Fairdinkum Environment For Victoria

The meat in this sandwich ..

2006-07-24T11:45:00.000+10:00

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.

2006-07-23T12:05:00.000+10:00

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

2006-07-22T19:19:00.000+10:00

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 --

2006-07-22T16:16:00.000+10:00

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

2006-07-15T12:59:00.000+10:00

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?

2006-07-14T20:20:00.000+10:00

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?

2006-07-08T18:31:00.000+10:00

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.

2006-07-07T00:15:00.000+10:00

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

2006-07-06T14:41:00.000+10:00

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?

2006-07-06T11:38:00.000+10:00

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

2006-07-06T10:57:00.000+10:00

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

2006-07-05T11:16:00.000+10:00

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

2006-07-03T13:28:00.000+10:00

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!

David Packham's advice

2006-06-30T22:22:00.000+10:00

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.

2006-06-30T21:27:00.000+10:00

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?

2006-06-23T14:53:00.000+10:00

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?

2006-06-21T23:23:00.000+10:00

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?

2006-06-11T14:33:00.000+10:00

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,

2006-06-11T12:54:00.000+10:00

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 themSeveral 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 seaThe 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 woodvery few tree species, but every place was covered with vast quantities of grassthe 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 purposeThe 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 ...

2006-06-11T12:30:00.000+10:00

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?

2006-06-10T21:11:00.000+10:00

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 Australias 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

2006-06-09T23:55:00.000+10:00

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.

How many greenies have you seen getting dirty working in the bush?
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

2006-06-09T20:00:00.000+10:00

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.

2006-06-05T19:57:00.000+10:00

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 ...

2006-06-03T21:36:00.000+10:00

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.