of last resort

Some people find it so hard to make decisions,  they don't make them .

Those in charge on Feb 09 NOT in charge:

NEWS Emergenecy services not ready - Christine Nixon thinks she can leave the building ! ( Revelation at Royal commission this week). Noone who has ever worked a bushfire would accept it for the person in her position ! SHE'S OUTA THERE WHEN SHE CAN'T LEAVE TILL THOSE AT RISK ARE OUTA THERE .

For another revelation - (yet,  to come we trust) ( A word that should have been in pace for last fire season but wasn't !!) The word Evacuation has been banned-- time the embargo was lifted and those hiding behind their incompetence named ;
This needs to be said juts in case the commission haven't the courage to say so - the word should never ever have been banned and all the other confusing messages should have been .The only place to be when a very high fire risk is on is,    outa there ---and who would supervise that ?

Now 14 months since the greatest natural disaster in Australasia history and Brumbys search for th whole truth and nothing but the nice truth ( errors of judgement ) continues - pity about the bad modeling thats rife in his entourage.
Even The interim recommendations didn't include evacuation as an option and the word appears to have been banned . The emergency services are liable because the only place to be when a very high fire risk is on is outa there . yOU HEARd IT FIRST ON fORESTANDFIRE

The missing Fire Plans

Everybody is talking about fireplans but where are they ? Went looking for some examples on Google Images, but could find few . So here's one I prepared earlier for a worksite in the bush . Send me an email if you want to know more , or do you own HERE

Bushfire Royal commission recs

While the Commission fails to get the disaster paradigm of February Fires into perspective, many of the interim recommendations are welcome ( see below )eg Support strongly1-4,16,17,38,39,44.
Point is, if the Commission can't say that "we have a problem because we are not allowed to say to people "you are living in an impossible risk situation" we will still have the problem. What do you expect the police to do now that the emergency commisioner esplin has ruled out of order any discussion on what he didn't organise ?
That a BIG paradigm problem remains is also evident in the very patchwork and very weak nature of the recommendations noted in the warning chapters; the unnecessary lack of clarity and confusion over what constitutes “good information”.Such confusion is totally uneccesary !
The failure of the commission to tackle intractable Command and control sensibilities up the line could be addressed by Subpoena -ing more outsiders to talk to practical realities. Otherwise, more of the same "bottleneck" problems for incident controllers can be expected .
The commission need to focus much more clearly on what constitutes good information (Far more important than warning issue )
For example, just the knowledge of local fire origins and changing local wind MUST be broadcast on Radio - this is not expensive or difficult if someone is authorised to do it ( rather than rely on the controller SEE BELOW ). Remember if you wait for "the situation people" to publish ALL the details of fire "where and where its headed to " it can take too long .Besides let the people make their own decisions 4:61:4;62. on the basis of limited but verifiable info - leave the speculation to later or the truly local .
The web , for example is seen in the report as a monitoring mechanism ( a good one -has spatial advantage over radio but not as reliable or accountable or nearly as quick as a dedicated radio service in your area on TFB days ) Loss of mains power is normal and websites reliance on confirmed “situation “reports means it will always be slow. Info on local wind changes is also critical to good information ( but not easy to give out) and some other source can feed the dedicated radio reporter who should be set up in your area ( Recommendation 26 under 4:23 in warnings report )
Alternatively the high cost benefit of broadcast fire reports is not highlighted even though local radios can be heard for all those on relocation and with external information sources- wind changes (BOM site). When you warn is another matter.
( RADIO reports: they can be got immediately in car ,shelter through all radio mediums esp if no other reports are broadcast on a loop without interruption )
My suggestions for change for this season (for a start) - make for some improvement easily and effectively.
1. Make sure Fire controllers authorise the "immediate" publication of fire locations on days of TFB .( a report issued to media within 15 minutes of site being located )
2. Make sure RA review whether "situation reports" are processed fast enough with a view to making sure something goes out within 15 minutes.
3. RA must be given authority/ responsibility to issue media reports on a very frequent basis and not focused so much on the web / or any other medium as the answer.
4. Legislate if necessary to make sure one truly local radio broadcaster or broadcasters are required to run fulltime reports if there is a fire or extensive smoke on days of TFB. Recommendation 26 under 4:23 in warnings report see comments below on the role of community radio-esp as a practical and reliable dedicated service provider. Tell the public about all the options for them and not just the ABC !!!!
5. Give the police and other RA’s the authority to give (without fear or favour independent )evacuation advice – both early (Rec 15) and late

All we want is common sense

Some very welcome positive responses from the Commision, Today . Today's announcements regarding improved approaches to risk management seem to be based on sound reflection on what happened on Black Saturday and a recognition of some critical but lying dormant institutional weaknesses identified below .
All we want is common sense and les control freaks . Most welcome is the challenge to make sure information is not lost, but is properly shared ( previous posts) The heirachy of information dissemination must be disassembled to make sure people share info rather than have to wait till its " properly authorized"-- whoever says what there will be risks so its imperative that governemnets don't just listen to lawyers and those who clone them .
.....
The failure to understand the sound basis for authority in risk management goes to the heart of the B government's highly distracted, wasteful and reactionary approaches to it across a wide range of agencies( another matter)
Welcome news

Not about the number of warnings

But the nature of them.
Mr Russell Rees has been reported in the Media as claimimg that there were "enough warnings" .
It would be a double tragedy ,if after losing so many people because we are not warning them well , if the inquiry itself gets lost in some of the excuses; in identifying the wolf warriors, but not when, and to where, its best to call them.
One of risks for the commission is to not recognise the way to be effective with warnings . Another risk is to miss the opportunity to see what proceedures inside bureaus can and should be changed ; for example,what needs to be done to resist excuses for the heavy one way traffic into the congestion riddled incident control systems -ICC's.

On the other hand, noone who has ever been involved with Bushfire information provision would expect things not to go wrong . And the huge number of incidents on Black saturday was far bigger than either CFA or DSE could cope with easily; Things had to go wrong and it would not matter for some - "how many warnings"!

This note is not to condemn anyone; rather to remind the press that things will go wrong. To target Rees or Waller is really to miss the point - they and those around them have very difficult and responsible jobs . The watershed question is whether the structures serve the situation and in what ways can they be reformed to do it better. The classic no solution risk is "revolution" and blame because its easy and looks more " effective" . The stockade could come of this looking pretty good if they find someone to blame inside the bureaubrats . Neither the stockade nor the bureaubrats are totally responsible here.

The officers on duty on those days are under huge pressure to make decisions and it doesn't matter how brilliant or capable they are - things will still go wrong !
As Rees has rightly said - the resources were overtaxed and the press need to be very careful they let the inquiry focus on the wolf properly - not the wolves generally. One thing that needs to go much better than it used to ,is to insist that fire tower reports are not tied up in the incident control system. Unless things have changed a lot , radio stations wait for too long for basic info on location.
The point is, the focus has been too much centred around the ICC - should the responsibility for information provision rest with the growing incident control systems entirely? In what ways can the information be deseminated sharing the risk, rather than take it all to the top . Things will still go wrong, but at least the ICC won't be focus of all the power and blame; Why should they be?

If the inquiry fails to recognise, in all the things that are "legitimately" out of control ( like phones , like too many messages , like secondary questions, like deaths because of poor choices , like deaf audiences, like busy controllers, ) on such truly dangerous days, there are several quality control issues on media use listed below that MUST be dealt with before the next TFB days .

One area that needs reform is in the nature of warnings - Warning is not just about noise , volume and number - its also about effective education and proper use of the team- esp "the ones at the bottom ". Good to see the Commission focusing on the question of control of local information (The locals need to have ownership too - not just the heirachy)
Last summers ads campaigns were offensive to those of who work in risk planning and live near the ground ,because they were always talking about the wolves, but not always helping the people watch out for him in their own backyards.( where are the websites like our own??)The need to warn people on the eastern flank and evacuating them should not be a matter for controversy in Victoria as it has been.
Its not about the number of warnings, but the nature of them.
Another legitimate area of questioning is the situation report system. The incident control and situation report system has been too slow and too restrictive, and was rightly the subject of some good questions yesterday.

Dark greens on a dark ages death wish

Proclaiming nature's so called "moral imperatives" is a highly effective way of keeping an audience for simple minded idealogues. Problem is, in the real world - it doesn't work because no such direct connection exists. Things are little less direct- no one system dominates another .Cooperation is in order.
Real world environmental management requires respect for unity in diversity - something that you have to study in detail before you can predict its behaviour.

SO Competent clever country practitioners, whom you know , or ought to, know the simplicities of the new religions offend and fail to work. Scientifically- genes don't come anywhere near the determination of all decision making ( take even the latest research on cell control)- Pity our mental health if they do; pity the mental health of our children because they are taught so .

The complex machinery of natural systems is, for humans in particular, the amazing starting structure in which some choices can be made. To say otherwise is to return us to the dark ages. We are living in the dark ages - a cloud over choice empowerment !
So, how seriously stupid are our supposedly practical pollies when they let the simple sermons take root! When public practice and policy on environment practice is a whole of hot air - lots of sound and fury, bluff and bluster , fear and fortune making( consultants and grant getters) - but signifying nothing .
The authority of the sermon givers cannot last when lots of our own people get burned uneccesarily and the conservation cash converters can't deliver.
"Let the forest live..... and the people burn !"If this was the text for yesterday , let it not be the text for tommorrow
Don't laugh - this is what public policy on environment has come to in 2009 ?
Hasn't this playing up to the minors made the government ineffective and incompetent ? Clearly the influence of the dark greens has been huge .
The dark greens actions in meddling in things they don't fully understand has been threatening our commoncensus politics for decades ( giving way to green senators and coalition left partners)- to the extent that many are unaware that its their half baked ideas and actions that create the " lets sit in the danger zone, doing whats right in the Shire's/ gods/ who knows whose eyes, and hope for the best attitude" that presumably got many people killed in February.
Dark greens ( assumming most people are green and rightly so ) don't respect their territory - ie what they really know and what production ecologists know ( how to fit houses into the bush) No - D greens use their position in the centre to force changes to make nature ( whatever that chooses itself to be ) more important than man. Now that stupidity has filtered down to local government level, its stupidity is obvious - but we are a compliant lot.
The real question for the resolution and protection of our democracy and effective governmnet is

Do we now believe, after giving in to their talk for decades ( as we have acted in parliament) , that nature is more important than people?

The warnings been there for decades .And don't believe you can sit and let the nonsense talk continue without effect . More from 2005
Excerpt source Sarapatna

Environmental regulation driven by Green politics threatens the rule of law and property rights. The flawed processes by which environmental policies are determined and enforced not only subvert constitutional principles but also admit bad science.

Copyright EA

Northern, Southern , Eastern ; Know what slopes you are on

Know what slopes you are on -every person living in rural Victoria should know just where they are ; because the winds and land are predictable features to plan with .see here

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

Ash Feb 09 : What the Govt don't know about what the people don't know

Telling others about risk is a touchy matter. Do it well, and you are likely to get your hand bitten off . Do it poorly and the person at risk is likely to get more than their hands lost. This blog explores timing as well as content ; volume as well as substance . Cry wolf and you get unecessary deaths . How much crying wolf is going on ? We think we know what other people need to do/know, but do we? The government think they know what we need to know and do, but do they? They know generally, but is generalized warning helpful or dangerous ?

you know the expression by your own 15YO " oh mum, oh dad ..........oh govt"
To get people informed and alert about a real risk you need to capture their interest . If you don't concentrate on real risk you can harden people against listening - Crywolf messages can grow from letting the children take charge ; not watching as well as listening ; not ensuring you have times when you are silent and when you yell ;
as well ,has the recent past been too much focused too much on how WE can help U with the big bad wolf and not enough about how U can deal with the BBwolf ( previous blog) We are not children are we ? We don't look like it but well .. see below .

Government must stop producing "wolf is at the door ads" from the centralised bureau of blurred vision and RELY more on properly trained risk advisers, giving them the power and authority they need to do their job; allowing people to act with wisdom and not blind worship (eg of the Shire planning scheme) Educating people about the things they are interested in ( eg the wolfs nature and weak points: teasing out aims and ambitions which motivate / will activate)Top down approach weaknesses are most obviuos when timing is a critical factor - these times;any times of high risk . (Take 774's interuption of the cricket on Sunday - 774 should not be the fount of all knowledge on days of lower risk; and when truly local is more appropriate; timing again )

As described elsewhere, professional and objective advice from people trained to manage risk has been ignored. Anyone with reasonable experience here will tell you people living constantly in high risk situations tend to ignore risk - The complex psychology of risk management means complex approaches to message management .The deeper paradox ( sorry to have to use that word but it is part of the deeper realities that drive human motivation) the kindergarten assumption by govt leaders that " just warning messages" is enough is the reason why education alone ( the previous blog) is not enough.People do not always listen and thats partly their problem not the govts . Unfortunately govt failure to support PS professionals (cutting deeper and more effectively )culture is another reason they lost many many big picture planning people in the first place -perhaps these people made the job seem too hard for a mere politician?

Ash Feb 09 Educating the people in the war zone

While the Departments argue over who gets what resources and, perhaps, who knows more about fire management? , how about asking the question of whether the people at risk know enough .
Its Not about who knows more about fire management but about whether the people at risk KNOW enough .
For example

"What % of those killed didn't even have the basic expectation that a fire would come at them first from the north and then possibly from the west".

Their choice perhaps but . How many really understood that being on the southern side of a huge fuel load on the northern slopes of Victorias mountains on a TFB was a risk that noone should take?

Ash Feb09 : Justify why you should stay there

If you choose to be against the bush on such days as Black saturday , why should someone risk their lives trying to drive to you or protect your assets?

If we must have a plan - get it approved ! Now there is bureaucracy for you. Soon people would not ask for a permit they would realise there is no safety in your own plan when noone should be against the bush on the northernslopes on a TFB day like saturday .

The phone call ( the big news from esplin yesterday ) may be helpful but because time is short and the caller can't see or respond well, it should not be relied on .
Govt must use warning systems that are either prepartory OR immediate, responsive and reliable -like all types of radioin particular

Ash Feb 09 Fuel reduction

DSE should have been justifying where grazing, mowing and removal or lopping of Native vegetation should require a permit---- not the other way around. ( Since NVR came in , its just been a hamfisted moving feast of regulations aimed at increased review and decreased access ; a huge body of bush picnic that's now large enough to confuse a queens councillor dedicated to try and understand it )
Shires have finally listed (Oct 2008 ) some exemptions from the myriad of native vegetation clauses that have for a decade confused most planners , let alone any poor citizen who tries to read them "40cm girth 1.5 metres high ".

Time to redress the imbalance - let the people know what their rights are to make decisions. Make it clear to a confused and frightened public ( "you /we need a permit, ....tell us what you want to do inwriting and we will tell you whether we approve it .... so we did nothing") For over a decade now none could tell you when and where slashing, mowing, grazing,lopping and fence clearing could be carried out.

Instead of spending all their time viewing permit applications from all over the place , the NEW exemptions should be publicized and made clear ; Ever sinve NVR came there was this confusion and implied permitable action stuff; seeking to gain the power to control "to the maximum extent" possible ; Rural people felt they had to get a permit for everything and not cut anything down . Real managers of roadsides, boundaries and assets need desperately to regain the sense of reasonable control they used to have and need to operate with common sense.

How far can you trim branches hanging over your fence,or your assets- it was clear in the city : how come it wasn't in the country for so long ? Direct publications are now needed to redress decades of determined resistance and rural confusion about " what we are supposed/allowed to do "
The balance of responsibility is still all wrong. It should be up to DSE/Shires to justify why they let flora and fauna protection "concerns" override Fire protection and adjacent land managers responsibility for using common sense .
And still more : whose responsible for the confusion - DSE , or the Shires or the government who let this NVR legislation and the duplication of "agencies responsible" result in an ever moving feast.

Ash Feb 09 More planning, less fire fighting

More radio , training services and less Elvis

What do you think? All governments have a difficult choice when it comes to expenditure on risk management . Too many concentrate on solving problems as they arise --the rushing in approach
The biggest burden to the budget over the last few years must be Elvis and his mates .Looks impressive but where else should the money be spent. What do you think ?- briefly .

Ash Feb 09 Monocultural madness -

If you warn everybody about everything all the time you warn nobody in real risk. 774 should not be advertising itself as the fount of all knowledge . The lack of prior advertising of specific warnings for local areas and stations dedicated to constant fire updates ( such as Otway FM) did not help.

The messages should have been much clearer and more specific . Previous blog item says it as well. If you live near the bush on the northern slopes you shouldn't stay there on certain days. This advice would have been given by forest fire managers in the past . As most CFA is active in open country, the opportunity to defend assets is more of an option in their traditional territory -open rural country .
Why did 774 try to do everything when community stations could have been supported to do what they started and do best - run dedicated warning services.

What do you think ?

Ash Feb09 : The ads were wrong. The governments risk advisory mechanism is faulty .

The notion that you can stay near bush when you live on the northern slopes is complete rubbish, so why did both agnecies support the namby pamby ADS to " have your own plan" to save yourself. Confusion created by a forced sense of unity about how to manage risks . As if all risk is the same everywhere. They talk diversity but have no idea how to maintain it as an effective force in governing.
Noone is safe living on the northern slopes near the bush when the northerlies are up , so even if people had their fire plans approved ( a step in right direction )no play and stay plan should be allowed to provide the level of false confidence that plans provided in that situation in those high risk areas. The ads are faulty and give no adequate warning.
What do you think ? why wasn't good advice given more clearly . Do you have a good link with more info ?