The true results of Green Policy and fires?

Fisho 9 February 2009 4

The Canberra Times has an article on unexploded munitions near Wamboin. In it the following interesting statement is made:

    NPWS southern director Alistair Henchman said,”Our policy is not to fight fires on that site.”

In case there is anyone in Canberra that hasn’t heard…. it was exactly that policy in Tumut that led to Canberra burning a few years back. The Tumut firies were not allowed to stomp on the blaze at the beginning as it was a ‘natural fire’ (lightning). I would like to know why they weren’t called to account or held liable.

Now we have a reserve backing onto Gungahlin that will be allowed to burn should (when) it goes up according to TAMS.

What's Your Opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
4 Responses to The true results of Green Policy and fires?
monomania monomania 3:45 pm 09 Feb 09

I don’t know about this claim or any blame but reckon that there will need to be a new look at fire management in South East Australia and a much more aggressive approach taken to improve community safety. Because what’s happening now isn’t working.

Gungahlin Al Gungahlin Al 1:41 pm 09 Feb 09

Some people will try anything to try to slag off at environmentalists, and to blur the line between the political party and anything to do with the environment. (Or perhaps they just don’t know the difference.)

Yes the article was very clearly saying the firies don’t go into that reserve so they don’t get blown up. It was about old munitions and nothing to do with the ever-tricky balancing act between managing bush for fuel reduction and conservation purposes.

chrispy chrispy 1:07 pm 09 Feb 09

Not sure about the Green bit either.
On a related topic, some firies are quite possessive about their fires and don’t like it when units from other areas come in and “help out”. before anyone goes off, I have no evidence, just personal conversations with CFS guys around the country.

p1 p1 9:03 am 09 Feb 09

The Tumut firies were not allowed to stomp on the blaze at the beginning as it was a ‘natural fire’ (lightning).

Nice bit of outraged ranting there, but my understanding from the CT article (I read it in the paper), was that they were not fighting fires in that are so that they wouldn’t get blown up. It is hardly a “Green” policy, and has nothing to do with decisions to attack inaccessible fires or not.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site