Fiery warning comes early

The early onset of bushfires in Tasmania has generated debate, again, about hazard reduction burns, prescribed burns, etc., and whether they cause more damage and property loss than if they had never happened.

As well as Tasmania, there have been instances in Victoria, the Blue Mountains in NSW and in WA where prescribed burns have gone awry. Sometimes, the problem has been that a fire thought to have been extinguished has continued to burn beneath the soil surface and reignited when conditions dried out.

It is sad but true that we live in a fire-prone land. That means the onus will always be on land managers to reduce the risk of fire to human life and property.

In Tasmania our fire authorities carefully plan prescribed burns. So do farmers. It’s not a quick decision. It has consequences. We have to consider the fuel loads, flammability, assets that could be endangered, the local wildlife, and our own livestock. On the day of the burn, we have to be aware of the behavior of the smoke that is created.

Added to these considerations are the speed with which our weather changes these days, the fact that the Bureau of Meteorology many not always be 100 per cent right with their predictions (though I am always impressed with the accuracy of their seven-day forward forecasts), there is the undeniable ferocity of Australian summers and, of course, the fallibility of man.

Recently, Trent Penman, a University of Melbourne lecturer in bushfire behaviour and management observed:

“Many people opt for a tree change and move away from the urban centres to the urban fringes or semi-rural landscapes to get the feeling of naturalness.

“Often these people do not realise or appreciate the nature of the risk to which they are exposed. Fire agencies are faced with an increasingly complex situation where they are attempting to reduce risk to people and property while maintaining the environmental values which attracted residents to the area in the first place.”

So fire risk control is an inexact science in a changing rural landscape and demographic. There appears to be growing evidence that the most effective fuel reduction burning is carried out close to suburbs verging on the bush, the so-called bush-urban interface.

Fuel-reduction burning remains our best weapon to reduce the human and landscape costs of bushfires. We must continue to reduce fuel loads when we can; we must develop buffer zones to contain wildfires; and, back-burning has to be a weapon of choice during a fire to try to stem the tide of the event.

As I have said here before, we applaud the State Government’s $28.5 million fuel reduction program, which was launched in March. It is a good program and the truth of the matter is that 42 per cent of land that is suitable for bushfire risk reduction treatment is privately owned.

THIS ARTICLE FIRST APPEARED IN THE TAS COUNTRY ON 16TH OCTOBER.
TFGA president Wayne Johnston