The meat in this sandwich ..

The focus of this campaign has to be the protection of forest values. Once that is achieved, all recreation needs will be catered for. The Memorandum of Cooperation that 4WD Victoria has with both Parks Vic and the DSE will become meaningful when we have lobbied for, and received, better environmental outcomes from the Minister for Conservation.

There can be no expectation of public recognition of our recreation needs while we ignore the fact that it is people in 4WD vehicles that access our remote areas and witness the environmental damage that has been wreaked by a lack of good management over the past twenty five years. We don't make a fuss, we don't complain, we just accept the damage that the past 25 years of non management has given us.

It is not the fault of the land Managers that are based in the bush!

No one can do a good job managing our high and remote areas while Governments over the past twenty five years have either failed to provide funds for people to carry out FRB, pest plant eradication and the elimination of feral animals OR has allowed the focus of land management to be taken away from hands on work.

The proof of my statement can be seen, using the Governments own National Parks Act 2005 Annual Report which states that the number of administration staff is 625. In the bush, there are 396 workers. In discussions with them, they complain that their outdoors work is reduced by the demands of the managers in Nicholson Street who have papers to shuffle, meetings to attend and statistics to compile.

1. Why do the administration staff outnumber the field staff by 45%?

2. How many meetings are required to start eradicating pest plants?

3. Why is the administration of National and other Parks based in Melbourne where there are no problems with pest plants and feral animals?

4. Why is it that, when I send a letter of complaint to Minister Thwaites, his reply is that of the Regional Director, Gippsland, based in Traralgon?

5. If Traralgon is where his reply is handled, why doesn't this Government shift the whole Department there?

So, when I start blasting off about very bad land management, remember that it is not the outdoors staff that are causing the problem. Yes, the administration is excessive but the main focus has to be upon the Minister and, subsequently upon the ALP Country Caucus.

Fair dinkum, I know some of these Country Caucus. Really they are not bad people but pressure is put on them by a Minister who is the greatest vandal where land management is concerned. Unfortunately, they have to follow a party line which is dictated by the vandals of the Green movement, even when that means the destruction of the high country environment.

Let me be quite specific. The Greens are responsible for the environmental degredation of the Victorian Alps because they do not believe in 'hands on' work. In this they are aided and abetted by the Minister for Conservation, who, following in the footsteps of all Ministers for the Environment since 1982 is engaged in cost savings. Yes, I can prove that too. See my previous blog comparing the 1983 National Parks Annual Report with 2005.

Do not blame the bush based land Managers!

Tips for letter or email writers.

Apart from asking for assistance with the beaurocracy, there are probably two main reasons to communicate with politicians.

1. To express your anger at a decision that has been taken or is going to be taken. 2. To have the politician react to your communication.

You can express your anger in a number of different ways but if you use swear words or cast doubt upon the politicians parents or become personal in any way, the policy in most political offices is that is an abusive message and is thrown away or lost in the filing system. Same result, no effect upon anyone in that office and you are listed as an abusive crank.

If you wish to cause the politician to sweat a little, you are very politeand your letter will ask questions and contain such phrases as

I find the situation most disturbing, or

I find that I cannot imagine why you/your party has/have taken this decision, or

What I find most unusual is that you have ... or even,

I wonder why it is that you didn't ...

The one or two questions asked will be those in my previous blog.

Courtesy counts when letting your elected representatives know how you feel.

In the case of the Wombat, as with so many other cases where management is now going to be of the lock it up and leave it type, remeber to use some psychology and put your recreation on the back burner.

The decision taken is going to be disastrous for the environment of the Wombat. It must have positive land management, i.e., fuel reduction burning, pest plant eradication and feral animal elimination. That does not happen in areas where there are no access tracks.

I'm fair dinkum, is your aim to get rid of your anger or do you want to cause the maximum disruption to the political offices concerned? Where every email/letter has to be answered, the staff are going to be run ragged and the politician will be informed of the excessive interest in the issue.

If you are an ALP supporter, or like me, was an ALP supporter, make the point very clear, that this decision is going to influence you on November 25th.

Last, you might make the point that, while you will be making a protest vote in the Legislative Council at the State Election, you have not yet decided where to give your vote in the Legislative Assembly. Will Minister Thwaites risk losing the 120 votes or the 18,000?

I'm fair dinkum, did we really elect these power mad mongrels at the last election?

Please write a LETTER or send an email to Minister Thwaites

Please find below the sample letter or email we're encouraging everyone to write to Minister Thwaites. Could you circulate this, encouraging as many personally written (not identical) letters as possible to go to his office.

Some facts about the recent decision concerning Bunyip State Park

Option One. Very similar to option two, but it provided for designated unloading area for trail bikes away from residential areas and different tracks were to be used for four wheel driving.

Option Two. Noted that the local residents were entitled to protection from excessive noise associated with trail bikes After considerable community involvement and consultation, it was noted that trails to the ridgeline to the residential properties should be closed and other tracks in Bunyip should be opened that were previously closed to accommodate sensible recreational use. Both Parks Victoria and Department of Sustainability and Environment supported this position. Almost all the community groups involved with the consultation also came to a goodwill consensus on this option.

Option Three. Closes off all tracks except for 12. The problems this option brings;

1. This will create a significant environmental issue with over use and damage

2. It will create over crowding and pressure to break the law

3 It will have a negative impact on out door recreation and in particular the healthy people healthy parks image

4.It is contrary to the memorandum of understanding between DSE and FWDV

Option 3 had very minority support from a few locals to take recreation out of the Bunyip. The park belongs to all Victorians who should not be penalised for the actions of a few. While local residents deserve consideration, their concerns should not solely determine park management. This creates a mentality of locals "owning" a community resource and amenity. This is bad policy and needs to be reversed.

A sample letter or email might go something like this below . using additional information above and your own words.

Keep your letter to one page and be firm but state your feelings at the community's conscientious efforts in consulting with the Bracks' government as being trampled on etc.

Date etc.

The Honourable, Mr John Thwaites

(Deputy Premier, Minister for Environment, Minister for Water and Minister for Victorian Communities)

Level 3, 1 Treasury Pl, East Melbourne 3002

Dear Minister

I write to you to express my concern/disappointment/ frustration/(use the thesaurus) at the decision you have made in selecting option 3 for the future use of the Bunyip Park.

The Recreational Strategy Options with the largest level of community support which addressed all issues was option 2. By selection option 3 you have etc (made a mockery of consultation processes with the Bracks' government, dismissed the concerns of a significant section of the community, more than 11,000 Victorians who belong to clubs etc, disrespected the efforts of representative community groups who have invested heavily in consultation at their own expense etc, only to be betrayed at the last moment.). This is an unjust outcome and bad policy etc. and panders to a minority. Consensus had been achieved, why was it ignored etc.

I urge you to reconsider your decision and instruct Parks Victoria to review their position to enable all access as described in Option 2. I intend to make this a personal election issue etc.

I am an active walker/horserider/four wheel driver/trail bike rider (vary this, we don't want just fwdriving portrayed here) and I feel that you have made a significant statement about me and my recreational interests leading up to this state election about how I will vote. I am deeply offended that you have ignored the work of my community group representatives and the hundreds of hours they have invested. This does not look good for future consultation efforts.

I await your reply/I'd like a reply/I look forward to your response etc.

Yours sincerely

Full name and address.

Want to send an email? usually the first namestopsecondname@parliament.vic.gov.au All of the following should be emailed. john.thwaites@parliament.vic.gov.au steve.bracks@parliament.vic.gov.au and john.brumby@parliament.vic.gov.au and; peter.batchelor johan.scheffer brendan.jenkins geoffrey.howard ian.maxfield joe.helper

Fairdinkum comment. The ALP has been carrying out this bulk submission trick for at least twenty years. I make submissions on behalf of the members of the 4WD clubs that I belong to but I always make my own personal submission as well. Fair dinkum!

What if --

What if a miracle happened and the Greens were working for proper land management practices in our remote regions?

How would I feel if they were badgering Minister Thwaites to restore fuel reduction burning to 350,000 hectares each year?

What if they were insisting that there were more outdoors staff employed by DSE and PV so that pest plants were destroyed and feral animals no longer a threat to our native wild life?

How would it be if they recognised that, as efficient as plantation forestry is, it still cannot produce commercial logs in sufficient quantity and agreed to a sustainable increase in timber extraction from those 'old growth' forests that didn't exist in 1850 AD? Suppose they said that only plantation timber will be imported into Australia?

Nooo. I'd probably wake up dead before that miracle happened.

Its time to start our campaign

We are trying to achieve several outcomes.

1. Ensuring that we keep the environment as a prominent issue on 25/11 and

2. Offering ourselves as a plausible alternative to the Greens where a protest vote is looking for a home and

3. We know the outcome we want most but we don't want it to be pushed into the minds of other voters who don't recognise our needs as a priority. We do not want to be seen to be trying to push our own agenda. Our exercise is called manipulation and that is what has kept the greens at the forefront of environmental management for the last twenty five years. Believe me, I'm fair dinkum!

We must write letters and send emails. Here is who write to or email. (We must also use talk back radio. See below)

Politicians;

Our member of the Legislative Assembly, two Members of the Legislative Council, one Member of the House of Representatives in Canberra and a share of at least one Senator. Don't worry about contacting a Federal member about a State issue. The more people aware of what is going on, the better.

Look in your Yellow pages for info on addresses. Email address for State Parliamentarians is always their firstnamestopsurname@parliament.vic.gov.au

Your local news papers.

If you know one of their reporters or the Editor, have a chat. Ask them to help with your campaign but write letters to the editor anyway. Ask questions, see below.

Your local radio stations.

Do they have talk back? If so, can you introduce the topic? If you can, talk about the state of the wilderness areas, the lack of management, the extreme fire risk next season. Talk about biodiversity and get really sad about all the high country flowers such as the Alpine Marsh Marigold that are suffering now that the cattle have gone and they haven't been replaced with prescribed burning. (This tiny flower can't grow unless all last years dead grasses that cover it are removed )

Your task between now and the 25th November. Every meeting with friends or relatives, have at least half of them write a letter or devise an email to be sent to a local politician or newspaper asking a question about the environment.

I repeat, you must ask questions about the environment. You must push that issue rather than your own cause. You will attract more public sympathy asking that the management issues are fixed rather than complaining that you want to shoot, hunt, fish, 4WD etc.etc.

Please do not try a proforma letter. If a Parliamentarian receives many 'proforma' letters they are treated as one letter. When they receive 25 different letters a month on the same subject but from 25 electors, they start to sweat. When 50 people have made the same demand with individually written letters, they press the panic button.

Use all or some of the following statistics for your letter or email and don't be afraid to use these statistics for talk back radio.

Ask these questions re National Parks. Have a look at the statistics that I have found.

The 1983 Annual Report for the National Parks Act showed that 272 rangers were managing almost 1 million hectares, i.e., in 1983 there was one Ranger per 3,600 hectares of National Parks, State Parks and Reserves. In 1983 the total number of employees was 387 of which 115 were admin staff.

In 2005, just 396 rangers managed over 3.2 million ha of land and sea. One ranger now to 7,160 ha of public land & sea. Employees had risen to 1021 but only 396 were rangers. There are now 625 admin staff.

Questions to ask.

What was the reason for this jump in employee numbers when there were only a few more Rangers taken on?

Why were there fewer Rangers per administrator in 2005 than 1983?

In 1983 there was one administrator per 2.4 Rangers. In 2005 this ratio had dropped to one administrator per .6 (point six of one) Ranger. Why was this so?

The budget in 1983 was $11.1 million which equals $25 million in today's values. The budget for 2005 was $67 million. Why the difference when the number of Rangers had risen from 272 in 1983 to just 396 in 2005? The funds were not spent on Rangers, so where did it all go?

How many Parks Vic staff compile statistics and, since only Wilson's Prom NP has a counting barrier, how do they conclude that there are now 28 million visits to our National Parks?

1985 administrative staff numbered 115. In 2005 there were 625 administrative staff. Why has that happened?

In 2005 each Ranger is responsible for 7,100 hectares. Please explain how one person can maintain and manage 7,100 hectares?

In 1983, using today's values, one Ranger represented about $92,000 of the budget. In 2005, one Ranger represented $170,000 of the budget. How do you account for this apparent discrepancy?

In 2005 there were only 396 Rangers to look after 3.2 million hectares of public land. (If the politician is ALP) When will your Government increase the numbers of Rangers to restore the ratios of 1983? (if not an ALP politician) Will your Government, if elected, restore the ratio of outdoor workers to the 1983 ratio of one per 3,600 hectares, i.e., employ another 500 outdoor workers?

Because there are now more admin staff than rangers, I have to ask what administrative tasks were not undertaken in 1983? Has the environment suffered?

Translating 1983 costs to 2005 values, our land in 1983 cost the taxpayer over $25 per hectare. The current cost of almost $21 per ha seems to indicate that the present government is running the environment on the cheap. Do you agree?

Ask about prescribed burning (Fuel reduction burning (FRB)).

Twenty five years ago the land managers achieved 350,000 ha per annum FRB This year, just 49,000 ha. Why is this? (In NSW the five year total of FRB is just over 200,000 ha - for the whole period)

Mr Politician, do you understand the significance that FRB has upon the Australian environment?

Foresters advise that fire is not a disturbance in our forests but the lack of fire must be considered as the disturbance. Do you agree with this? If 'no', ask why not.

Are you aware of any place in the Alpine National Park that does not have a problem with pest plants? If yes, ask for the GPS position, "so that I can check it out".

Will your Government stop destroying native animal habitat? If yes, how will that be achieved?

Will your Government stop the uncontrolled increase in feral animals? If yes, how will that be achieved?

Will your Government stop neglecting the public's land? If yes, how will that be achieved?

Will your Government restore good land management to the Alpine National Park and, if yes, how will it be achieved.

Foresters advise eucalypt die back is due to a lack of FRB. Do you agree with this? If 'no' ask if they have read the latest literature about it,

By all means make statements but don't stop asking questions. A question demands an answer. Many questions sound alarm bells in politicians offices. Lets keep our issues alive.

(Please note that my letter writing is based upon Amnesty International's letter writing hand book. Never let your anger show in your letters. Don't give the receiver the satisfaction of tearing up an abusive letter. Ask a couple of questions because a question demands an answer.)

If there is no answer from a politician, take a copy of your letter to the editor of your local newspaper a few days before the 25/11

I'm absolutely fair dinkum in my desire to make the environment an issue on 25/11. With a well managed environment comes the need for tracks that we can all use.

Are we our worst enemy?

While I totally deplore the policies of the greens (they have led to the utterly disgraceful condition of much of our public land in Victoria), I am filled with admiration for their perseverance, persistence and the dedication of their membership. They are aware that a few of us are planning to overturn their grip on Governments, the stranglehold that has held in their favour for the past twenty five years, but I don't think they are worrying overly much because they are aware of the apathy of so many outdoor recreations when it comes to standing up for the environment. Also, at the State election they can count on the support of all those couch potatoes that, back in 1992, forced the Government to form Wilderness Parks. They were individuals who, while not wanting to physically visit a wilderness, had a vicarious orgasmic experience just from knowing that wilderness exists.

A number of 4WD clubs have contacted me to tell me to take them off my email list as they are not interested in receiving any more information. Typical of these emails is one received today and I quote " . please don't send me any more info unless it concerns the 4WD club that means no election crap or road closures I will find out about them when I need to I'm getting sick of all unrelated emails coming in" end quote.

While I have been kicked out of the bush after an area was closed, not many of you have had that experience. It therefore sickens me that that club member cannot use the delete button to get rid of unwanted emails. That attitude reaches from the smallest to the largest club, from the north of the state to the south and causes me great worry.

To those who believe that simply telling 500,000 outdoor recreation groups and their supporters to vote as we advise, I give fair warning. Committed ALP and Liberal voters will not easily be persuaded to change their Legislative Council vote regardless of their recreation. Those voters who have previously given the Greens their vote because they felt there was no alternative will never vote for our cause until we explain that what we are fighting for is improved management of the Alps and other remote areas of the state.

In my almost twenty five years experience of working for the right to 4WD track access, the most persistent and consistent complaint of 4WD club members and their management committee's is we cannot show proof that tracks that were to close have been kept open. There is also an intermittent bleat that they cannot see any return for their affiliation fee. Think of it as insurance.

The combined committees of all outdoor recreations in Victoria will not equal even one half of a 60,000 vote quota on November 25th. On that date it will be up to the members of the outdoor recreations to let the Greens know what is what - or play indoor games.

I'm fair dinkum. I'm working for your track access through care of the environment. FRB, pest plants eradication and eradication of feral animals. Land managers must have tracks to do this work. Our recreations provide a watertight reason for tracks to be maintained - care of the environment.

Finally, at a meeting this week I heard a member of another recreation explaining that it will be impossible to get his members writing letters to politicians and newspapers so that our issues are still there on 25/11, still receiving media attention. Maybe we won't be the number one issue but lets try and keep our concerns on the radar.

There are none so blind as those that will not see!

Just what an I wanting to achieve?

What we are setting out to achieve is to have our chosen political party holding the balance of power in the Legislative Council of the Victorian Government after November 25th. To be more explicit, we are working to let the ALP know that we will no longer put up with their "greenie driven" land management practices. We believe that the state of our remote country is of more importance than the nonsensical philosophy and policies of The Greens. If we can also persuade the Liberals that they will fare no better if they "suck up" to The Greens, that's good too.

We are NOT seeking to hold the balance of power in the Lower House (Legislative Assembly).

If outdoor recreation, industry and services are to have a hope of influencing the land management policies of the next Victorian Government after November 25th, there is a need to get a lot of first preference votes in the Upper House (Legislative Council) so that our chosen political party holds the balance of power and works to achieve our environment agenda. Our aim is 500,000 votes overall. One "quota'" is about 60,000 votes so if we can get 500,000 we will have elected eight MLC's and that should be enough to make our point to the big "L" parties.

If those that we back don't listen to our demands regarding environmental management they will only have themselves to blame when we prepare for the next election in 2010. They know that.

Fifteen of the forty seats available are in three country regions, East, North and Western and twenty five seats are in the Melbourne Metropolitan area.

It is not considered practical to run candidates in the five metro regions but if there were two Independents standing in a Metro region, we could ask our supporters to vote for them in the hope that we might influence a seat or two. The main thrust is to be in the three rural regions where we hope to obtain the major support. We have to break the stranglehold of the Liberals and Labor in the Upper House. Further, the members of the Lower House (Legislative Assembly) must recognise that the political party that we support has a clear mandate for excellent land management.

Whether we attract enough votes is dependent on a number of factors;

Will our members who traditionally vote Labor or Liberal be prepared to vote for our selected candidates in the Upper House? Our candidates will not be either Labor or Liberal.

A number of voters have, in the past, put in an invalid vote or, because they wish to discipline their traditional party, have voted for The Greens or Democrats or Australia First. If we are to attract those voters we need to appear as a real alternative to The Greens. This is the reason for the 'save our native animals' campaign of the Phoenix 4WD Club over the past year; the reason we have put so much effort into our researches into forest management. We can appear as a viable alternative to the green 'lock it up and leave it' philosophy and furthermore, our policies are supported by scentists and foresters.

We cannot stand on the I OWN A 4WD or I'M A HUNTER or I'M A FISHERMAN - AND I VOTE bandwagon. The floating voter will never be attracted to whatever we do if that is our attitude.

To achieve this ambition, we need to forget our past hang ups. This is a totally new 'ball game' and the rules have been changed.

As far as the election for the Upper House is concerned, please forget your past loyalties or hang ups. I'm really fair dinkum when I ask you to vote exactly as we will inform you, shortly before the 25th November.

Again, from a fire fighter's perspective.

While it was proved in 1997 that the Fire Management Plan was a real plus for our State, ** the present fire arrangements are at a cost to the community.

Now there are four fire agencies involved in forests fire management. DSE, Parks Victoria, VicForests and the DPI.

There are now;

Four sets of Administrators,

Four sets of priorities

Four modus operandi

The arrangements failed in 2003, 2005 and 2006. There is no guarantee that this many operators can work together, nor that their equipment can be worked by fire fighters from other groups in an emergency. Fire does not recognise the boundaries of these organisations. It can start in any one of them and spread to one or many of the others with a resultant confusion while there are so many chiefs.

Forest fire fighting in Victoria must take a step backwards to the time subsequent to the Stretton Inquiry, where the Forest Commission and the Country Fire Authority maintained high levels of forest protection measures on public and private land.

Governments must resolve to fund a level of FRB that is commensurate with the Management Plans drawn up for each part of the State of Victoria's National and other Parks. The Annual target must be circa 350,000 ha. They must further resolve, when adverse conditions have not allowed the expected target of FRB to be attained, to ensure that the funds are available to 'catch up' as soon as conditions permit.

This is such an important issue, fair dinkum, if those of us who care don't speak out, who will?

** For a copy of a new book on FRB, including a copy of the Abstract of that Government Report, use the email facility on the right side of this blog to send me an email asking for it. It will be emailed to you withiin hours. I'm fair dinkum.

The historical thinking about FRB

Until 1839-41, when Angus McMillan explored Gippsland looking for drought free pastures for sheep and cattle, the country was open grassland with many trees interspersed through these grassy plains. History tells us that McMillan didn't find a forest.

After claims were made to the land, not just in Gippsland, settlers erected fences, ran their sheep and cattle and reduced or stopped the traditional fire usages of the aboriginal population.

This resulted in an unprecedented growth of trees and bushes that had previously been held in check by frequent fires that had burned forest fuels, dead grasses and other dead foliage. It also burned the surplus saplings that were germinated by previous fires. The weak went, the strong remained. It was a process of natural selection.

These fires were ignited, either through natural causes or at the hands of the indigenous people.

A lack of regular fire encourages forest mulch to occur. The ensuing mulch holds moisture, to the great discomfort of eucalypts. They, in good health, are not favoured by the bugs, borers, lerps, loopers, sawflies and parasites, such a mistletoe, which thrive on sick trees.

The mulch also held back the growth of native grasses which need the removal of dead grasses to thrive. The same applies to native flowers. There is a need with many fragile flowers to remove the dead vegetable matter before they can flourish. The Alpine Marsh Marigold is a good example of this.

Alfred Howitt, in his 1890 'Eucalypts of Gippsland' address to the Royal Society of Victoria says that "around 1863-4 I observed that a belt of Red-gums which extended across the plains between Sale, Maffra and Stratford were beginning to die.' He went on "Later, probably about 1878 I observed the Red-gum forests of the Mitchell River Valley to be dying ."

He went on to explain that his investigations found that the infested trees had "myriads of the larvae of some of the nocturnal Lepidoptera. These devoured the upper and lower epidermis of the leaves, thus asphyxiating the tree. Some 75% of the forest died that year and subsequently almost all of the surviving trees died also." Also, in 1890, Howitt reported that "Twenty-five years ago I noticed that during the course of three years, all the White-gums E. Viminalis, in part of the Omeo district died . "

I'm being very fair dinkum when I state categorically that we cannot afford to ignore Mother Nature. Tamper with the golden rules and expect a catastrophe. It happened in Northern Africa in the days of the Roman Empire, it still happens today.

Please don't leave it to someone else to complain about this. I believe that, on November 25th, we have to tell the Parliamentarians that, in future, their management of our remote regions must be as close to Mother Nature's rules as we can make it.

The Greens cannot alter their mindset, so they must be kicked out if all of those little animals are to have a chance to survive. (Why can't you brainwash a greenie?)

Does our environment benefit through fuel reduction burning?

Our environment has been formed upon fire. It is therefore natural and encourages re-generation.

The lack of fire is unnatural in our remaining remote lands. In any eucalyptus forest, a lack of fire must be classified as a 'disturbance'. Fire is natural.

Healthy eucalypts need protection from mulch and too much moisture. FRB keeps their roots protected and the result is that the healthy tree can resist the attacks of predators.

Native grasses (and many plants) need dead matter removed for them to prosper.

FRB ensures that the strongest trees survive where lesser trees and plants are incinerated..

FRB ensures that nutrients are returned to the soil for the benefit of the existing plants.

FRB ensures the continuation of native grasses upon which native fauna survive.

FRB by reducing the destructive effects of summers feral fires ensures the survival of native fauna habitat. Cool burning ensures that animals may quickly return to their territory. It ensures the availability of food for the animals.

FRB reduces the incidence of soil erosion. A reduction of erosion means fewer problems with reservoirs filling with burned ash and soil.

The conclusion must be drawn that, by any measure, any Government in the south east corner of Australia that does not facilitate enough FRB for a ten years average rotation, is putting a huge cost on the backs of its citizens and its native animals.

FRB is just plain common sense. Fair dinkum!

Fuel reduction burning and its economic benefit

Government research in 1997 found that the cost of the Fire Management Plan (including FRB) is a lot less than the cost of assets and infrastructure destroyed in any summer feral fire. When tourism, recreation, water quality, water quantity and native flora and fauna habitat is included, there is a huge financial benefit to good fire management.

FRB reduces the danger to fire fighters and allows a quicker result in summer. It reduces the 'ladder' effect that allows flames to quickly access the tops of the trees.

The State's Wilderness areas will be safer for bushwalkers when the intensity of summer feral fires is reduced.

If fine fuels are reduced, the incidence of 'ember attacks' on private properties must reduce also.

Well managed forests allow good water harvesting. Feral fires have an adverse effect upon water harvesting where new growth replaces mature forest.

Given that the Government's Fire Suppression plans provides employment during the fire season, FRB provides employment around rural areas in the cooler months of the year.

Increased employment around rural Victoria supports the viability of remote communities. Increased demand for products creates greater business activities.

Well maintained forests and remote areas will attract tourism and, with a through and linking fire response track system, access is facilitated.

Well maintained forests reduce the incidence of erosion. Rivers and lakes will benefit by allowing a greater water flow when not clogged by mud.

It ensures the growth of the eucalypt forests.

Fair dinkum, our Government is costing us all heaps by its lack of good fire management.

A professional firefighters point of view

Prescribed Burning ( Fuel Reduction Burning)does not prevent bushfires starting, nor does it stop them burning.

It modifies the vegetation and, in doing so, changes the behaviour of subsequent fires in ways that give suppression forces a better chance of controlling them.

It does this by;

1. Reducing the total amount of fine fuel. This reduces the rate of spread and fireline intensity (rate of heat output) of the flame front of a subsequent fire. Firefighters are able to work closer to the fire and work with greater safety.

2. Reducing the height of the shrub layer. This reduces the height of flames and increases visibility through the vegetation for firefighters.

3. Removing elevated fine fuel including fibrous and flaky bark on the trunks and branches of standing shrubs and trees.

This material is the ladder of flammable vegetation that allows flames to climb high into the trees. Removing the ladder reduces the potential for the fire to become extremely dangerous for fire fighters to approach and it also reduces the potential for multiple and long distance spotting.

Advice from Vic Jurskis

In my recent blog I assumed that the frequent fire regimes of our indigenous peoples culled the parasites that fed on and killed trees.

I was wrong. Vic Jurskis writes;

"I haven't done much research, but I have observed changes in fire regimes and vegetation, including widespread decline of established eucalypts. Many others have done good research into various components of the process of vegetation change and tree decline with changed fire regimes, but have not put it all together.

Exclusion of fire causes a buildup of 'mulch' which changes the physical and chemical environment in the soil. These changes make the roots of eucalypts unhealthy and favour other plants. The sick trees provide better food for all sorts of things that 'eat' various parts of trees. The pests, parasites, diseases and competing plants prosper while the trees get sicker.

Low intensity burning didn't "cull" the pests, it kept the trees healthy so that they were not good food for the pests.

The misconception that mild fires used to cull things has been used to explain the proliferation of all sorts of things after European settlement including insects, koalas and mistletoes.

Changing the fire regime changes the environment, favours things that grow in shady moist cool environments, and disfavours things like eucalypts and native grasses that grow in sunny, arid, infertile environments."

So there you have it. Now you know why fuel reduction burning, and lots of it, is required in certain parts of the forest to ensure the health of the trees. It would also assist the recovery of native grasses as well! Fair dinkum, I'm learning something every day!