kiwi pom
Member
- Location
- canterbury NZ
Obviously the fires over there are terrible and seem to be way worse than normal, but why is it that this time someone has to be to blame for it?
Really no excuse for not reducing fuel load just because you cannot burn., Thats the whole point of woodland management on a commercial basis.As hazard reduction burns are a current topic I’ll give my opinion.
The Red Gum forests along the Murray River near me changed from managed forests to NP several years ago. Since them many tracks have been blocked off, camping restricted and all timber harvesting and firewood colection banned.
There is now an enormous fuel load as there has been no hazard reduction burns either.
The argument that the drought has limited the available time for hazard reduction burns is propoganda as it could now be burnt any time of the year including winter.
This applies to most forests and NP, as the usual excuse for no hazard reduction is its to wet outside summer, and they can’t burn in summer due to the fire danger.
I was talking to some higher up people than me in the Rural Fire Service at the fires and suggested we do some burns. Everybody told me National Parks would never approve it, and there is nothing we can do so we should just keep out of the way when there is eventually a big fire as we won’t be able to do a thing to stop it.
I talked to others who were at other fires near the coast and they said much of it had a fuel load of 50 t/ha. One day the big wigs approved a back burn and it just went strait to the canopy and was unstoppable. The blokes I know were on night shift and did a backburn at night which was successful.
In most areas there have not been high stock losses as the fires are in NP, and probably almost not crop losses as harvest is over in most cases.
That's the trouble. And the career beurocrats conveniently hide behind each government of the day. It wouldnt have mattered what government was in power. The fires still would have happened and they still would have been blamed. All because of beurocratic madness.As hazard reduction burns are a current topic I’ll give my opinion.
The Red Gum forests along the Murray River near me changed from managed forests to NP several years ago. Since them many tracks have been blocked off, camping restricted and all timber harvesting and firewood colection banned.
There is now an enormous fuel load as there has been no hazard reduction burns either.
The argument that the drought has limited the available time for hazard reduction burns is propoganda as it could now be burnt any time of the year including winter.
This applies to most forests and NP, as the usual excuse for no hazard reduction is its to wet outside summer, and they can’t burn in summer due to the fire danger.
I was talking to some higher up people than me in the Rural Fire Service at the fires and suggested we do some burns. Everybody told me National Parks would never approve it, and there is nothing we can do so we should just keep out of the way when there is eventually a big fire as we won’t be able to do a thing to stop it.
I talked to others who were at other fires near the coast and they said much of it had a fuel load of 50 t/ha. One day the big wigs approved a back burn and it just went strait to the canopy and was unstoppable. The blokes I know were on night shift and did a backburn at night which was successful.
In most areas there have not been high stock losses as the fires are in NP, and probably almost not crop losses as harvest is over in most cases.
Did u donate?
Ant...
Is the screen shot fact, rumor, or stirring the pot?
Thought you might have already been hereI said ages ago it would be raining by Valentines Day.
That's when we will arrive.
Got my timing off by a day or two. Why the hell I am still here I do not know, it's bloody snowing!Thought you might have already been here
I said ages ago it would be raining by Valentines Day.
That's when we will arrive.
in recent reports from Australia they have shown all the new growth already sprouting from burnt trees and the ground, with comments as to how the forests will regenerate very quickly. I have only seen the report once, but there was an official filmed a couple of weeks ago saying that far from that being all good news, the new vegetation would be toxic and lethal to wildlife for years to come. My questions are .. is that true and if so, why, and if true, what on earth can be done for the surviving wildlife?
Had a big red blob on the radar literally split in 2 just before it got to us yesterday evening....And then rejoin its blobby mates right after us... probably got .2mm out of it......Not to much rain here.
Only 9 mm this week so far.
Looked very promising yesterday but only got 2 mmView attachment 857841