Bundarrah Days

THIS is a rough draft of my submission to the Teague Royal Commission into the Black Saturday tragedy

INTRODUCTION

I am a Mountain Cattleman, Accredited Horse Tour Operator and professional journalist who reported the Ash Wednesday Bushfires of 16 February, 1983, for ABC News.

My alpine grazing property at Anglers Rest, north-west of Omeo, was severely burned on 26 January, 2003 and a second grazing property I owned at Narbethong until February 2008 was also severely burned on 7 February, 2009, a day now known as Black Saturday. This family narrowly missed the distinction of owning properties badly burned in both the 2003 and 2009 holocausts in different regions of the Victorian mountains.

I conducted horse tours through the forests surrounding Marysville for a period of eight years and foresaw this tragedy. I made repeated warnings about the state of our forests on my weblog, Bundarrah Days at http://bundarrahdays.blogspirit.com, and in the media, particularly the Herald Sun's Andrew Bolt Forum.

It is with intense frustration and sadness that I make this submission in the knowledge that the tragic deaths of 209 fellow Victorians were needless and should not have occurred.

Philip Maguire


SUBMISSION

In 2006 former Victorian Premier Steve Bracks made the outrageous claim that authorities could now prevent holocausts like Black Friday 1939.

This irresponsibly complacent belief coupled with a total disregard for the informed opinions of experienced and eminent foresters and bushfire scientists helped prepare the ground for the tragic events of February 7, 2009.

Mr Bracks, writing for an ABC online documentary on the 1939 Black Friday fires, said:

"With the existing laws, we could have prevented those fires occurring. They were the strongest fires Victoria has ever had, but the systems weren’t in place properly and appropriately to deal with them....

"In ’39 there wasn’t an effective system in place to protect the lives of
firefighters, people in the path of fires and their property. Today, we have systems to shape the fire, and move it away from settled areas. Fire-fighters are now trained to know when to retreat or leave, and they have the right back-up and support. None of those systems were in place then, and I think it was pretty much ‘every man for himself’. That is something we will never, ever do again - to not have a system in place and not have proper preparation. " (1)

Has a Victorian Premier ever been so tragically mistaken?

The fundamental Bracks mistake was to believe that wildfires fed by massive fuel loads could be controlled and suppressed by firefighters equipped with the latest technology. It was a mistake he was encouraged to believe in by the widespread network of green pressure groups.

It appears that the Victorian government considered it could maintain green electoral support by allowing the green movement a victory over fuel reduction burning due to a seriously mistaken conviction that technology and modern firefighting techniques would compensate for a lack of it.

Whether by accident or design the Bracks Government and its successor, the Brumby Government, has put the lives of Victorians behind concern for the environment. It is my submission that a government's duty of care to the environment is secondary to and a consequence of the duty of care it owes the community.

The environment has to be managed in the interests of the community not at its expense, yet these fires have taken a massive toll on the environment as well as on people. The environmental effects will be felt for many years as Melbourne's water crisis worsens due to a loss of water yield.

Three major fires in six years have had a staggering effect on Victoria's major catchments and river basins. It will be at least 50 years before catchment yields returns to their pre 2003 level, if in fact, they ever do.

If Victoria's forest and national parks management is not subjected to radical change we will see many more Black Saturdays and many more deaths. The conservation bureaucracy is under the control of green activists with a hatred of prescribed burning and an ecological outlook inspired by the writings of American philosophers such as Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson and John Muir. This belief in "wilderness" is at complete odds with 40,000 years of human management of our bushland and fails to respect or understand the long tradition of farming by fire practiced by indigenous Australians nor its environmental effects.

Too many Australians are unaware that the present management of our bushland originated with the ideas of philosophers and recreational bushwalkers who formed clubs and associations that eventually become powerful lobby groups. Many Australian greens idolise names such as Miles Dunphy, a pioneer bushwalker, the writer Judith Wright and even Geoff Mosley, an English activist who arrived in Australia forty odd years ago to teach Australians how to care for land he had never set eyes on. Mosley, by the way, a former chief executive of the Australian Conservation Foundation has now reportedly made his home in the infamous green shire of Nillumbik where more than 20 deaths occurred on February 7.

The first problem I perceive for good forest managementi s that for years science has come a poor second to green myth making and hero worship. Competent land management and forestry was thrown to the wolves with the establishment of the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands in the early 1980's and science was seconded to fly the flag for green lobbyists. We're told that "the science" says one thing  and "the science" says another. But it's always the green version of "the science" and we are all expected to believe that there is some kind of scientific consensus at work and that there are no conflicting scientific positions. Science has been put to work by the green movement to support its philosophies but is not the sane approach is to adopt a philosophy grounded in science rather than a science grounded in philosophy?

If green activists manage to maintain their influence in Victoria we can expect that in future numerous properties will be destroyed and lives lost due to wildfires burning on private property in rural and semi rural areas. Fuel build up on many private properties has reached critical levels due to native vegetation offsets and the requirement by some local authorities to forbid the clearing of native bush or the removal of dead trees from bush blocks has placed many households at great risk. Fire is being imported on to private land by state government legislation and council by-laws.

Many local authorities who are responsible for fire control within their shires have abandoned that responsibility. In some cases Shires (such as Nillumbik and Yarra Ranges) are openly antagonistic to fuel reduction burning and have introduced restrictions on clearing that could have provided a degree of safety to homeowners.

There has been a dangerous shift from a fuel reduction policy to one of relying more and more on attempts to suppress dangerous fires. Consequently there is a greater reliance and expectation that volunteer fire fighters will be available to fight fires in heavy fuel conditions in forest areas. This will put more lives at risk as forest fire fighting is dangerous and highly specialised.

A major problem in the control of wildfire is strong opposition to fuel reduction burning by environmental groups who have had an excessive influence on government policies. The Victorian National Parks Association is a good example with many of its members occupying senior positions in the state government's conservation bureaucracy.

Some government departments, Parks Victoria and DSE, have been active in opposing fuel reduction burning in favour of "ecological" burning which favours particular species of flora, not human beings attempting to live their lives in the bush as they are entitled to do in peace and safety.

Disturbing conclusions not supported by data have been made in many studies about fire in the Victorian environment including one authored by the CSIRO's Dick Williams entitled Fire Ecology and Management in Victorian Alpine Landscapes. This study purported to show that cattle grazing in the alpine region did not reduce either the intensity or occurrence of fire in the region.

It was a travesty containing myriad falsehoods and was carried out in an area which the author was not even sure had been grazed immediately prior to the 2003 fires or to what extent it had been grazed. It was enough for the author that his study took place in an area set aside for grazing - i.e an alpine grazing licence area.

The conclusions of that study were worthless for the very reason that it was unknown how heavily the area studied had been grazed prior to the fire. The holder of the licence asserted that he had not had cattle depastured in the area prior to the fire. Despite this the Victorian Government used this study to justify ending the practice of alpine grazing which had afforded a measure of protection to alpine Victoria for nearly 170 years.

In contrast to these conclusions there is vast pictorial and anecdotal evidence demonstrating that burned areas on the Bogong High Plains were primarily in areas that were not grazed, or in areas of snowgum forest from which the spread of fire across the open high plains was limited to due grazing. The same phenomenon was not repeated in no-grazed areas.

Another issue of concern is an apparent alliance between Victorian Emergency Services Commissioner, Bruce Esplin, and two known radical green scientists, Dick Williams (mentioned above) and Ross Bradstock, both of whom are known opponents of fuel reduction burning. This alliance was demonstrated by an article in The Age entitled Face The Burning Question co-written by Esplin, Williams and Bradstock in February 2007. This article again repeated the mistaken conclusions and falsehoods of the aforementioned William's study. An example.

"Some fuel treatments, such as grazing the high country, are simply ineffective. Grazing did not "reduce blazing" during the 2003 fires, or in 1939. After fire, stock eat the "green pick", and this hinders the natural regeneration of flora and fauna after the fires."

Quite apart from the fallacy concerning grazing not reducing blazing the point about stock eating "green pick" after fires is again a falsehood. After the 2003 fires most cattle were removed from the high plains as soon as it was practicable to do so and well before any green pick appeared.

The public alliance of Mr Esplin with Williams and Bradstock was a slap in the face for all those who had hoped for an independent and objective approach from the Emergency Services Commissioner.

Falsehoods contained in submissions to bushfire inquiries make it extremely difficult for those charged with establishing the truth. As an example I provide a passage from the National Parks Advisory Council to the Esplin Inquiry which followed the 2003 fires.

"What also needs to be kept in perspective, and is not widely appreciated, is the capacity of areas fuel reduced by burning to stop fires. There are good examples where areas fuel reduced have been effective in reducing the intensity and spread of fire, enabling them to be controlled. These, however, apply to fires burning under moderate to high fire danger, but not generally under such extreme conditions as occurred this year. Under extreme fire behaviour, when fires sweep through the tree crowns and spot many kilometres ahead, previously fuel reduced areas become largely ineffective in halting the fire front, though they may help reduce spread and damage around the flanks."

That statement is totally at odds with the facts and is not grounded in experience. It is well documented that crown fires generally drop to ground when encountering thinned and fuel-managed areas. The containment of every major fire in Victoria since 2003 was in reduced fuel areas. Fire suppression efforts were successful where fuels were limited and unsuccessful where they were not. We do not have independent crown fires in Victorian forests - crown fires are still dependent on ground fuel.

The tragedy of Black Saturday was not so much an accident or a result of rampant nature but a consequence of what we could call manufactured fire. This is what results from a planned failure to manage forests to limit the chances of wildfire. Worse still is the fact that native vegetation offsets work to import manufactured fire on to private property. This is in well defined opposition to a government's duty of care to the community.

Finally, the warnings provided to the community in the lead-up to Saturday, February 9, were focused mainly on weather conditions creating a dangerous fire hazard. There was NO warning about the condition of the bushland and the fuel burden it carried. And yet that was the single most important factor. A very simple equation reveals the truth. Fire equals available fuel. Commissioner Teague has observed that people had become de-sensitised to warnings and that warnings needed to be repeated. Why was not an official government warning issued over the broadcast and print media at least a day before the forecast conditions arrived on February 9. An official warning may have encouraged people to leave their homes for a safe refuge in time and saved many lives.


I submit that:


* VICTORIA'S PUBLICLY OWNED FORESTS BE PLACED UNDER THE CONTROL OF EXPERIENCED AND COMPETENT FORESTERS.

* THERE IS A NEED TO CREATE A COMMISSION FOR FIRE CONTROL WITH POWER TO ORDER FIRE FUEL REDUCTION ACTIVITIES INCLUDING PRESCRIBED BURNING ON ALL PUBLIC LAND INCLUDING NATIONAL PARKS.

* THAT THE COMMISSIONER FOR FIRE CONTROL REPORT DIRECT TO PARLIAMENT ON ACTUAL BURNS ACHIEVED COMPARED TO TARGETS.

* THAT THE LEVEL OF FUEL REDUCTION BURNING IN VICTORIAN FORESTS INCREASE IMMEDIATELY TO AROUND 400,000 HA ANNUALLY.

* IN CONJUNCTION WITH FUEL REDUCTION BURNING A PROGRAM OF CANOPY/TREE THINNING, WHICH HAS BEEN SHOWN TO RESTRICT THE SPREAD OF CROWN FIRES, SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED.

* SUPPORT FOR FOREST INDUSTRIES, GREATER HUMAN PRESENCE IN OUR FORESTS AND IN ALPINE AREAS REINTRODUCTION OF GRAZING URGENTLY REQUIRED.

* SHIRES BE MORE ACCOUNTABLE FOR FIRE CONTROL IN THEIR AREAS. PLANNING RESTRICTIONS ON FUEL REDUCTIONS BE SCRAPPED AND RESTRICTIONS ON CLEARING PREVIOUSLY CLEARED COUNTRY BE THOROUGHLY REVIEWED.

* LEGISLATION PROVIDING FOR NATIVE VEGETATION OFFSETS ON PRIVATE LAND BE REPEALED.

* GOVERNMENT ISSUE COMPREHENSIVE FORMAL WARNINGS OF FIRE DANGER INCLUDING WEATHER CONDITIONS AND RATED FUEL BURDEN IN ALL STATE FORESTS AND NATIONAL PARKS. THESE WARNINGS SHOULD INCLUDE AN ALERT TO EVACUATE WHERE DEEMED APPROPRIATE.

* RATED FUEL BURDEN TO BE A PART OF ALL WEATHER WARNINGS DURING SUMMER TO ENABLE TO THE PUBLIC TO MONITOR GOVERNMENT COMMITTMENT TO THE MAINTENANCE OF SAFE FORESTS.

* "SAFE HAVENS" TO BE ESTABLISHED IN AREAS NOT SUBJECT TO FIRE THREAT WHERE PEOPLE WHO WISH TO EVACUATE IN ADVANCE OF DANGEROUS CONDITIONS CAN SEEK REFUGE. THESE HAVENS TO BE MADE READY BY GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES.

Ordinary Aussies in extraordinary circumstances. Let's hope Bradstock, Williams, Garrett, Ingamels and a few other leading green bastards have a good look at the disaster their policies created. And they think fuel reduction burning is a threatening process. In fact, the most threatening process faced by the Australian environment today is green thought itself.

This is what happened to our old farm at Narbethong on Black Saturday.

Ross Bradstock , well known enemy of Mountain Cattlemen, makes the same claims against fuel reduction burning that he made against alpine grazing athough, to give him his due, he thinks that Black Saturday could have been prevented by the wholesale removal of forest and it's replacement with concrete.

To him it was a disaster that nothing short of radically unprecedented and impossible action could have prevented. Or, that's what he says publicly. What he says in private is likely to be a whole lot different.

Brackstock who is yet another dime a dozen professor of cattle dung and knows next to nothing about bushfire in practice is also a stranger to the truth. They may have met on the odd occasion but they're certainly not on friendly terms.

He says that fuel reduction measures can only mitigate the risk posed by fires to people but cannot eliminate it. We can't eliminate disease either but we cure some and mitigate others through the practice of medicine.

Here's what he said about Black Saturday.

"The scientists are saying the heat and wind were off the scale and several areas that had been burnt recently burned on the day."

That's a huge great misrepresentation. When a wildfire such as Black Saturday passes over a recently burned area it is going to set alight any available fuel. You don't need to be a Professor at Aunty Jack's Uni to work that out. What is debatable is the intensity of the fire. If the fuel burden is lower than the surrounding area there will be less firel and that's indisputable. Of course, when there is a surrounding wildfire it will be somewhat hotter than a fire limited to burning on recently burnt ground simply because the heat generated by a fire consuming massive amounts of fuel will make it so.

I shouldn't have to explain this but Bradstock should be made to explain why he feels the need to hide the truth and mislead people.

The fact that the heat and wind were "off the scale" on Black Saturday seems to have made little difference to most of Victoria. The 1.5 million ha burned in 2003 didn't catch fire again despite the "off the scale" factors. The 1.1 million hectares burnt in 2006-07 didn't catch fire again either despite the "off the scale" factors. But what is really telling is this. Both 2003 and 2006-07 burnt just as powerfully and for much longer than the Black Saturday fires in weather conditions that were benign by comparison.

Blind Freddie is no Wollongong Professor but even he can read the signs and they don't point in Bradstock's direction.

All he has proven is that too little fuel reduction burning is of little use in mitigating wildfire fed by massive fuel loads. He played the same game with alpine grazing. He and his mate Dick Williams set out to prove that alpine grazing does not reduce fire risk on the high plains by studying an area which scarcely carried any cattle. Their conclusion about cattle was the same as their conclusion about fuel reduction burning.

They say neither works because there is still fire where they are practiced. The truth is otherwise. It says that if there were sufficient cattle and sufficient fuel reduction burns there would be far less wildfire.

This green ploy is so obvious it's laughable. Reduce both FRB and grazing to a level where they can't achieve much and then they say they don't work. It's like batting Bradman at number 9 and complaining that he didn't hit a century.