David Packham's advice

David Packham is a member of Forest Fire (Victoria) Inc. For many years he was a scientist involved in bushfire research at CSIRO. Now retired, David's expertise is frequently called upon in many areas concerning fire and the environment.

The threat to Victoria of bushfires.

In Australia, which is acknowledged as one of the three most fire prone areas in the world, Victoria faces the greatest threat. During this century some 500 people have perished in bushfire in Australia and of these about 350 have been in Victoria. The life loss in Victoria is thus about 4 persons per year. The apparently modest annual life loss does not reflect the horror and distress caused by the enormously destructive bushfire episodes that occur every twenty years or so. When weather, fuel and ignition come together on extreme fire danger days there is very little that can be done to escape the holocaust that follows.

There are very serious economic threats from fire disaster episodes and these are concerned with the potential destruction of our timber industry and a potential decrease to our harvestable water supplies of up to 50% for some decades. These issues can and should be explored in the context of recommending the level of effort that is rational to apply to our bushfire problem hopefully through improved prevention.

The are two potentially successful strategies to contain the bushfire threat. The first is to manage our forest fuels with dedication and vigour. This is a difficult and costly exercise but is likely to be the most effective and economic risk management strategy available. The second strategy is to be applied when fuel management alone is not enough is to be capable of mounting a rapid first attack and combat wildfires when they are still small enough to be controlled. It is certain that if a fire escapes on an extreme day from the first attack there are no forces available that can control it until weather or fuel abate.

The first serious analysis of our fire problem was the magnificent Stretton Royal Commission into the 1939 fires. His report lead to the formation of the Country Fire Authority and the report still contains conclusions and understanding that is essential reading as we grapple with the problem. The other strategic reviews have been the Barber Royal Commission into the 1978 Grass fires, the Miller report into the 1983 fires and the Australian, Institute of Engineers also into the 1983 fires and the Report of the Auditor General into the capacity of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (now NRE) to control forest fires.

There is a need to review the total fire control strategies for all of the State in view of changes in technologies, public administration, scarcity of forest resources, and the economic stress on the rural sector and public expectations. I suggest that a review address the need for much increased fuel management and the restructuring of fire fighting in Victoria into three organisations. The first to be responsible for fire management in our cities. The second responsible for fuel and fire management in our forest areas and the third to be our volunteer fire brigades responsible for community self-protection on small private lands and small towns and villages.

There are complex questions to be resolved not the least is the relationship of fire management with other emergency services eg. road rescue, transport accidents and spills, large plant protection and timber plantations. A review that is independent is necessary, as nothing else will achieve for Victoria a total fire management system that could meet our needs beyond 2000.

A pot of pure gold.

Having quoted many members of Forest Fire (Vic) Inc in my blogs, today I went to their website to spend some time giving it a thorough workover.

Why didn't I do this months ago?

Athol Hodgson writes about the fires this year in the Grampians and elsewhere. Hodgson is a retired Head Forester and, having worked with him some years ago, someone I can respect. You can read more of his work in my blogs.

There are a number of peices of work there, written by distinguished scientists, foresters and even one QC.

The assessment of the Esplin Report by Mr Myers, QC explains in simple words why that report lacks credibility; where you have a report with flawed Terms of Reference, you get a flawed response. He then goes on to tear the report's findings to shreds.

Two examples, (1) the report was supposed to be completely unbiased with members having an open mind, yet the Minister had already been on ABC Radio telling John Faine of the outcome! Shades of Sir Humphrey Appleby in 'Yes Minister'. (2) at the end of the report Esplin compliments the fire fighters for doing a great job, however, right the way through the report there are many references to failings in the whole system.

Someone told me to talk to Vic Jurskis of NSW Forests regarding his research into die back among twenty percent of some NSW forests. I found his work on this website and his article, very detailed and academic, explains that the lack of prescribed burning in NSW forests has meant that sap sucking insects are not kept in check and are destroying their forests! He asserts (and I totally agree) that conventional thinking has fire as a "disturbance" in the forest. But Jurskis believes that having no fire in the forest is the disturbance. (My conclusion is that it is not only dangerous for the forest (to lock it up and leave it), it is insane).

There is a remarkable similarity here between Alfred Howitt's 1890 "Eucalypts of Gippsland" report to the Royal Society of Victoria. Howitt remarked that sap sucking insects had destroyed the red gum forests between Sale, Maffra and Stratford in Gippsland and he later saw the same effect in the redgum forest of the Mitchell River. Howitt also drew the conclusion that the cessation of aboriginal fire practices meant that the insects, previously kept in check by fire, proliferated, with disastrous results for the redgums. That's a bit of fair dinkum history for you.

To dip in to this pot of gold, put your search engine onto Forest Fire (Vic) Inc and then go to their publications. Fair dinkum, these blokes know what they are talking about.

Why am I, fairdinkum, campaigning?

Since 1983, we have seen successive big "L" governments in Victoria neglect the basic rules of Australian land management. If we are to have Parks Victoria and the Department of Sustainability and Environment manage the land properly and well, we have to empower them from the highest levels of Government.

Perhaps the Cain and Kirner administrations were following the green NGO "Lock it Up and Leave It" policy. Maybe Jeff Kennett found that convenient when he came to budget time. Certainly, the Bracks Government has slavishly followed the green NGO agenda.

The time has come for those of us who care about the situation to be heard.

I am not the JC of old. Maybe I am John the Baptist who has come to fortell a new beginning in Victorian Land Management. I have absolutely no paper qualification of any kind but I can read, I can communicate and I know where to find expert advice.

Except where my thoughts are obvious, all of the articles following this blog have been authored by scientists and foresters who know how to achieve the best results in the forests. Their contributions are acknowledged.

In addition, I acknowledge, here, the President of Citywest 4X4 Club, Milton Oliver, the champion of the 4WD clubs efforts in the Wombat State Forest who has been campaigning long and hard to have the 4WD Clubs of Victoria understand that "I have a 4WD, I vote" is not sufficient to achieve a change in Government policy. As he so rightly points out, there only 15,000 4WD club members in Victoria and they, on their own, will not be enough to influence democracy. To ensure a positive result in the Upper House, we need 60,000 votes to gain one seat. If we are to direct the balance of power, we must have at least 500,000 voters who vote as we request.

This blogsite brings to the attention of all outdoors recreations the need to work together for the common good. We have a target that we cannot achieve on our own. We need the help of the Koori's, the M.C.A.V., the CFA volunteers, the SES volunteers, the hunters, shooters, doggers, fishers, the Timber Industry the Bush Users Group, indeed anyone who lives outside the new, smaller boundary of metropolitan Melbourne. Inside the reduced Melbourne, we should support Independent candidates whose preferences put the Greens, the Liberals and Labor at the bottom of their ballot paper.

This blogsite advises them why this campaign has to succeed if it is to benefit the State of Victoria and its remote lands. We must have influence with the political party that holds the balance of power. Both "Big L" political parties must worry about a new force in the State. It has to tell all interested that, if we are to be successful, we must attract the swinging voters and the normally Labor or Liberal voter, who, if disenchanted is seeking an alternative place for their vote.

Look, I seek a fair dinkum change. If you do, why not fwd this blogsite address to all of your fair dinkum friends.

This year's FRB. Is it enough?

The most unwelcome news that there has been only 49,000 hectares of fuel reduction burning (FRB) in Victoria reduces us to the standard of New South Wales, where there has been only 200,000 hectares in total in the past five years. So concerned is The Hon Philip Davis, MP, MLC, Leader of the Liberals in the Legislative Council, that he has written to the Auditor General asking for the previous year's FRB figures, as claimed by the Government, to be verified.

FRB is particularly important in our environment to retain biodiversity and ensure that summer's feral fires are more easily controlled. We have to ensure that they burn at a lower temperature.

In the time of the John Cain Government in Victoria it was usual to achieve 350,000 ha per annum. This was reduced in Joan Kirner's Government and, of course, when Jeff Kennett was elected, there were few votes to be lost in the Alps, so out came the scissors!

Back to the present day. It is observed by our politicians (Graeme Stoney and Philip Davis) that the Victorian Government claims to have carried out FRB on 110,000 ha. When this claim was investigated, ..... who had been telling porkies? ... 49,000 ha is not 110,000 ha.

Fuel Reduction Burning in Australia (despite the screams of horror from some non government organisations who influence big Governments), is not optional. It is the heart of the continent and without it, our environment is already changing and moving away from that found here by the early explorers. FRB is also a bonus for the taxpayer in that, good sized areas which are "carpet burned" in the cool months don't develop into feral fires in summer. Ember attacks could be diminished.

Another of my resources is a document printed in 1997. "An Economic Evaluation of Bushfire Prevention and Suppression in Victoria" was published by the Performance Division of what is now DSE, quote ... "the Fire Management Plan (FMP) was calculated to yield a high benefit cost ratio (22 to one) to the State of Victoria from its investment in fire suppression and prevention through a reduction in the agricultural, capital and forest assets which would otherwise be lost to bushfires" end quote.

In other words, if the Government was to spend $1 million on its FRB, there would be a benefit to the tax payer of $22 million in the value of our property burned by summer feral fires. While that is good, I have since been informed that an updated CSIRO computer based 'model fire' program showed that the benefits would be a lot more than 22 to one.

After the 2003 fires, the Victorian Government proclaimed that they had spent almost $250 million fighting the 2003 fires. An outside consultant advised that the losses on compensation payouts, restoration of equipment et.al. had surpassed the cost of fighting the fire. If you read this to mean that half a billion dollars of the taxpayers funds went up in flames, you, like me, will ask why has the Government not taken notice of its own fire plan and the benefits of FRB?

I am old, dear reader and remember the old cliche, penny wise, pound foolish. That seems very like the conduct of our Government.

None of the Victorian Governments over the past twenty five years has been fair dinkum as stewards of our environment. So lets be fair dinkum with them and get rid of their nonsensical management after 25th November. Lets get rid of the Greens at the same time.

What does feral fire do to animals?

Bernie Masters was, for three years, the Liberal Party spokesman for Science and the Environment in the Western Australian Parliament. By training, he is a zoologist/geologist and has worked in the mining industry at a senior level for 12 years. He is currently a private environmental and geological consultant.

His reply to my question "What does feral fire do to native animals?" is as follows.

"Although I'm a qualified zoologist, I haven't any formal experience in the use of fire as a management tool. However, the evidence from various research programs in WA over many years is that, regardless of whether fires are hot or cool burning, they need to mimic the aboriginal burning techniques which have applied for 40,000 years, namely, to have lots of small burns. In other words, a mosaic of burns across the landscape will produce a variety of burn types, some hot, some cool, some fast, some slow, some large, some small, and so on.

This is important for two reasons: first, Australian plants (on which all animal life is dependent) need a variety of fire conditions to survive into the long term. A 25 year research program by the WA Department of Conservation and Land Management showed that, in our south west jarrah forests where fuel loads can reach very high and dangerous levels after 10 or 12 years, the preferred burning regime was to have a fire interval of about 8 years, with a spring burn to be followed 8 years later by another spring burn, to be followed 8 years later by an autumn burn and then to have a 16 year no-fire interval. Overall, this amounts to 3 fires every 40 years. Now, this is the theoretical ideal as devised by the researchers and they accept that the actual burning program must be adapted to meet local needs and conditions, so a shorter or longer interval between fires or a changed seasonality of fires from what they were recommending may be necessary or desirable near towns, around high conservation areas and so on.

As an aside, these researchers also advised that some vegetation types are fire sensitive and should be burnt rarely if ever. As examples, they suggested that dense swamp vegetation within forests is the home to endangered marsupials known as quokkas and they shouldn't be burnt. If fire must be used, for example, because the vegetation is getting too dense and a fire would absolutely devastate the wetland and its animals, then burn the swamp in 2 or more small parcels, so that the quokkas can remain in an unburnt area and recolonise the burnt area as it regrows.

The second reason why mosaic burning is crucial for long-term protection of the environment is, as mentioned above, to protect our unique fauna. Many species of Australian animals and birds have very special habitat requirements. For example, the noisy scrub bird lives in long unburnt heath on the south coast of WA. The food it consumes only occurs within the litter layer that has built up after many years of leaf litter accumulation, so fire needs to be excluded or kept to small areas. The red eared firetail lives in dense vegetation along creeklines in jarrah forests and, if every creekline was burnt in a single fire, no firetails would survive to recolonise the creeklines as they regrew.

In WA's forests, the prescribed burning regime that is now in force is a compromise between the number of dollars provided by the government and the environmental needs of the areas to be burnt. Autumn fires cost more to manage because the fires are hotter and more standing trees catch alight and these must be put out by fire crews soon after the main fire has gone through. Conversely, spring fires are easier to manage because the ground is often damp and fires in the litter layer are not as hot as they would be in autumn. However, the environmental damage is more severe, in particular, on some flowing plants such as orchids and on nesting birds.

In WA, where there is a couple of million or so hectares of state forest, the prescribed burning program of the Department of Conservation and Land Management aims to burn the complete forest every 10 to 12 years, so between 8 and 10% of the forest is burnt in each year. This rarely occurs because of weather or other constraints, but the south west of WA has not had an Ash Wednesday type of fire since the Dwellingup fires of 1961, after which the prescribed burning program came into force. Individual burns cover from 2000 to 5000 hectares, smaller areas being too expensive to burn (because there are more fires needed to cover the same area of forest) and larger areas seen as having too severe an impact on the environment, with recolonisation of large burnt-out areas by animals and birds from adjoining unburnt areas taking too long.

To answer your question: what is the effect of a feral fire on the native animal population? My general response is: disastrous! We call such fires uncontrolled fires or wildfires and, because of their size and intensity, they can have the following severe environmental impacts:

• if they become crown fires, burning the tops of trees, they can eliminate not just ground-dwelling fauna but also arboreal fauna including birds.
• if such fires burn under very dry conditions, they can consume all litter on the forest or woodland floor, removing valuable habitat for all sorts of creatures that will take years to return and often destroying the seed bank stored in the top of the litter layer so that seedling regeneration is greatly reduced.
• the larger the wildfire, the greater the number of local populations of animals and birds that become extinct. These species will not return until populations that escaped the fire, often many kilometers away, slowly move back into the burnt-out areas, if ever.
• hot fires can be so intense that much of the fallen timber on the forest floor is consumed. This removes nesting and roosting hollows for ground-dwelling fauna, as well as food for termites, fungi and a wide range of smaller creatures.

hot fires will also ignite many more standing trees that contain hollows essential for bird breeding, especially large hollows in old trees used by the larger birds such as black cockatoos. If a 200 year old tree with hollows burns down, it will take 200 years for a similar tree to regrow."

That essence of that fair dinkum advice to my question should be followed in the management of our public land. We should make that demand of the new Government after 25th November 2006.

As Prime Minister Howard said,

Take a note of history and learn its lessons. Perhaps not in those exact words.

" Early settlers and explorers repeatedly remarked on the constant burning carried out by the Aborigines and often described the Australian landscape as grasslands with widely spaced trees. Some examples:

'Amongst the trees, two were remarked whose thickness was two, or two and a half fathoms, and the first branches from sixty to sixty-five feet above the ground… the country was covered with trees; but so thinly scattered, that one might see every where to a great distances amongst them…Several of the trees were much burnt at the foot…'

ABEL JAN TASMAN DESCRIBING THE STORM BAY AREA, TASMANIA IN DECEMBER 1642. EXPLORER HOOKER DENYPTANG REPORTED THE SAME IN 1697.

‘ Tasmanians habitually carries firesticks … and applied fire beyond their windbreaks and throughout the interior.’

TOBIAS FURNEAUX RECORDED THAT THERE WAS CONTINUAL FIRE ALONG THE SHORE OF TASMANIA IN 1773

'The country today again made in slopes to the sea…The trees were not very large and stood separate from each other without the least underwood; among them we could discern many cabbage trees but nothing else which we could call be any name. In the course of the night many fires were seen'

JOSEPH BANKS DESCRIBING BULLI FROM THE DECK OF THE ENDEAVOUR 27 APRIL 1770

'…very barren place without wood…very few tree species, but every place was covered with vast quantities of grass…the trees were not very large and stood separate from each other without the least underwood.'

JOSEPH BANKS DESCRIBING THE BOTANY BAY AREA 1770

Country which we found diversified with Woods, Lawns and Marshes. The woods are free from underwood of every kind and the trees are at such a distance from one another that the whole Country, or at least a great part of it, might be Cultivated without being obliged to cut down a single tree" The soils, except in the marshes produced a good quantity of grass"

CAPTAIN JAMES COOK DESCRIBING THE BOTANY BAY AREA IN 1770.

After we had passed this swamp we got into an immence wood the trees of which were very high and large, and a considerable distance apart, with little under or brush wood.

J. WHITE DESCRIBING FRENCHS FOREST (NOW A SYDNEY SUBURB) 5 APRIL 1788

'…and at the head of the harbour, there is a very considerable extent of tolerable land, and which may be cultivated without waiting for its being cleared of wood; for the trees stand very wide of each other, and have no underwood; in short, the woods on the spot I am speaking of resemble a deer park, as much as if they had been intended for such a purpose…The grass upon it is about three feet high, very close and thick…

CAPTAIN JOHN HUNTER DESCRIBING PARRAMATTA 1788

'The extreme uniformity of the vegetation is the most remarkable feature in the landscape of the greater part of New South Wales. Everywhere we have an open woodland; the ground being partially covered with a very thin pasture.'  (and)

' In the whole country I scarcely saw a place without the markes of fire; whether these had been more or less recent - whether the stumps were more or less black, was the greatest change which varied the uniformality, so wearisome to the traveller's eye.'

CHARLES DARWIN, 1836 Now, surely, we can agree that Darwin was fair dinkum?

If you are going to make a submission on Goolengook ...

I don't know if you or your club will be making a submission regarding Goolengook. If it does, here are some thoughts on the issue.

 

Fire has played a vital role in the biological diversity of Australia for many thousands of years. Written records do not go back that far but, very soon, I will bring you some quotes of the early explorers

 

Alfred Howitt, in his 1890 'Eucalypts of Gippsland' address to the Royal Society of Victoria, made particular reference to the fact that, until circa1840, the hills and valleys of Gippsland were covered with pasture, that trees were dispersed and that this was due to the fire regimes of the indigenous tribes. I have attached my quotable quotes in this regard.  I therefore dispute that unless a definition has been adopted to suit a particular argument (such as would be promoted in the Yes Minister series), these trees cannot be considered old growth forests. They are not like the old growth forests of Tasmania and Western Australia where trees of a considerably greater age are harvested.

 

There is already a considerable percentage of reserved land where timber harvesting is excluded for a number of reasons. I am reminded that about twenty years ago it was feared that Leadbetters Possum was extinct because as searchers sought the animal as they walked the tracks in the high country, they found no evidence of its existence. Not until they surveyed well away from the alpine tracks did they find plentiful proof of its existence. I know that, around the Jordan River there were many of them.

 

Government records in existence show that the cost of maintaining National and other parks has a cost of (currently) $20.94 per ha. This sum has proven to be less than adequate for the correct management. In 1983, over $25 per ha was spent per ha. (National Parks Act, Annual Reports 1983 & 2005)

 

I am opposed (on environmental grounds) to the formation of National Parks that are then locked up and left. I believe that management is more important than a title.

 

Since history informs us that from AD 1642, reports of exploring mariners have illustrated that the indigenous inhabitants of Australia made much use of fire to manage their environment and, while Governments stubbornly refuse to fund appropriate management, there is not much point in denying any sustainable industry access.

 

Goolengook, because of its distance from Melbourne is not greatly visited by metropolitan 4WD clubs but is subject to visits from NSW 4WD clubs and Gippsland 4WD clubs. The LandCare units of Victorian 4WD clubs have been active in LandCare projects within this area. The point is that it ought not be closed to visitors and left unmanaged as the NSW model shows us.

 

I note that, in NSW, where great numbers of National Parks have been appointed (at crippling expense), the policy of lock it up and leave it runs contrary to normal biodiversity management. When the ferocious feral fires of summer hit NSW National Parks there is no stopping them until there is inclement weather or a lack of fuel on pastures.

 

I have had advice about the prescribed burning regimes in Western Australia (to be blogged when time permits) and I believe that this sort of attention to detail in forest management must be adopted in Victoria.

 

I believe that excluding the Timber Industry leaves two major hazards to good forest management. (a) After damaging storms, the timber workers used to be contracted to remove fallen trees where they are blocking fire and other tracks and (b) forest workers used to be, together with the mountain cattlemen, the first line of attack for summer fire containment. These workers were not available in 2003 and we saw the results.

 

I am very willing to be advised in this matter. I look to the third world countries and their logging practices and wonder that anyone can doubt that Australia runs a fair dinkum sustainable timber industry. Or used to.

The Greens. What are we up against?

The Greens. In considering this issue I have sourced this blog from the 12^th November 2003 article by Peter Stitt, Secretary, Mining Industry Council of Australia

"We need to reflect on how the Conservation Movement itself has developed over the years.

Perhaps as a result of the difficulties involved in bringing about a greater public awareness of environmental issues, there has been a tendency for people with extreme views to "hijack" the Movement. This has led to dogma oft replacing logic in the environmental debate and a "The end justifies the means" approach by Green groups holding what, by community standards, would be considered extreme views; hence the emergence of the Extreme Greens.

As Carlos Sorentino says, and I agree totally with him, Extreme Greenieism has become a religion. Further, it has found common cause with another religion, Socialism.

Who are these extreme greens?

I personally think that they define themselves and I will endeavour to illustrate this by way of example. If we turn first to the meaning of the word "extreme" the Oxford Dictionary includes: "advocating immoderate measures" and "furthest from the centre". An "extremist" is defined as: "a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views"

Note the inclusion of the word "religious".

Now to illustrate the point by an example. The Kosciuzsko National Park was set up in 1943 by then NSW Premier William McKell (later Sir William). He knew the area well and gave as a key reason for proclaiming the Park the creation "…of a winter sports ground greater than any in Switzerland and the development of an immense tourist area that would, …. compare favourably with any in the world." The Park "…would be as famous as any of the great tourist resorts of Europe or the United States, and would prove a magnet for overseas visitors…." The Sydney Morning Herald 4 September 1943, quoting the Premier, William McKell.

I (Peter Stitt) have here a letter written by four conservation groups in 1990 to Bob Carr, then Leader of the Opposition. Despite the lapse of time I understand that these four groups still hold the same views as those expressed in the letter.

The letter concerns a proposal to build an additional 1,000 odd beds on the Perisher Range. Perisher is Australia's premier winter sports area by virtue of a long season and varied terrain, generating about the same number of skier days/year of all the Victorian resorts combined.

The letter states and I quote: "All leases should be phased out. …We would prefer to see these existing leases terminated or progressively phased out." and "This sensitive area, which should be managed as a wilderness…"

What is being advocated here is the removal of all winter sports facilities, lodges, hotels and ski lifts from Australia’s premier snow-sports resort and the management of the area as a wilderness.

Where now perhaps 15,000 people per day enjoy themselves on a good winter's day the sponsors of this letter would allow a limited number of groups of up to 8 people, the maximum allowed under our wilderness legislation.

Would anyone here like to argue that this is not an extreme position. – No, no one.

Well the signatures and logos on the letter are: Sue Salmon Australian Conservation Foundation. Dr Judy Messer Nature Conservation Council of NSW. Rod Bennison National Parks Association of NSW. Milo Dunphy Total Environment Centre

In my opinion if the abuses of the Extreme Greens are allowed to continue, the Conservation/Environment Movement will eventually be discredited and it won't be they, the Extreme Greens that will suffer, but rather the environment and our planet. Certainly they at present control and distort the debate on environmental matters."

Fair dinkum, there is nothing I can add to that. The environment and our recreation are as inextricably linked as is the Mining Industry and the environment.

The Green leak for high country environmental destruction

Alarming news has been received from a valuable source, the Bush Users Group. Leaked information shows that the Greens want to lock up even more of Victoria than has been the case in the past. Surprise, surprise!

 

We are, of course, reasonable, rational bush lovers and we wouldn't complain if being classified as a National Park meant a superior standard of management and care. But does that happen?

 

The Government's own records, the National Parks Act, Annual Reports for 1983 and 2005, when compared, illustrate clearly that the proclaimation of a NP condemns that area to a very low standard of management and care.

 

How else to explain the verifiable fact that in 1983, there was one "Ranger" to 3,600 ha of public land while in 2006 there was a ratio of one "Ranger" to 6,170 ha of the public's land and now sea. That in 1983 the Management cost per ha was about $26 while in 2005 it had slipped 20%. Does that illustrate more efficient management or does it spell out why our NP's have become a safe haven for pest plants and feral animals?

 

So, The Greens policy, soon to be announced, shows that East Gippsland, the Tambo Valley, Lower Glenelg, the Strezlecki's, Wombat, Central Highlands, the Wellesford Forest and State Forests in the headwaters of the Aire River are recommended for the same bad, low calibre, standard of management that has been the aim of their policies over the past twenty five years.

 

Why?

 

In a land that was shaped by fire for many thousands of years, they believe that the answer is to 'lock it up and leave it'. This bastard policy defies nature. The Greens are not fair dinkum in their care for the bush. It is totally wrong to lock it up and leave it. Equally, it is totally wrong for 4WD'ers to dismiss this as someone elses problem.

 

It is our problem. We use the bush for recreation, we observe that lack of management and see the feral animals. We seem to forget that it is;

• Our bush. The bush that we volunteer to keep clear of fallen trees.
• The habitat of native flora and fauna that is lost or decimated by summers uncontrollable feral fires.
• The place where we volunteer to assist with the dirty jobs that are needed to be done in the bush since they got rid of the timber industry.
• The place where we support rural Parks Victoria and DSE staff in their endeavours to manage it -- despite the spin doctors and paper shufflers in Nicholson Street, East Melbourne, outnumbering them almost two to one.

I ask two questions.

1. How many greenies have you seen getting dirty working in the bush?
2. Where did they learn that the bush should be locked up and left?

OK. I'm    steaming today but, fair dinkum, this stupidity is enough to make a saint swear.

We must avoid fragmentation in this campaign

To bring about a change of environment policy at this time needs a coalition of everyone interested in our high country and our Primary Industries. We cannot afford to exclude any organisation for whatever purpose. We cannot just rely upon recreation organisations to support us, because for some people, to change their lifetime voting pattern is not acceptable.

We need the Koori's, MCAV, the timber industry, apiarists, the CFA, SES, VFF members, BUG and any other group that represents an activity, commercial or recreation. We must write letters and emails to our local newspapers, we must flood all of our politicians with letters that demand that the "Lock it Up and Leave It" management ceases after 25th November.

Did you ever hear an environmental issue discussed on talk back radio? Next time, get on the phone and tell the listeners that our high country is neglected in that there are far too many pest plants and feral animals, that in a National Park or Wilderness area they are protected and encouraged to flourish. Tell the world that there are far too few 'hands on' staff and too many administrators. That in the Alpine National Park there are 18 different pest plants listed in the National Parks Act 2005 Annual Report.

It is wishful thinking to imagine that because there are 300,000 fishermen, 250,000 hunters and 15,000 4WD club members we will automatically attract 565,000 first preference votes. It just will not happen.

We must attract the floating vote who might, as a protest, vote for the Greens To defeat this insidious, neo-pagan forest worshiping religion, we need to have a solid block of voters sending a message to Melbourne. To the Labor and the Liberal Governments.

Those Governments must hear your voice and feel the effect of their listening to the Green political party as well as the green Non Government Organisations over the past twenty five years.

The green policies in the high country have been disastrous over a 25 year period. It is up to fairdinkum bush users to stop it and reverse the process. In doing that, there must be tracks available for recreation.

This is a fairdinkum win - win situation

Lets start thinking strategy.

I am indebted to the President of City West 4WD Club Inc, Milton Oliver, for the following extracts.

 

"If we are going to have "market penetration" in terms of influence leading up to the state election, we need a sharper blade.

 

The keeping tracks open approach is, as I have said before, ..too narrow. I agree with what we are trying to do, but I think we need a different approach. The single focus approach is easily dismissed and once again we are marginalised in the debate and then we no longer have a say and are thus not taken seriously

 

What is needed is a coalition of citizens who are prepared to campaign on an alternative green agenda. At present, there is no alternative and on a single issue stance as recreationists we cannot offer an alternative. I believe many voters choose Green Candidates because there is only one alternative and this becomes the only way they can express an opinion. This is especially true of swinging labor voters who know their preference will go Labor's way anyway.

 

We need to break this pattern. An alternative is needed.

 

We need an intelligent and scientifically backed approach that brokers sustainable policies, to counter the greens spirituality that is a derivative of the neo-pagan movement that worships "their forest".  It is a religion of sorts as I pointed out in my paper in March 2004 warning 4WD Vic of the looming CFM (Collaborative Forest Management) threat in the Wombat.

 

It was a threat because the Green idealogues were always going to interpret CFM in the neo-pagan way. In the Wombat we did not campaign on a single issue; we embraced CFM and became the alternative conservationists and environmentalists that had much broader appeal.

 

I reckon we need to change tack so that in the process of a broader agenda we can keep tracks open. At the moment, we're not seen as serious greens/environmentalists -- this is one of the reasons the mountain cattlemen came unstuck in my opinion. They campaigned on rights, rather than the environment arguments. In the end, environment always wins".

 

 

I reckon Milton is fair dinkum. Are you going to stand on your rights for track access or are you going to become the credible alternative to the Greens?

If you really care about where you drive ...

Phoenix 4WD Club is promoting good Government policy that will ensure that land management is a priority after 25th November 2006. The present 'Big L' political parties Labor and Liberals are not going to listen to us until then.

 

The National Parks Act Annual Reports of 1983 and 2005 prove that the Victorian Government is spending very nearly 20% less on land management in 2005 than it was in 1983.

 

Most of the $67 million is spent in Nicholson Street, East Melbourne, where hundreds of administrators govern very few Rangers. When the emphasis of management turns from spin and public relations to eradication of pest plants and feral animals, the Phoenix will go away.

 

If you want to assist bringing about change in land mis management, join us in the Phoenix 4WD Club. No entry or any other fees. Just send your email address and your suburb or locality and you're on the list to assist change by peaceful, democratic means.

 

I'm fair dinkum about that.