*Pic: Now two days later – 7th April. A photo from Grindelwald. Launceston is down there somewhere in the stinking smoke.
First published April 8
Every year without fail we are smoked out across Tasmania by deliberate burning.
It doesn’t matter if these particulates go deep into our lungs and stop there.
It doesn’t matter if the smoke is made up of many of the same particulates found in cigarette smoke.
It doesn’t matter if the smoke makes us sick or keeps us locked up inside.
State Government tries to sell it to us through the media: “Autumn is fuel reduction season. Fight fire with fire” So, they are creating all this harmful smoke for us?
Autumn is hell for the young, the elderly and those with lung or cardiac disease and their families. Little mention is made re their smoke-induced sickness lasting until lives are shortened.
It doesn’t matter if the specialized cancer agency (IRAC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) says outdoor air pollution is the leading environmental cause of cancer deaths.
It doesn’t matter if the WHO classified outdoor air pollution as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). And after thoroughly reviewing the latest available scientific literature, world leading experts convened by the IRAC Monographs Programme concluded that: there is sufficient evidence that exposure to outdoor air pollution causes lung cancer (Group 1).
It doesn’t matter if the WHO also noted a positive association with an increased risk of bladder cancer.
It doesn’t matter that particulate matter, a major component of outdoor air pollution, was evaluated separately and was also classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1 is the highest category) along with: Formaldehyde, Trichloroethylene, Azathioprine, Sulphur Mustard, Asbestos, Plutonium, Thorium-232 , Arsenic, Beryllium, Cadmium, Radon-222, Radium-224,226 and 228, Silica dust, Cyclosporine, X- and Gamma-Radiation, Tobacco smoke, and so on.
On the 5th April 2017 smoke started to build. This is when burning should have stopped.
Looking towards Exeter from Brady’s Lookout.
What goes up must come down.
Exeter is down there somewhere in the stinking smoke.
The Tamar Valley as far as the eye can see … smoke!
It doesn’t matter if this smoke originated in Tasmania, Victoria or both.
Wind direction from the North. Image courtesy of https://earth.nullschool.net
Smoke from Victoria? Satellite image courtesy of NASA. https://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.go http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-07/smoky-melbourne-planned-burns-in-victoria-causing-city-haze/8424292
And while this was going on Tasmanian burns kept smoking!!
http://www.fire.tas.gov.au/Show?pageId=colRegisteredBurn
Real-time ambient air quality data. Courtesy of Tas EPA Air division. http://epa.tas.gov.au/epa/air/monitoring-air-pollution/real-time-air-quality-data-for-tasmania
This is what we are forced to breathe!
*Clive Stott worked for the Tasmanian Health Department for almost 15 years in charge of buildings, engineering and biomedical engineering at a district hospital. He also provided home oxygen therapy equipment support to respiratory patients for CIG/BOC Gases. It troubles Clive the Asthma Foundation of Tasmania will not lobby on behalf of its members to stop unnecessary planned burn smoke. Clive also owns the website www.cleanairtas.com
• Lola Moth in Comments: On Tuesday my friends arrived on the ferry with their motorcycle loaded up for a two week holiday in clean, green Tasmania. By Thursday afternoon they had retreated to the coast because they had trouble breathing at my place near Deloraine. Today one of them is flying home to Sydney to get away from the pure air she was promised on the ads. Her partner can’t get back on the ferry for another week. He has had surgery for throat cancer and the hole in his throat he breathes through is running out of filters and the machine he needs to unclog his airways is working overtime. If I can keep him out of hospital he should be able to ride home otherwise he will have to fly home and send the bike by freight. Their well planned holiday has turned into a nightmare.
• Emma Anglesey: Impacts of more “regeneration burns” is unacceptable If the Tasmanian Legislative Council supports the Liberal Government’s plan to open up 356,000ha of reserved forest for clear-felling and burning this week, then we will have to put up with even more “regeneration burns” and cop the unacceptable impacts they have on the climate, our environment, people’s health and our industries for many years to come …
max
April 10, 2017 at 21:25
# 54 Unfortunately there were idiots in the 50’s, the same as there are today. People are going around burning houses down for fun, does that make it right? One of the out dated fire practices of the past was burning stubble and the same argument that is used today was used then, It’s good for the next crop. It is no longer done, it was poor practice. Now stubble is plowed in to enrich the soil. Isn’t about time that forestry woke up to the fact that this is the 21 century, not the stone age.
mike seabrook
April 10, 2017 at 21:50
any squeals from the smoked out wine grape growers
at a critical time approaching harvest
Frank again
April 10, 2017 at 23:28
Re #56- NO – simply too buzzy and too close for comfort.
Simon Warriner
April 11, 2017 at 00:32
Jack. I did briefly consider including the regen burns where the trash is left randomly, but it has been a long while since I have seen one of those. They were generally smoky due to high moisture content as well.
Windrows prior to reversion to agriculture are interesting, have seen a few, but they have tended to be left longer and burnt faster and cleaner. I guess it is because farmers get a cost/benefit boost from having less trash left behind to clean up.
And yes, I have become fairly cynical regarding the spin, disinformation and worse that emanate from the forestry industry. If you don’t like it, a cup of wet cement might do the trick. If my pointing it out offends you so much you should have perhaps done something about it. You might note that I do try to be even handed and point out the failings of the ENGO sector when relevant as well. If you know Kent Lyon you might ask him what sort of behavior pisses me off.
Thanks for the compliment about my “usually measured comments which are respected” though, rarity adds value.
PHilip Lowe
April 11, 2017 at 00:52
why do people still go on building houses in such fire prone areas?
Clive Stott
April 11, 2017 at 07:20
In answer to a few comments:
Mike #56 re wine grape growers….
See the photo in the main article with the title “Exeter is down there somewhere in the stinking smoke”?
I took another shot at the same time which shows grapes in the foreground being harvested flat out by a number of people. They were working their butts off!
As Frank again says in #57 they were very busy.
Can’t see how the grapes around here have not been smoke tainted. I certainly was.
But shhhh we are not allowed to mention smoke and grapes because if there is a hint of smoke in the wine it could ruin the local wine industry…perhaps sadly that could be a reason we haven’t heard anything from the growers?
#51 Robin I referred you to a press release from Richard Colbeck in #37 explaining the benefits of mechanical clearing over controlled burning….which we have learnt really means uncontrolled burning in certain instances.
I even offered to read it to you as you obviously cannot read because as predicted you are still going on more about burning!
Incidentally, I asked TFS how many types of burning there are because new ones seem to be popping up all the time to confuse. Your ‘broadcast burning’ was not on their list, so come on get with it man.
Anyway here is what Colbeck’s release said…
Senator Colbeck said mechanical fuel reduction is a relatively new concept in Australia despite being widely adopted in the United States and Canada.
“There are number of benefits from this practice as an alternative to controlled burning, including community concerns over air quality, not being limited by weather conditions and managing fuel loads that are close to built-up areas,” he said.
“The mechanical removal method will also create the potential of utilising a market from the sale of biomass fuels – this will provide additional benefits the community, the industry and the environment.”
Further Robin, I call on you to name your great fire mentor with his ‘black earth policy†otherwise I feel you have dreamt it all up.
Hi Garry in #46: You mention NASA’s Lance Rapid Response Terra and Modis satellite images.
You will be happy to know they are still being collected and displayed.
Sorry, in the main article it looks like only part of the link showed up.
Not to worry, here is the full link: https://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/imagery/realtime.cgi
Thanks all for the comments and I really must thank Linz from TasTimes for promptly publishing this article and the EPA air section for having such a high up-time on all their fixed real-time air monitoring stations around the state.
Mark Temby
April 11, 2017 at 10:50
#52 the answer to your conundrum lies within #16 but, be warned, it is multiple choice.
Barney Rubble
April 11, 2017 at 11:17
#24 Russell, do you not drive a car nor burn wood for heat or contribute to polluting this planet? How about read a paper made from a dirty pulp mill in Asia as we didn’t want a world class mill in our backyard?
Fuel reduction is about protecting you and others from Mother Nature when she unleashes her fury.
Embrace it, accept its an essential required control measure and that climate change and pollution are inevitable consequences of mans occupation of this planet.
TGC
April 11, 2017 at 12:34
#58 “…but the weather’s got to be right.”
How is that guaranteed?
TGC
April 11, 2017 at 12:38
#63 is asking the pertinent questions too many TT’ers appearto avoid thinking about
Robin Charles Halton
April 11, 2017 at 13:24
#58 Russell, agree with you the Charlestons near Lake Lea who burn the white grass (poa) on their property annually at will which mimics traditional burning, they are in an ideal position to carry out what is a very simple burning of Poa which carries very low fuel loads.
Virtually all burning today either on button grass plains, various inflammable scrub types and under burning in dryer forests.
This requires pre planning with execution during spring or autumn by professional fire practitioners who burn only when the window of opportunity prevails.
Many burns can be conducted within a short space of time especially when helicopter hire and available manpower remains in readiness for action.
Time management, costs are also considered within budgets there is no time to fiddling about with the Dreamtime approach as you have previously mentioned with indigenous groups with time on their hands in northern Australia which are relatively simple burns when compared to the complexities of the Tasmanian and Victorian vegetation types.
Properly established and healthy plantations generally have little effect on the spread of wildfire.
FT are probably the most professional in the area of both low and high intensity burning, burns are only carried out when conditions are right, burning prescriptions and guidelines were established decades ago with some minor modifications from time to time.
PWS have a specialised group of field fire practitioners.
TFS has still a lot to learn in the field, but working along side FT and the PWS field specialists I would imagine that eventually with permanent staff and long term volunteers they should improve their Fire management knowledge as time goes on!
Pete Godfrey
April 11, 2017 at 14:27
#63 I asked a question in post 41. As you seem to be in favour or fuel reduction burning maybe you could point out where it has saved towns and cities from fires.
Fuel reduction burns in my experience do not protect from fire for very long. The main cause of catastrophic fire damage to human habitation is from Crown Fires. Crown fires can start many kilometres or even tens of kilometres away. Any fire that is driven by enough wind or up a steep enough hill in the right conditions will jump into the crown of the trees. From there it does not matter how much fuel reduction burning has been done to the undergrowth.
Just for reference, I was a volunteer firefighter for many years in Northern N.S.W, being deputy captain of our brigade for about 3 years.
I stood on the beach at Lorne in 1983 and watched the fire come down the hill that burnt many houses. The fire did not go near the ground. It was burning down a steep hill, basically just a ball of rolling flame that leapt across the top of the trees. The fire was igniting trees that were hundreds of metres ahead of the fire front.
No amount of hazard reduction would have stopped it.
Unless the whole area had been cleared.
In Tasmania we have an area of legislated hazard reduction burning. It will not work unless it is targeted.
Clive Stott
April 11, 2017 at 14:35
#63 Fuel reduction does not have to involve burning.
There are better alternative methods.
Barney Rubble if you are not Robin Halton under another name I refer you to comment #61 and what Colbeck said.
If you are Robin Halton under another name, do you want me to read it out to you again?
If you want to read about the Tamar valley pulp mill go here http://cleanairtas.com/gunns-pulp-mill/gunns-pulp-mill.htm
max
April 11, 2017 at 20:37
# 68 On February 7, 1967 at 12 o’clock I was having lunch at a cool store at cygnett. It was a perfect day, not a cloud in the sky, we sat in the sun and enjoyed our break. At 12-30 we went back to work and found that our welders had no power. On going out side i saw something i will never forget, a ball of fire rolling down the top of the trees on the opposite hill. it didn’t appear that the tree were even burnt, in fact the fire jumped a gully and the trees in the gully never burnt. From what I observed a grass fire ember ignited the eucalyptus vapours creating a fire ball which started a fire in the tree tops, then the forest floor litter. From what I observed close up and in fear of my life, if reduction burns had been carried out prior to 7/2/1967 nothing would have changed that days outcome. On hot days eucalyptus trees give off a highly volatile gas, on hot days dry grass will readily burn and give off air born embers. I think that so called reduction burns that add to global warming, release health destroying 2.5 particulate and have a bad negative outcome for our tourist industry needs a serious re think.
Of the 110 fires, 88 were found to be deliberately lit, although the exact causes are unclear. Some were from burn-offs started in the days prior.
After all this time nothing has changed, another 1967 is just waiting for the right day and all this smoke that is being inflicted on us will not stop that day, sorry.
Claire Gilmour
April 11, 2017 at 23:25
#23 Robin Halton.
Scared some of them away with my beauty – here is reality I guess!
I mention it at appropriate times, because not everyone has a personal experience, or is willing/wants to tell the experience.
FT’s Camdale office actually – the heads. Smithton office is just a cursory office. But you should know that.
Who singularly has the money to engage the government (FT) in a law suit? Crikey it’s taken years to raise enough money just to get machinery in to clear the road of burnt dead falling trees, instead of hand sawing my way in and out.
FT and government left me with a life time of problems.
FT is not above the law you say?… of course they are !… they have government politicians changing laws to suit at any given time …
You say in comment # 67 … Properly established and healthy plantations generally have little effect on wildfires.â€
All Bullshit!!! What is a ‘properly established’ plantation? Please give the appropriate legal meaning? Also with ‘healthy plantations’?
Where, when and how did you last work for FT? When was the last time you experienced a wildfire near plantations?
Must be lovely to be retired, how do you do that? after being an FT worker? and then spend your hours pushing a dead-end industry? Nothin better to do? Perhaps you could grow something real and positive instead of being part of pulling the environment down?
I could suggest I do a crowd funding thing to take on FT to court … could you suggest a lawyer and possibly contribute?
[email protected]
April 11, 2017 at 23:44
Thanks for the link, Clive. Gee, is it seven years since that (2010?) big smoke event in the Tamar! The technology has changed in the meantime, since the big crash and MODIS data loss in 2012/2013. Before, we had to open uncertain pdf files to find what we might. Now the areas included in the satellite swaths can be seen before opening. A thumbnail I’d guess you could call it. While it now seems to me (2017) that Tassie was mostly out of the April satellites’ passes over Australia, there were a few pix which suggested (as did your article) that this recent smoke event in the Tamar (April 2017) might have had Victorian origins/contributions. And the pix suggested East Gippsland as the origin of an amount of smoke that could be seen to be moving south, though I could not find one which showed the Vic smoke reaching the Tamar Valley. Certainly smoke could be seen entering Bass Strait/The Tasman Sea, but not on the Tasmanian mainland.
Without having explored the new link [ https://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/imagery/realtime.cgi ] deeply, at first glance it does not seem to have some of the viewing options that used to be there before the MODIS crash (e.g. I recall being able to choose between a whole of Tasmania view and a view of the North of Tas down to 500 metres altitude (?)). Probably got my memory wrong etc.
But…
…while I believed that in 2010 we (including John Hawkins, Pete Godfrey and yourself) assembled an amount of information which strongly supported the smoke-out as being of local origin, and which resisted the claim that our woes were due to Victorian burn-offs – first from the coast west of Melbourne, then next they said the smoke was from the east … East Gippsland.
Then…
…we knew – and we demonstrated – that it was Tasmanian smoke that had blanketed Launceston.
But now…
… I accept that this (2017) time it might have been Victorian smoke – albeit mixed with local provenance.
Given the above…
…this is my point, Clive: What is our government doing to protect us from the poisoning of the air we breathe? Why are we not now protesting – and litigating – against the Victorian government? Why is the state of Tasmania not bringing a case against Victoria, on the grounds of polluting our state’s airsheds?
PS: Max is ‘true blue’ and is a thinker. I know him. Without going into a song and dance, I can say that he has always had a kindly and informed knowledge of the matters that I have discussed with him. Pete (Godfrey) is in the same category – in my opinion.
Claire Gilmour
April 12, 2017 at 01:11
Well I also proved FT wrong on all their autumn fire accounts in 2010 – and it was a huge undertaking to gather the info to do so… but no thanks necessary Garry, I guess.
http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/images/uploads/Ashes_to_Ashes_-_ver2.pdf
Some of what FT are burning now are the dead plantations burnt in 2013 and 2016 wild fires.
Robin Charles Halton
April 12, 2017 at 02:39
#69, Clive with due respect I am not the Barnaby Rubble that you refer to and I am unaware of of the identity of the new arrival.
I have also read the report by Dr Raverty that you kindly provided, and agree with his findings especially those of the Gunns Pulp Mill for which I have never supported from day one knowing full well that the Tamar River pollution and knowing that the Tamar Valley is a natural air inversion trap and that you folk living in the Launceston area can cop smoke for up to a period of 6-8 weeks during the shoulder seasons (Spring and Autumn) mainly coming from other areas up north and from Victoria.
I dont deny the smoke nuisance factors associated with fires however broadcast fuel reduction and proper wet forest intensive burning are both proven and established methods for offer a better level of fire protection in lieu of damaging wildfires and productive eucalypt forest regeneration.
Given the benefit to the community having fire danger levels that are being potentially reduced by both States which could be considered a small price to pay for the unpredictable nature of future wildfires in both Victoria and at home here in Tasmania.
abs
April 12, 2017 at 11:17
there is ongoing conflation of regen burns and fuel reduction burns by pro forestry commentAtors. RCH does so again when he identifies smoke ‘nuisance’ (better refered to as ‘health risk factor’) as arising from both types of burns in his second last paragraph #76, then he seems to refer to this hazard as a small price for community to pay for fire danger levels reduced (last para).
what is the benefit to community of regen burns?? (rHetorical question Robin, as I don’t subscribe to the usual spin from pro forestry crowds)
Ted Mead
April 12, 2017 at 12:01
#76 – Unfortunately, yet predictably you continue to display your clueless tunnel-visioned bias towards pro pyro activity.
Constantly burning Tasmania’s wet forests will ultimately transform them into a drier forest type that will only exacerbate the likelihood of broad-scale wildfire.
Wet forest types provide a natural buffer and can supress fire from moving quickly.
Just wait until the next catastrophic fire that gets into the plantations or mono-cultured regeneration areas. The fires will be uncontrollable and devastating!!!!
It’s a time bomb, and when it eventuates you will no doubt naively claim it happened because there wasn’t enough fuel-reduction burning going on.
Clueless!!!!!
William Boeder
April 12, 2017 at 13:21
Robin, Jack Lumber, MJF and other interested party’s to the forest smoke harms rife across Tasmania.
The long continued burning of forest residues, or post logging waste as it was referred to in the days past when 2 former Forestry Tasmania persons were to become these2 F/T CEO’s were ultimately given their professional foresting name tags per the ANU, one has to wonder if these 2 students had on gaing their name tags were the reason for the suddenly introduced eccentricities into the Tasmanian GBE logging and burning supertitions.
The peope in Tamania suddenly had to understand about the failure of logging in this State, the first being the kept low stumpage fees, then the departure of the transparency of their business operations.
Of conspicuous note is those earlier years that every new and often loss-making action of a new and mysterious undertaking was immediately authorized, then given a Commercial in Co\nfidence rating, (one can look to the non-profit logs to China export program) So we saw every action chosen by GBE Forestry Tasmania was soon approved no matter the lack of intelligence by them and no concern to even bother about profit.
Inevitably the more logging would mean the greater amount of logging waste was created, thus the more of the wood smoke volumes rpoling or entering the lower atmospheres of Tasmania that would increase its volume of health dangers, public nuisance and the rest.
So began the intensive smoke dasngers as did the burning of waste across Tasmania, included the burning of whatever part of Tasmania that could be carried out with immunity.
One of ANU students was Bob Gordon, the other was Evan Rolley. Then there was an another student not yet mentioned in my comment, yep, Hamed Sepawi of the now invading profiteeringTa Ann fame.
I am indebted to John Hawkins for his excellent factual report which is linked below that provides a number of helpful references, now accessible to all via the internet thus publicly available material as contained therein. http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php/article/the-underbelly-of-forestry-tasmania.-julia-pledge-on-pulp-mill.
One of the primary undertakings of Evan Rolley in his earlier years with Forestry Tasmania was his zealous pursuit of an aerial ignition device that could lay a trail of fire across and or among any designated targets in Tasmania that were deemed as “waste post -clear-fell-harvested native forest flora”
This became the practice and the methodology chosen by the Forestry Tasmania brains-trust, yep’ this would suit the purposes of getting rid of all post harvest waste, simply by the agency of aerial ignition Evan Rolley style.
Thus Tasmania has to consider itself fortunate that during the earlier time given saw the rise in number of Rolley created devices that were given trials and tests (despite the mounting costs attributed thereto) by thay persevering pyro-design engineer, who I am led to believe had already set his future sights on controlling all the forests across the entire of Tasmania.
Nowadays logging waste happens to be a saleable product (given that 2/3rds of what was left behind after logging for Ta Ann previously for the wood-chippers of Gunns Ltd) the logged coupe may even have provided at least 4% of saw-logs, (not5 %,) of the odd saw-log grade timber that may or not have been encountered.
to be continued/
Robin Charles Halton
April 12, 2017 at 13:22
# Claire, take it as you wish as I have always been puzzled as to why all the drama over your claims of damage by FT to your private property!
It now seems that there were difficulties now way beyond re-approach between yourself and the GBE at the time as I have no detailed knowledge of your claim as it is none of my business really!
Anyway but I am not seeking to undermine your views but I am sorry for the circumstances that you are left with that appear to create a permanent barrier of communication between yourself and forestry!
……………………………………….
My concerns for forestry surround the wide scale investment in eucalypt plantations by Gunns, private investors and FT thinking that we would have a world class Pulp mill on our doorstep.
It remains as a discussion point for Tech Foresters of my era as to why our State forestry department did not place more emphasis on maintaining an ongoing native forest harvesting agenda aiming at a high quality timber market instead of following Gunns fatal lead of developing a pulp mill when the era for pulp mills was closing in Australia instead in favor for developing countries like Chile, and SE Asia!
The irony even extends beyond the Pulp Mill expectation that a more recent arrival on the scene as Ta Ann who after theri arrival wanted nothing to do with HWP either!
There is no reprieve either as the Greens wish to close down all native forest harvesting when it was they who “previously” insisted that the future of forestry should be with the development of HWP pushed by former Greens leaders Milne, Brown and Putt.
Everybody needs to learn from their mistakes the most stupid in my opinion was when FC/FT invested heavily in HWP’s, Gunns and others that is another story with similar results, the illusions of the Greens have never resulted in any positive outcomes for forestry either.
Most locally trained Tech Foresters who are now retired including myself support an industry that is smaller but is self sustained based on harvesting areas of older regrowth to
sustain the production of high quality sawlogs.
Unfortunately FIAT, Ta Ann and beholders of the TFA legislation which has driven the industry to harvest younger wood combined with more frequent wildfires has in fact driven the forestry industry underground to appease Labor’s illusions with Greens support.
With proper forest management and only by FT as STT Forest Minister Guy Barnett, it is inevitable the 375,000ha of former State Forest areas in limbo will require opening up to maintain an ongoing supply of mature forest for industry.
William Boeder
April 12, 2017 at 13:23
Continued/
Thus his energies were now being exerted against the common will of Forestry Tasmania and Tasmania generally.
The waste that had been roughly calculated in the past Tasmanian native forest coupes, post their clear-fell-logging, was provided by Forestry Tasmania in a 2007 report (not included in the John Hawkins report) being in the amount of 2/3rds of the entire floral growth in each of the native forest coupes.
The mantra of the Evan Rolley CEO period had thereby since been the methodology implemented to destroy (by fire-incineration) the non-acceptable tree species for wood-chipping purposes, so being most of these tree species being of indigenous native forest species that were specified not suitable for wood-chipping, so they were mostly destined for the smoke heaps.
These tree species were identified in a 2007 report on forestry practices by Richard Flanagan.
https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2007/may/1348543148/richard-flanagan/out-control
I could provide further links however I believe 2 per comment is the rule on Tasmanian Times.
I do hope people understand that the bogeymen in this whole forestry mis-management and of its ugly offensive dangerous to health propensities are fully authorized by the Tasmanian State government via the false similing Guy Barnett, the minister for the degradation of Tasmanias range of native forests intended for destruction or complete denudation.
Without Ta Ann in Tasmania there would be some hope of honest regrowh or regeneration of mixed species that may reach its 90 year cycle, other wise we the people must ignore entirely the snarky claims otherwise by the State’s new (the giggler) minister Guy Barnett.
TGC
April 12, 2017 at 15:36
It is a matter of great regret that all the most knowledgeable and experienced forest people can be found only on TT- none in the industry itself.
[email protected]
April 12, 2017 at 16:35
Thank you Claire (#73), for the link to your ‘Ashes to ashes’ article. I don’t recall ever seeing/reading it and I must congratulate you both on that piece of work. While I’m in this ‘acknowledgement’ phase, could I also give you recognition for your years of pro-environment endeavour. And I recall contacting you/Charles and obtaining a copy of one of your hot-spot screen-saves that had something to do with my own then area of interest – the big smokeout of the Tamar Valley in March 2010.
So thanks for that too, Claire. Now, looking back at your ‘Ashes to ashes…’ article, while after these seven or so years, I’m unable to get the grey matter moving sufficiently to process/synthesise the various info contained in it, I can yet appreciate the work and skills that went into the production of that document, for example the artwork that was superimposed on to the photo of 24th April 2010, showing a trashed and still smoking ‘regen burn’ a week after. It’s an evocative image that you produced and I can only guess at the amount of time and of emotional energy that went into producing that great doc.
On the other side of the coin, I point out that my recognition of Clive S., John H. and Pete G. was for their work in regard to the smoke-out on 16-17Mar2010, while your work was in regard to a series of FT burns a month later, in April. By all means, be proud of what you did, but please don’t confuse it with the March 17 smoke-out.
PS: A month or two ago, in a thread comment, you supplied some information perhaps with regard to where some of our native forest timber/logs were ending up. It was a piece of valuable information, and I – flat chat – put it on the backburner, intending when I had a free moment, to thank you for it in the relevant comment thread. Unfortunately, though I searched for your comment more than once, I never did find it.
I wish you a Happy Easter.
Clive Stott
April 12, 2017 at 16:36
This is significant!
Robin in #76 acknowledges his love of deliberate burning around areas of Tasmania and the mainland causes smoke to come into the Tamar valley.
He has been asked to provide proof as to the benefits of all this burning but the best he can do is acknowledge community fire danger levels are being “potentially†reduced as a result.
Start answering some questions please Robin; you jump all over the place like a fire ant!
1) Who was your great fire management mentor that believed in the black earth policy in comment #51?
2) Show us where fuel reduction burns have saved lives or communities in Tasmania?
3) Do you agree with Colbeck? He says there are alternatives to controlled burning, including community concerns over air quality, not being limited by weather conditions and managing fuel loads that are close to built-up areas. The mechanical removal method will also create the potential of utilising a market from the sale of biomass fuels – this will provide additional benefits the community, the industry and the environment.†http://cleanairtas.com/departments/investing-in-bushfire-prevention-strategies.pdf#sthash.6mORCoW9.dpuf
4) Constantly burning Tasmania’s wet forests will ultimately transform them into a drier forest type that will only exacerbate the likelihood of broad-scale wildfire?
5) “Burning prescriptions†There is no safe level of particle pollution so as a result, what about doctor’s prescriptions?
6) Same height, same age plantations change wind patterns and increase fire risk?
Please short answers Robin numbered accordingly. If you can’t answer these simple questions you have been robbing your fires of good oxygen and wasting people’s time. No more hot dreams!
People may like to put some direct questions to Robin.
Tim Thorne
April 12, 2017 at 18:52
As one whose respiratory function suffered severely on Friday 7/4 because it was not possible to “stay indoors”, especially without advance warning, and as one who strongly doubts the story that all the smoke came from Victoria, I have a question.
Why cannot pyrolysis be used?
If the answer is to do with cost, then I have another question. What price has been put on my lungs?
Jack Lumber
April 12, 2017 at 19:18
seems like there is a fair bit of “pre heating ” going . …..and in perfect timing with the Easter period a degree of flagellation
but seriously …There is ample work by Gould , Cheney , Lacy and others and maybe have a look .
A word of warning … these people are scientists , use evidence have peer reviewed papers and “worst” of all some are from those well known den of “academic tomfoolery ” ANU and UniMelb
That said the experience and knowledge of RCH , Claire and Clive S is very important as part of the learnings
BUT i dont see anyone else providing first hand experience re Euc fires
To rephrase a quote that has appeared on TT before …..” Of course plantations are an increased fire risk when compared to a field full of potatoes , but they are pretty insignificant compared to the fuel loads that will accumulate in native forests that are left unmanaged. ”
Clive where is the evidence that the current plantation estates are being mismanaged with respect to fire ?
Ted …its Easter so going to be nice this “constant burning is changing vegetation in Tas > Evidence please … and you did say WSF >>>DSF
Have a good break TT people and for William and Russel lets hope over the break the time of reflection brings you what you seek .
TGC
April 12, 2017 at 19:57
There’s stupid and there’s ridiculously stupid-so-
” Show us where fuel reduction burns have saved lives or communities in Tasmania?”
About the same category of the effectiveness of the programme to keep elephants out of Tasmania.
Chris
April 12, 2017 at 21:05
Who needs to worry about fires protecting Tasmania when the bio security of airports and ports is TOKEN only.
Well may the minister say we have no worries, but my dog using friend tells me the Spirit is only given token attention. all leave is cancelled and work place moral is lower than Erica Betz boots, overworked and very tired is no way to run a Government department.
Promises of extra dogs has gone to the Kennels.
max
April 12, 2017 at 22:20
# 87 Jack. what are the fuel loads that will accumulate in native forests that are left unmanaged? I was born in the bush and have seen more bush fires than I care to recollect. The unmanaged forest are all most impossible to burn, it is the managed forests that burn. In an unmanaged forest limbs and fallen trees are usually damp, even wet and even when dry and they are set alight they do not move, they are not the problem. The fuel load that causes bush fires are the plants that love fire and the more we burn the bigger the problem. Button grass plains are a good example, they need fire and they burn readily but all over Tasmania the native forest have survived to the edge of the plains. If the current thoughts on fuel reduction were correct, there wouldn’t be a Tarkine.
John Maddock
April 12, 2017 at 22:32
William #82 comments on the development of burning in the Rolley years, but if I’m not mistaken, a truck mounted laser igniter was tested earlier than that.
Can anyone confirm? It would be nice to know my memory is not playing tricks.
JV
Frank again
April 13, 2017 at 04:30
Re Tim Thorne’s question @ #86 “Why cannot pyrolysis be used?”
This would require a plan that is based on a responsible vision of avoiding waste.
As long as the mindset by the people and their leaders refuse to open their mind to proper planning, regionally responsible, comprehensive, total quality thinking – only more of the same old will be the future scenario.
It is simply still too easy to change, too comfortable to just hang on the more of the usual, to do things with what the people know.
Just make (complex) things “go away” as they would require more thinking about the future opportunities.
It is the same thinking as just like placing a feedlot into a fast flowing river- just flush the opportunities away…
Just like simplistically raking the sewage sludge and muck with a scallop drench into the middle of the river channel to send it away out of sight, out of mind , out of the municipality boundaries.
Different topic – same thinking minds. …
Only time will tell why, how and when things may change for the better.
Clive Stott
April 13, 2017 at 05:48
#88: Ridiculously stupid “to keep elephants out of Tasmania”
Not so TGC! http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3873911.htm
Just one of the alternative methods to burning I am arguing to keep the smoke down.
#87 “where is the evidence that the current plantation estates are being mismanaged with respect to fire?â€
Jack where is the evidence they are being managed with respect to fire?
You must have seen all the sickly dried up or dead E.nitens around the place up here in the north. You reckon that is managing them well with respect to fire?
Max answered you in #90
Clive Stott
April 13, 2017 at 07:01
#72: Garry in addition here are the Tasmanian subsets, You can look at the 5th, 6th and 7th April.
https://lance.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?project=&subset=Tasmania&date=04/07/2017.
earth.nullschool.net showed wind direction and speed as 355 degrees on the 5th at 22km/h, 20 degrees on the 6th at 22km/h, 0 degrees on the 7th at 53km/h. All close to or exactly a southern wind.
Satellite images show smoke leaving Vic burns and coming to Tas.
As mentioned previously Tasmania also had fuel reduction burns ‘burning now’ on these days.
There were other burns going on around our state.
I think it is fair we wait for the EPA air section’s full report into this pollution. I have every reason to believe it will be thorough.
I am not sure if there is any cross-state legislation to cover such events (if deliberate smoke is deemed to have come from Vic) but I have asked the question.
Robin Charles Halton
April 13, 2017 at 09:14
#85 Clive, answers to the best of my knowledge.
1. In house business, external disclosures “most strictly forbidden”!
2. Frequent burning along highway edges on Crown Land, State forest and private land from Murdunna- Eaglehawk Neck- Oakwood 1960’s till 1980’s by Forestry Commission and Rural Fires Board volunteers.
Provided a dual purpose benefit for Tasmans and Forestiers peninsulas’ protection of mid age regrowth stands on State Forest as well as reduction of highly inflammable scrub around dwellings carried out annually as an insurance of shared fire protection measures.
Received as an excellent PR exercise by the public in the area.
3.Nope not really!
Permanent de facto firebreaks currently exist as Transmission Line easements with 4×4 access, there are a number of these around Greater Hobart.
Hobart City Council maintains some regularly maintained clearings behind fence lines and adjoining bushland.
Parks maintain slashed fire breaks around some of their inflammable scrub prone Reserves, South Bruny and Lime Bay comes to mind.
Firebreaks are only effective if fuel reduction is kept under control on surrounding lands or as a backup for back burning but only when conditions are favorable!
4. A very good question Clive.
Far better for wet forests are left to develop for longer periods 80-100 years for both ecological and stand quality management reasons.
This is not the case with serial intruder Ta Ann who have been given open sesame via the Tas Forest Agreement legislation 2013 as it has resulted in giving priority for harvest of younger age regrowth for a product that less valuable than for growing on to future high quality sawlog as well as stabilising the wet forest environment over a longer period.
I would imagine that widespread areas of earlier harvest could create ongoing fire management problems as older forests would remain damper for longer during the drier seasons.
Unfortunately politics in recent years has driven forestry management askew as best practice would be to spread harvest in mosaics over the broader area of available coupes within roaded State Forest prior to the TFA which has reduced the area remaining for harvest.
I am still waiting for a media report by FT on the Circular Head fires, regrowth losses and contingent arrangements for salvage harvest, ongoing stand management or what ever!
Seems as if FT are left in a short handed position one wonders how the hell they will effectively manage harvest around future fire management.
5. Better to ask current Fire practitioners and the FPA about existing policy as I am not up to date on these pressing issues that affect persons with existing health conditions.
6. Should make no difference to weather patterns what so ever as long as well established plantations are properly managed from thinning to clearfell. Plantations carry a lesser fuel load than native forests which should add to their capability for managing against fire.
Its far safer to back burn from a firebreak where NF adjoins HWP than from one with NF forest on both sides( fuel load).
Clive I wish you a Happy Easter with blue skies.
Alison Bleaney
April 13, 2017 at 11:38
If you look at https://www.volker-quaschning.de/datserv/CO2-spez/index_e.php you’ll see that burning wood had the highest carbon dioxide emissions of any fuel. And the current approach to (not) ‘managing’ plantations is why they are contributing to CO2 emissions and land and water (and air) degradation. And fire which enters a current fast rotation, closely planted, monoculture eucalypt plantation will just take off….the plantation is euphemistically described as being managed only for the purposes of profit for the owners. The plantations are the elephants in the room. Why are they still being supported? Money and greed and attempting to barter for other gains would seem to sum it up.
John Maddock
April 13, 2017 at 14:00
Re 85 Clive, Q 1.
As I remember, Eric Lockett (who is still around – he had a letter in the Merc. a few days ago) did a lot of research on fire. I think it was related to east coast conditions, and (as I remember) his records were lost in a fire.
No idea if he was RCH’s mentor.
JV
TGC
April 13, 2017 at 23:41
#98 “Note that the millers and forest industry are dead against opening up the Tarkine.”
But,one suspects, only out of an anxiety that a
‘war’ will break out- not necessarily because they don’t recognise the value in the trees as ‘timber/wood
Clive Stott
April 14, 2017 at 00:19
I posted comments in regards to the linked article by Specialist Medical Advisor Public Health Service (Dr Scott McKeown) here: : http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/pr-article/elevated-levels-of-smoke-in-the-north/
Two Tasmanian medical doctors are charging $59 per litre of bottled ambient air.
If our tidal volume at rest is 500ml then you get two breaths for $59, maybe.
If you take a deep breath you get considerably less.
http://www.pureairtasmania.com.au/
Suck it up Tasmania!
Claire Gilmour
April 14, 2017 at 00:53
#81 Robin – don’t recall you putting your shoulder to the wheel and speaking out when FT/Gunns/and both libs and labs were taking the forests you now lament and now want more of that Tasmanian increasingly rare and endangered forest opened up. When did you leave FT?
What is that word in the title of the article …
FT and the industry now have to ‘suck’ it up! …
All the FT spin of 90+ year turn around … means they have to wait now – perhaps for decades! because they used and abused it too early, too often.
Just because they were stupid shouldn’t mean the rest should be opened up to them.
Otherwise it’s like starving, dehydrating, cutting the legs off a shorn sheep and still expecting it will grow some wool … !
Claire Gilmour
April 14, 2017 at 00:55
#83 TGC – cutting down, burning, poisoning, and growing monocultures and diversity lacking forests does NOT an industry make. One needs the special little growers too!
In the same vein big business logging/timber companies outstripping the little saw miller does not an industry make. One needs the artisans, not just pulp and ply.
Been plenty of ex-FT people and other industry players who have seen the worst and written on TT and in other media.
Claire Gilmour
April 14, 2017 at 01:05
#84 Garry you wrote an email to me personally at the time re my article after it was put on TT …
http://www.oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php/article/ashes-to-ashes-dust-to-dust
and then giving me a copy of yours which you said TT couldn’t put up, and I told you it was probably because it was too huge in memory and you should do it/download it in a PDF file. I guess we are all getting older … which is really scary, because who is going to take over and do the hard yards in the future?
My article actually related to all the media hype and lies, yes ‘lies’, FT and the gov of the time were putting out in the media at the time on specific days!
Don’t try and belittle me with my little art work – that were nothing, it took half an hour – having been a desk top publisher on the side … of having co-owned an IT/software programming company … it’s the INFORMATION, that is/was important! I had to ‘capture’ all the info from FT and sentinel on about an hourly basis, then correlate with the FT letter – (sent via letter – not emailed to me) info I had requested from FT. Then correlate every FT coupe number and map. It looks easy when all put together, but when the FT/ gov specifically make the information hard to gather, then it takes a long time.
Forget the pics … it’s the info that shut them down! And that’s why they have changed how they are supplying info. My system proved they could be taken to task in realtime and that’s why they changed their reporting system.
It would be so easy for the government to show on an hourly basis where fire/smoke would go from their fires, (through coupes numbers, not just smoke above) regardless of what type of fire … but they are hiding!
It should be like a storm, flood, cyclone warning … because they have the info, wind currents, all the weather details, the ‘crispness’ of the forests …
Forestry Tasmania have followed a specifically mapped outline of clearfell in Tasmania. It mostly follows wet forests. Hence much smoke!
FT/gov have all the info, maps etc that can prove how much they are drying out Tasmania …
Now why have the Tasmanian Liberal government stopped pursuing opening up contentious forests through the upper house?
Isn’t there an outside interest who wants to spend/buy into Tassies apparently FT’gov ‘open forest market’ … but only if they can be assured Tassie ‘looks’ clean and green …!!!
Robin Charles Halton
April 14, 2017 at 01:49
#97 John, Nope he wasnt! he worked for FC’s Silviculturist Branch on many areas of NF management and was responsible for producing our standard guidelines for recording regeneration surveys.
#98 Russell, What rubbish, one of the largest sawmills at your end of the state will be seeking out decent size sawlogs and soon!
The Forestry Union involved has no idea of forest sustainability nor the implications for forest management the TFA legislation 2013 has brought about.
Guy Barnett has a rude shock coming for all of the TFA bullshit which has resulted in too many coupes being cut as younger and younger stands are being slaughtered, some of only age 50 years of age within our prime wet forests.
These cutting schedules raise the question of what has happened to FT’s 90 year bench mark!
Ta Ann/TFA supported by Labor, the Wilderness Society, the Greens and the other misinformed signatories are have brought about a Forest Agreement that does not reflect realistic forest management nor does it ever allow for the forest environment to reestablish itself over a longer period of time.
Derbytas
April 14, 2017 at 03:37
As one who has come late to this debate I appologise if my comments are going over old ground but I have two points to make…
1. I thought it was accepted that eucalypts (except for regnans) only needed disturbance and did not rely on fire for germination of seed?
Now here I would have to say (from observation) that regnans on dry soil will germinate with disturbance and do not need fire to germinate seed.
2. Fire speed is hampered by moisture, both in the plants and in the soil. The more moisture the more smoke and the more smoke the slower and cooler the fire.
It stands to reason that the cooler the fire the less damage is done to the soil biota. The less damage done to the soil biota the faster the process of organic decomposition. The faster the soil decomposition the sooner the trees can begin uptaking nutrients and get back to growing.
As things stand at the moment evaporation in Tas (most of it anyway) is at a greater rate than the precipitation rate. Therefore it stands to reason it is better for the soil for any forest debris to be left in situ in order to prevent evaporation acceleration.
yes this would leave a greater fuel load but the soil moisture would be maintained at a (much) higher level and thus the fires would be slower and cooler.
I think it was Kirkpatrick that claimed (eucalypt)forests were more prone to fire after clearfelling. This might be so if the soil moisture was lessened by greater evaporation. I should imagine that even were the harvest trash left on the floor the evaporation level would be higher because a standing tree gives a multilayer effect on UV access to the forest floor.
That having been said there is the added advantage of having organisms contributing to absorbing CO2 by photsynthesising… as well as being available for their Shinrin-yoku effect.
[email protected]
April 14, 2017 at 13:09
Claire (#103): re your … “Don’t try and belittle me with my little art workâ€: My comment (#84) was in response to your (#73) where you had written … “– and it was a huge undertaking to gather the info to do so… but no thanks necessary Garry, I guess.†So my intention in that (#84) reply of mine was not to belittle, but was to acknowledge the plus side of your “years of pro-environment endeavourâ€. My compliment was meant to be just that, and certainly was not an attempt to belittle. I liked that artwork – and much else – and as I’ve already written, I regard your ashes-to-ashes doc as something you can be proud of.
Andrew Ricketts
April 14, 2017 at 16:15
Currently on Reserved land the Parks and Wildlife Service (PWS) ostensibly assess the Environmental impacts of fuel reduction burns, what they term Strategic Fuel Management, using their internal Reserve Activity Assessment (RAA) tool.
That RAA tool has four levels of assessment and management burns are done mostly, it seems, at the RAA level 2 – purely a desktop analysis. PWS generally do no on ground surveys to see what State and Nationally Listed Species may be present.
The PWS’s RAA tool is documented (2010) but as it is not statutory it is not subject to the option of Judicial Review. For burns I would describe the PWS’s RAA assessment as perfunctory but it usually has a nice coloured map.
The PWS RAA is meant to list things like all the State and Commonwealth Threatened Species and to identify vulnerable flora and vegetation communities which may be affected. Of course such burns have an adverse effect on Old growth values, the fire can penetrate the hollows and destroy these ancient trees.
Then after the RAA the PWS apparently develop a Burn Plan based on the RAA. The Burn Plan represents a decision of the PWS.
My understanding is that for large burns in Reserves, PWS use a Napalm product called Flash 21. They light the entire perimeter from the ground and then aerially drop Napalm in a flight grid on the wildlife within the designated area.
I find it hard to imagine that any Listed Species, or any other species for that matter, would survive having Napalm dropped on it, bearing in mind the perimeter is already alight, with no escape route even for animals that may be big enough to attempt to get away.
In the past small patch burns were conducted but it seems now large, industrial-scale burning of the landscape, especially securely reserved land, is being conducted, in a reckless and irresponsible manner across Tasmania. These new type burns represent an intensification of the activity of course.
There is a concern at the EPBC (Commonwealth level about inappropriate fire regimes but for the EPBC Act to operate a proposed burn must be referred (seeking a Controlled Action) to the Minister for Environment but such a referral needs to have a likelihood of a significant impact on Nationally Protected Matter of Significance such as Endangered Species. However the EPBC does not currently list as a Listed Key Threatening Process the activity of an ‘Inappropriate Fire Regime’.
If you think northerners have seen last of the smoke from the burns this year then please bear in mind PWS is proposing a One thousand Hectare (so-called) strategic burn of the Reedy Marsh Conservation Area. This proposal must be about 30% of the whole reserve.
As well Crown Land Services are planning a Five Hundred and Sixty Hectare Burn of the Gum Scrub Creek area at Virginstow. This existing informal reserved land is caught up in the 356,000 Ha and the stupid Unlocking the Forests Bill.
Both the Reedy Marsh burn proposal and the planned burn at Virginstow are West of Launceston and the Tamar valley. Both areas are dominated by old growth forest with plenty of Listed Species. The Gum Scrub Creek area proposed to be burnt is the whole (100%) of the (former) Informal Reserve, which was established under the RFA but which Barnett now stupidly wants to log. There are no sawlogs, just smoke and mirrors!
I noted Greens’ Leg Council candidate, Ms Anglesey’s (I thought she was a staffer to Whish Wilson) comment advertising ongoing Green support for burning Tasmania’s forested environment.
Whilst the ill-informed Greens so naively support the $28. 5 million of so called Hazard reduction burns, there will never be a single vote from this seriously environmentally concerned constituent. I’m sure I’m not the only citizen of Tasmania who feels this way.
Clive Stott
April 14, 2017 at 17:04
#105: Derbytas interesting, but we are still talking about burning and if you do get a chance to read earlier comments you will see there are alternatives.
Agreed, we do have to look after these little critters that live in the soil.
As far as eucalypts go they will sprout almost anywhere, in packed down gravel, cement or bitumen cracks, pretty much anywhere there is a disturbance.
This rubbish that they have to create a hot ash seed bed for them to grow in is just that, rubbish.
They are hardy, they don’t have to be treated like kids and put to bed!
One major point though when you mention cold burns. They are the smoky burns that go on for ages. No we don’t want that; the smoke is far to unhealthy.
Forget open burning, shift to the more acceptable alternatives.
Clive Stott
April 14, 2017 at 17:20
#97: Thank you John for the information.
RCH has given me an unsatisfactory answer to my Q1.
I mean Robin has retired now (you wouldn’t think so at times)and I guess his mentor has too; can’t see what is the big deal.
Ok Robin. Was Eric Lockett your mentor who believed in the black earth policy?
Come on mate you can tell me.
John Hawkins
April 15, 2017 at 02:49
I flew into Launceston from Melbourne on the morning of Monday the 3rd of April.
We tracked over Devonport in a Jetstar flight just before midday, I sat on the right hand side of the plane facing the front.
I counted 4 fires with large smoke plumes to the West of Launceston to a height of some 3000 feet. It was a still morning and the smoke was going straight up but tracking east.
The sky was clear from Melbourne but there was a yellow smoke haze over Tasmania as far south as the eye could see.
I remember thinking the bastards are at it again!