...where to, and will it save them? If their habitat is burnt and their houses destroyed?
| Term and Conditions | Privacy Statement | Web Support by Gaia Resources Hosted by Serversaurus |  |
...where to, and will it save them? If their habitat is burnt and their houses destroyed?
| Term and Conditions | Privacy Statement | Web Support by Gaia Resources Hosted by Serversaurus | |
They don't look like controlled burns, they look like huge uncontrolled fires to me. Shame on them, they probably do nothing to stop animals being killed.
So called prescribed burns are a classic case of the blame the victim approach. This is because developers & their customers destroy the bush so that the sights & sounds of nature can be enjoyed. But people aren't prepared to accept that bushfires are a natural part of Australia & so they want governments to intervene & not only destroy more bush to prevent fires (they hope) but also plant exotic vegetation as a replacement. A double whammy.
Whether the prescribed burns provide any protection from bushfires is another issue. A recent SA report said that burned areas of bushland in the Mt Lofty Ranges have been colonised by Golden Wattle Acacia pycnantha which is quite flammable. I wonder what the Victorian situation is.
As well, fire breaks are bulldozed through high quality bushland to enable fire fighters to get at fires. However, the fire breaks remove canopy & fire-resistant understorey & so allow annual weeds to invade the fire tracks. As we all know dead annual weeds in summer are a great tinder box for bushfires.
And to top it all, in SA a significant number controlled burns become bushfires which threaten life, limb & property. I believe similar events occur in Victoria. So the question arises: Is the bushfire bureaucracy out of control?