Bundarrah Days

Scientists mapping the world's water stocks by using satellite pictures have confirmed that Australia is the grip of a drought, The Age reported today.

California Professor Jay Famigliettii said it would take five years before his team could say whether our falling water stocks were a consequence of climate change.

However, the big news is that just in case we weren't sure why it hasn't rained much recently, science has confirmed the big dry.

"We know Australia is in drought," the professor said. "The data is agreeing with that."

Maybe we should ask him to confirm that eastern Victoria is on fire?

I WAS corrected on The Age Your Say blog the other day for criticising The Wilderness Society's campaign manager, Gavan McFadzean after he confused the terms fire tolerant and fire resistant.

Victor Svatek says I got it all wrong and explains the facts to me. Unfortunately I didn't get a chance to reply to Victor because The Age closed the thread. He said:

"Phil Maguire, I take it you are referring to my attempted explanation of the difference between "fire tolerant" and "fire resistant". So let me have another go...


Fire tolerant species: is relatively easily flammable, normally survives fire (i.e. "tolerates" it and does not "resist" it), and may benefit in terms of reproduction, exclusion of competing species, etc. Examples include most types of eucalypts, especially the drier ones such as the stringybark (I think).


Fire resistant species: is not easily flammable under most conditions (i.e. "resists" fire) but when it eventually gets burned it normally dies (i.e. does not "tolerate" fire; therefore you could also call it fire "sensitive"). Rainforest is the most obvious example. Mountain Ash is also an example to some extent. It needs fire to reproduce, however, the standing trees normally get killed by fire. Mountain Ash by itself does not really resist fire but because it often comes with a rainforest understory an old growth Mountain Ash forest will normally be fire resistant to some extent (it's all a matter of degrees)."

Firstly, mountain ash forests do not have a rain forest understorey, they have a wet schlerophyll understorey which is substantially different. They carry a massive load of fine and heavy fuels due to infrequent burning and in a dry summer they can explode. Mountain ash is not fire resistant in the sense in which Victor means, nor are they fire resistant in the way I interpret the term.

David Ashton, botanist and expert on Victoria's mountain ash forests says:

"The dry eucalypts have developed all these resistant buds and bark and underground parts. They can be burned and come back within weeks." (They are what we call fire resistant or fire tolerant.)

On the other hand Mountain Ash as a species is highly fire sensitive.

Parks Victoria's Mountain Ash information page tells us that:

"Other than old age, wildfire is the only other common cause of death in Mountain Ash. Characteristics that cause this tree to be fire sensitive include the long ribbons of hanging bark and the extreme combustibility of the foliage."


Finally Museum Victoria says this about the Mountain Ash:

"The tall Mountain Ash does not regenerate naturally except through the agency of bushfire, when in its death throes the trees set seed in the smoking ash bed. Indeed even the tree's form and chemistry makes it highly flammable. Living amongst the tall forest might be likened to living amongst a forest of live matches!"

But all this argument is really unnecessary. Svatek is trying to defend McFadzean who was discussing fire in the Victorian Alps and the only real example he can provide of what he calls "fire resistant" is rainforest which isn't relevant to the discussion. Rainforest makes up only a tiny proportion of our forests. For example, in East Gippsland it accounts for about one per cent of the forested area. And it's not fire resistant by any means.

The facts are plain and to try and claim that the terms fire resistant and fire sensitive are the same is incorrect. However, fire tolerant and fire resistant can be and are used interchangeably.

THE big cover-up into the wildfires of December 2006 has already started.

A memorandum from Parks Victoria yesterday revealed that there were no deaths as a result of the massive conflagration.

Most people will be surprised at that having read about the death of firefighter, Don Dosser, at Seaton.

According to Parks Victoria Mr Dosser's death was not due to the fires and astoundingly the Victoria Police are treating it as a motor vehicle death. Don Dosser is just another statistic.

This is despite the fact that the Seaton fire which Mr Dosser was fighting is believed to have been deliberately lit.

It now appears that there will be no Coronial Inquest.

The question that now arises is this: If those responsible for lighting the fire are apprehended and charged, will they be able to be charged with offences in relation to Mr Dosser's death?

THE Bracks government is considering a marketing and advertising campaign to bring tourists back to fire ravaged areas of Victoria.

Remembering their last big campaign for the region - A New Start For The Alpine National Park - we here at Bundarrah Days have a suggestion for a sequel.

A New Start For The Alpine National Park - Come See What We've Done!

It would do city people the world of good to see what the management policies of this government have done to the alpine area.

STEVE Bracks, John Thwaites and Bruce Esplin have just lost their most important defence against accusations of bad management leading to this summer's feral fires.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,209805...

The CSIRO says the drought gripping the south-east of Australia is due to natural climate variations and not the greenhouse effect. That should put a dampener on attempts to blame the disaster on global warming and climate change.

CSIRO researcher, Barrie Hunt, says that people who claim the present drought is a once in 1000 year phenomenon have no understanding of natural climate variability.

"They don't understand that according to natural variability we could get another one in 50 years or it might be another 800 years, and there's no way of predicting it," he says.

THE Age went out of its way today to confirm its reputation as a rag and Australia's worst excuse for a newspaper.

Editor Andrew Jaspan has done Whelan The Wrecker proud with his demolition job on this once fine Melbourne journal.

Today's big feature, Trees Don't Start Fires by the Wilderness Society's Campaigns manager, Gavan McFadzean, is the kind of nightmare piece that dogs editors foolish enough to publish them to the end of their days.

You can read it here: http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/trees-dont-start-fires/2006/12/26/1166895294292.html?page=3

McFadzean tells us not to be concerned when "the anti-national parks lobby feigns concern about bushfire risk." The contributions of people like me (and I'm not anti National Parks anyway) are labelled as unscientific, insensitive and opportunistic.

We're opportunistic because we have dared criticise forests management while fire crews are busy saving lives and property. No matter that we are criticising the policies that placed these firefighters in the front-line. No matter that the firefighters are people like us, not like Gavan McFadzean and that most of them share our opinions, not his. Where was McFadzean when the flames were roaring?

And we're unscientific because the more "managed" a forest is for logging, roading and four wheel drive access, the more fireprone it becomes." Of course he doesn't offer any scientific evidence in support of his position. You're supposed to take him at his word.

Parks are not locked up, he says. They are managed as part of fire protection plans - management burns are routinely made in most parks and firebreaks are found in most of them or along their boundaries.

He surely can't be serious. I share a lengthy boundary with the Alpine National Park and no fire break is maintained along it. In any case, if that claim was true who would be maintaining breaks along the entire boundary of the Alpine National Park? It would be an impossible job and for McFadzean to claim it as a fact shows that he is away with the fairies. Apart from that, what good would a three metre firebreak do? Three metres is the maximum width to which Parks Victoria will allow any kind of break along its boundaries with freehold land. When it comes to wildfire a three metre break is less than a three inch hop to a kangaroo. As for management burns being routinely made it's already been pointed out that DSE (which is responsible for fuel reduction burning in national parks and state forests) has not met its prescribed burning target for years. This year it burnt 49,000 hectares of its planned 140,000 hectares.

McFadzean also claims that contrary to popular opinion, most fires start outside parks and burn in. Of the most recent blazes this summer, 70 per cent started in state forests. Well, so what? DSE is responsible for fuel reduction burning in both.

His next statement is a beauty. He says "the fires of Black Friday, 1939, burnt 10 times the area of the 1983 Ash Wednesday fires, yet there were few national parks back then." If you're not laughing at that, you should be. The same country that is now locked up in national parks burnt in 1939 and for the same reason that it burnt this year - lack of fire prevention. Did not Judge Stretton in his 1939 Royal Commission report criticise the Forests Commission for the very fact that it had neglected its obligation to keep the forests safe by reducing the fuel burden? He was referring to the very same forests as McFadzean.

McFadzean tells us condescendingly that forests are ecosystems; they respond to whatever you do to them. Their response to regular hazard-reduction burns is for fire-tolerant plants to take over from fire-resistant plants, because they thrive in a regular fire environment. As a result, so-called hazard-reduction burns may, in fact, create a more fireprone landscape.

Again, this is nonsense. If it was true the areas which have not been subjected to regular fuel reduction burning, and that is most of the forests, would not be as fireprone as they have proved to be. As for the claim that fire-tolerant plants take over from fire-resistant plants, ask yourself how it is any different if the bush is subjected to a cycle of wildfire, regeneration and more wildfire? By the way, if plants were fire resistant they would be unaffected by fuel reduction burning and could not be taken over by fire tolerant species. McFadzean actually meant to refer to fire sensitive species. This alone demonstrates his ignorance. There is no difference between fire tolerant and fire resistant species.

He continues along his ridiculous line of argument by claiming that the 2003 bushfire inquiry noted that the "prescribed-burning debate has been at times ill-informed and peppered with gross exaggerations and the view by some that one size fits all". The inquiry noted that there are only about 10 days a year when conditions are right for prescribed burning.

Let's look at this statement more closely. That means that it is better to risk fires like those we have just endured than risk a fuel reduction burn escaping in conditions where there would be far more hope of containing and extinguishing it. The excuse runs thus: We didn't burn off last winter because the conditions were too dangerous and we just crossed our fingers and hoped that no fires would break out in even more dangerous conditions come summer time."

McFadzean says the oversimplification of this issue by some sectors of the public is dangerous. In fact, what is dangerous is the simplistic approach of wilderness buffs like himself.

Bushfires are a complex phenomenon, he says, and no single land-management practice will reduce the extent and frequency of large, intense fires across the entire landscape.

The argument that we should engage in widespread and regular burning of the forest because that's what Aboriginal people did for years is, as the 2003 bushfire inquiry put it, "a highly attractive philosophy".

But the inquiry rightly concluded that unfortunately "we do not know enough about traditional burning in southern Australia to be able to re-create an Aboriginal burning regime".

We have never said that a single land management practice would reduce the prevalence of wildfire. We have called for a comprehensive prevention strategy. McFadzean is fond of the discredited Esplin Inquiry.. But again, he is ill informed. What we do know is that before European settlement wildfires such as 1939, 1983, 2003 and 2006 did not occur. Scientists have studied it and there are no Aboriginal myths or traditions that deal with the subject of such widespread and disastrous fires which would undoubtedly have trapped and killed numerous people, probably entire tribes. We do know that there was an Aboriginal burning regime and it wouldn't be difficult to reproduce it given our knowledge of the state of the forests prior to our arrival.

The claim that people holding the alternative view to McFadzean are unscientific is laughable. Australia's most eminent fire scientists and foresters all take the opposing view as does anthropologist and environmentalist, Tim Flannery, and leading international fire scientist, Stephen. J. Pyne.

EVERY time I come across a good example of environmental spin I try and be sure to expose it here at Bundarrah Days.

The following is from evidence given to the recent Senate Inquiry into National Parks and Conservation Reserves.

Associate Professor Geoffrey Westcott is a former chair of the National Parks Advisory Council and ex-deputy chair of Parks Victoria.

Have a read of this and see if you believe that he really knows what he is talking about. My observations appear throughout in brackets.

In reply to a question by Senator Adams about deer, Prof. Westcott said:

Prof. Westcott -- The deer are a pest in the high country. They are part of the entire introduced pest, plants and animals problem. As Doug pointed out, you can stalk deer anywhere in the Alpine National Park with bows and arrows et cetera. The Sporting Shooters Association has entered into a partnership with Parks Victoria so that areas of parks can be closed and the Sporting Shooters Association can target deer in those areas without risk to public health and safety. I think there is no doubt that the agencies recognise that it is a problem. There is no doubt that government does. As anybody knows, the alpine high country is not the easiest country in which to move through at the best of times. It is certainly a problem, and the agencies would love to have no deer in those parks. I think complete eradication is probably unlikely given the nature of the countryside. Those public-private partnerships seem to be the best bet at the moment.

Senator ADAMS—Do you consider they are really looking at it seriously?

Prof. Wescott—Yes.

Senator ADAMS—They really are trying to do something?

Prof. Wescott—Absolutely. I am again calling on my Parks Victoria experience here. It is one the prime problems and, as I say, they are exploring partnerships as a way of addressing it given that they do not have the money to do it all off their own back. The alpine country is extraordinarily rugged and it is very difficult—particularly for deer, which can move so easily. Goats pose a similar problem in desert parks. It is very hard.

(Of course, anyone who reads this blog regularly knows what a lot of nonsense Prof. Westcott spoke. Deer are classified as protected wildlife under the National Parks Act 1975 and their presence is tolerated and perpetuated by Parks Victoria. Let's not forget the Memorandum of Cooperation between Parks Victoria and the Australian Deer Association. So, was Prof Westcott lying or was he just ignorant of the facts? Remember, he was a board member of Parks Victoria until 2004. What a shame he didn't realise the Senators were already acquainted with the real facts. A real blow to his credibility.)

Senator ADAMS—What is your opinion on the grazing of cattle?

Prof. Wescott—The scientific evidence on the grazing of cattle in the high plains of Victoria is as strong as you could possibly ever get from science. It damages sphagnum bogs; it has altered the herb field structure above the tree line. The scientific evidence has always stacked up on one side. The cultural arguments are a completely separate entity. There can be a good discussion on cultural arguments. There was a question before about alpine grazing and fire. In the 2003 fires, above the snow line where the alpine grazing occurred, there was no difference whatsoever with the areas burnt between the areas that had had cattle on them for the last 50 or 100 years and those areas that did not have cattle. The areas in which cattle have grazed in the high country for 100 years to prevent burning showed no difference when that wildfire swept through the area.

(Again, more lies. The most comprehensive study of cattle on the high plains by Van Rees and Hutson found that cattle rarely enter moss beds. As for the claim that the grazed areas were as badly burnt as the non-grazed areas, that is blatant in it its dishonesty and irrefutable proof of this is readily available. But let's continue reading and watch Prof. Westcott tie himself in knots.)

Senator RONALDSON—Did you see that yourself?

Prof. Wescott—As I say, it is very unfortunate that Parks Victoria have not turned up. That is the data. The analysis was done. Because the grazing licences are over soon—

(Was Prof. Westcott relying on his own knowledge or was his evidence second hand? The answer should have been, "no, I didn't see it for myself.")

Senator RONALDSON—This is not your personal opinion. You are relying on Parks Victoria for that information, are you?

Prof. Wescott—Yes, I am. Why?

Senator RONALDSON—It might have been useful if you had said to Senator Adams that you were relying on—

Prof. Wescott—I said today it was Parks Victoria—

Senator RONALDSON—From the evidence, it would appear as though it was your knowledge as opposed to theirs. Was that read or from discussions you have had with them?

Prof. Wescott—They were from presentations to the board. On the science side of it, I am a scientist and that is my reading of the material. As I say, if one is having a cultural debate it is a different discussion, but the science from the research papers of grazing in the high plains is pretty categorical. I am saying that as a scientist qualified in ecology and the environment.

(Naughty naughty Prof. Westcott. One shouldn't try to mislead Senators)

Senator ADAMS—That is completely the opposite to what we have heard. We have a submission from the cattlemen’s association with 12 different land-holders stating where the fire went, where it was carried and where it was not as far as grazing goes. This is the reason I am trying with our other submissions, as an academic, to weigh the scientific evidence against the practical.

(Note here that Prof. Westcott backs away and tries to deflect Senator Adam's observation. He retreats from the 2003 fires and races back to the 1998 Caledonia fires with a completely irrelevant comment about the suspension of grazing licences. His lack of personal knowledge was proving to be a problem for him.)

Prof. Wescott—As I say, I think it is really unfortunate that Parks Victoria has not been presenting the data. Do they speak of the Caledonian fires in their submission? Those were earlier, much smaller fires in the high plains. The grazing licences were suspended for several years—this went through the entire Victorian civil and administrative tribunal process—whilst
scientific studies were carried out in those areas. It is a very emotive issue in Victoria, as you may well have already picked up.

Senator ADAMS—We certainly know about that.

Prof. Wescott—I say again: isolate the cultural from the ecological here. You can have a very good debate about mountain cattlemen and their role in a cultural sense. When the Alpine National Park was declared, there was always the possibility of maintaining cattle grazing in high country outside national park boundaries, and I point out that this is now the current position. The Alpine National Park does not cover everywhere in the Alps, so there have always been possibilities there. You also have to ask the question about whether you are going to believe the independent scientists with no vested interest in the outcome or the people who are paying very little money to graze on public land having never been required to go through an expression of interest process or any kind of public tendering process for their grazing rights.

(So there you have the final remarks on grazing from a chastened and hostile Prof. Westcott. His final comment to the senators on this issue was an appeal to his own innate sense of superiority and we see his real reason for hating the Mountain Cattlemen. He resents the fact that anyone should have the right to graze on public land. Thank you Senator Adams and Ronaldson for flushing him out. But, whom should the senators believe - those who warned of the devastating bushfires which have just consumed what remained of the Alpine National Park after 2003 or blinkered and arrogant scientists like Prof. Westcott who simply tut tut about the irreparable harm their alleged science has done to our environment.)

WHAT a beautiful Christmas Day.

Truly a day to remember and never again will I curse the snow.

Although the fires are not completely out, still smouldering away in many areas, there's now a chance that we've escaped what could have been the most disastrous bushfires in our history. It was a miracle, nothing less.

We made the most of it as the picture shows. Click it for a bigger version. The kids had snowball fights and rolled around in it while Lou and I just looked in amazement.

WE'D like to wish you all a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Thanks for your support during 2006 and stay with us for some exciting developments in the high country over the next little while.

We've had the best Christmas gift ever this year and it's come direct from Heaven with some good falls of rain over the mountains to dampen down the immediate fire threat. Thank God!

Take care if you're anywhere near the fires, even though the threat has abated for the time being. If you're going away on holiday be sure to have a wonderful time.

See you soon.

Phil, Louise, Anthony, James and Cara Maguire.

I couldn't let this howler get past.

Ellen Whinnet, the Herald Sun State political reporter thinks that Victoria's Legislative Assembly has a first past the post system of voting.

She says: "Under the first-past-the-post system, which is used for the Lower House, each electorate votes in a single candidate. The winner is simply the one who receives the most votes."

In fact the system is known as "full preferential" and preferences influence the outcome in individual seats just as they can affect the outcome in the Upper House under the new proportional representation system.

Whinnet made the big blue while airing her grievances about the election of a Democratic Labor Party candidate to the Upper House thanks to preference votes.

Quite frankly, I'd prefer a first-past-the-post system.