Quote:Quote:
the fact remains that a strong green lobby has overseen an unquestioning acceptance of unproven environmental principles, inspired by emotive, rather than scientific, or practical attitudes, to land management in bushfire prone areas
Can you back this 'fact' up? It seems more like an old bogeyman.
No I can't FD.
Basically it is a mixture of observation, and anecdotal evidence, which led me to make that statement.
If we were to examine just how many councils, in these areas, restricted fuel reduction practices, because of advice from "green" groups, I expect there would be hard evidence there to back my claims, but I do not have that information at hand.
So you can change my statement from, "the fact remains", to, "my observations lead me to believe", if you think it conveys the point more appropriately.
Quote:Quote:
To hypothesise just how people would have fared if other policies were in place, is pure guesswork, and the whole question of habitation, and land management in bushfire prone areas, will come under close scrutiny in the Victorian Royal Commission to be convened to examine the causes, and effects of these fires.
The question of habitation will not come up. It is perfectly safe to live there if you take appropriate precautions. What will come up is whether people should stay there when a fire passes through, and whether the government should advise them to stay there.
Well, you are totally wrong again FD.
I have already told the story here, of my experiences of the Dandenong Ranges fire of 1997, where three people died, fifty metres from my Mum's back door, while seeking shelter in their semi underground, solid brick garage.
I did not go into much detail, but the home they were in was in a street called, Seabreeze Ave, and it was the last street of houses before the forest.
It had not always been so, prior to 1969, there were more streets behind it, extending further down the hill.
In 1969, there were bad fires in the area, and nearly all the houses in that downhill area, were burnt down.
Because of the topography of the area, being a curving downhill slope, that creates a funnel effect when any fire come through, the council changed the zoning of the area, away from residential, and the people were not allowed to build on it any more, which was the correct decision to make.
To see you continue to make these statements about this issue, when you clearly have no experience, and very little knowledge, is not doing your credibility any favours.
So, I still contend that the issue of where people are allowed to build, specifically in relation to local fire history, and predictable fire behaviour patterns, in regard to the local topography, will be very much a part of the recommendations that we see handed down.