Fire Warnings

ForkinGreat

ForkinGreat

Knows his Brassica oleracea
Haakon said:
Ha, as I was saying...

https://www.theage.com.au/business/...service-this-time-around-20191231-p53nt1.html

Black Saturday changed a lot, reckon this season will too.
Click to expand...
That is an instructional article. The headline is sure to provoke negative reactions. Move beyond that and read it to the end.

It's far from being an article written by some LNP or murdoch stooge.

Its first budget in 2014 was a long-term plan to improve the budget by what the bureaucrats call “cost-shifting”. Much of the cost of health and education was to be shifted onto the states’ budgets. Some was to be moved to your household’s budget via the $7 charge for visits to the doctor. That budget was so badly received most of those plans were reversed. But Finance Minister Mathias Cormann and his accountants have continued to limit the growth in government spending by penny-pinching in ways that voters wouldn’t notice or object to.

They’ve got welfare dependency to “its lowest level in 30 years” not by getting the unemployed into jobs, but by using petty excuses to suspend people’s dole payments. How do these unfortunates live without money to live on? They fall back on their families or go cap-in-hand to the Salvos or Vinnies. Get it? The feds are cost-shifting to charities – the same community groups whose grants they’ve cut back.
Click to expand...
 
FigBo0T

FigBo0T

Puts verniers on his headtube
I had no idea what his affiliations were before I read the article.
It took me 5 minutes to find that he is 100% a LNP stooge.
 
FigBo0T

FigBo0T

Puts verniers on his headtube
Haakon said:
I dunno... Thats not stooge like by my reading. And if it is I suspect he has changed his tune, or at least views this government differently to the historical ones in that article.
Click to expand...
This is the kind of person that thinks actors are important. They don't get the exposure unless they're somebody's stooge.
 
Haakon

Haakon

has an accommodating arse
FigBo0T said:
This is the kind of person that thinks actors are important. They don't get the exposure unless they're somebody's stooge.
Click to expand...
Actors are important in their own way, all artists are. Life is about more than practical things.
 
FigBo0T

FigBo0T

Puts verniers on his headtube
Haakon said:
This is not because of hazard reduction cutbacks... Thats an LNP line that is a distortion of things at best.

Are we seriously suggesting we should have burnt all the national parks to stop them burning?
Click to expand...
I know you aren't that ignorant. I don't like political arguments because honesty is left behind for idealism. Probably best to just leave it here.
 
Dales Cannon

Dales Cannon

lightbrain about 4pm
Staff member
National parks up here are allowed to do hazard reduction burns. Where I camp they have a long term plan with plots and locations. Due to the drought and fire risk they haven't done any burns for about 3 years. The burns would have limited the size of the fire but if a back burn got out of control? In my view you cannot disagree with their actions before, during and after.

Down south? I don't know the details but given the area on fire and the ability for fires to jump it is possible, perhaps probable that hazard reduction burns would not have made much difference. While people build within and are surrounded by large forests the risks will be high when the weather is as it is.
 
Plankosaurus

Plankosaurus

Spongeplank Dalepantski
Dales Cannon said:
National parks up here are allowed to do hazard reduction burns. Where I camp they have a long term plan with plots and locations. Due to the drought and fire risk they haven't done any burns for about 3 years. The burns would have limited the size of the fire but if a back burn got out of control? In my view you cannot disagree with their actions before, during and after.

Down south? I don't know the details but given the area on fire and the ability for fires to jump it is possible, perhaps probable that hazard reduction burns would not have made much difference. While people build within and are surrounded by large forests the risks will be high when the weather is as it is.
Click to expand...
Bang on.

This is one of my pet peeves that keep coming from the righty meme makers. Even IF the Greenies were nefariously stopping any burns, it achieves so much less than people think. Fuel reduction burns can only be done when the weather is right, there are fires and appliances available, and proper planning has been done. It's not just light a match in winter and job done

And even when all the stars align and a bunch of headway is made in hazard reduction, some dropkick flicks a ciggie out the window where there hasn't been a fuel reduction and starts a fire that jumps any existing containment attempts. FFS, a fire on the right day can spot 10 or 15km in front of the fire front! you can't contain that, you can't stop that, you can't plan for that past having enough resources around on the ready just in case and cross your fingers the fire is going to play nice.

Sent from my G8441 using Tapatalk
 
FigBo0T

FigBo0T

Puts verniers on his headtube
Dales Cannon said:
National parks up here are allowed to do hazard reduction burns. Where I camp they have a long term plan with plots and locations. Due to the drought and fire risk they haven't done any burns for about 3 years. The burns would have limited the size of the fire but if a back burn got out of control? In my view you cannot disagree with their actions before, during and after.

Down south? I don't know the details but given the area on fire and the ability for fires to jump it is possible, perhaps probable that hazard reduction burns would not have made much difference. While people build within and are surrounded by large forests the risks will be high when the weather is as it is.
Click to expand...
I agree with that.

What I don't agree with is laying the blame on the current government, or any one thing. This summer was inevitable. All the money in the world could not have prevented these fires.
 
FigBo0T

FigBo0T

Puts verniers on his headtube
Plankosaurus said:
Bang on.

This is one of my pet peeves that keep coming from the righty meme makers.
Click to expand...
This is one of my pet peeves with political discussion. Everyone has something to say, and will apply motive to their 'opposition', to make it stick.
 
Haakon

Haakon

has an accommodating arse
FigBo0T said:
This is one of my pet peeves with political discussion. Everyone has something to say, and will apply motive to their 'opposition', to make it stick.
Click to expand...
Jesus, I thought I was cynical... Doesn’t quite work like in my experience. Sometimes facts are just facts.

Hazard reduction can change some outcomes some of the time in some places if you’re lucky. It’s mostly like security checks at the airport - the impression of doing something.

No amount of ground cover hazard reduction will help you once the fires start jumping from crown to crown...

Besides, with an open cheque book and unlimited resources, what percentage of the areas already affected could have been treated? 1% maybe? If you’re lucky....
 
FigBo0T

FigBo0T

Puts verniers on his headtube
Haakon said:
Jesus, I thought I was cynical... Doesn’t quite work like in my experience. Sometimes facts are just facts.

Hazard reduction can change some outcomes some of the time in some places if you’re lucky. It’s mostly like security checks at the airport - the impression of doing something.

No amount of ground cover hazard reduction will help you once the fires start jumping from crown to crown...

Besides, with an open cheque book and unlimited resources, what percentage of the areas already affected could have been treated? 1% maybe? If you’re lucky....
Click to expand...
I think you're arguing about what you 'think' I've said, and not what I'm saying.

I know this. I agree with this. I've said this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top