Grendel wrote on Feb 19^th, 2009 at 12:18pm:


I dont engage you  I correct you, and you need much of that, you have no idea just the cuts and pastes of a liberal party whore.

Well if a fire comes your way skip, only your bum will burn, because you have your head firmly stuck in the sand.

I support the greens also, but that doesn't mean I need to support their mistakes.
We all make mistakes, but if we are smart, we own up, and learn from them.

Grendel wrote on Feb 19^th, 2009 at 11:11am:


This is an important point. The aborigines significantly altered the natural environment in Australia by their slash and burn techniques.

The result was that the predominantly Casuarina vegetation gave way to a predominance of Eucalypt forest. The Eucalypt will regenrate after bushfires, whereas casuarina tends to die out. That's one of the reasons that we see so many Casuarina spp. in wetlands or fire resistant areas of Northern Australia.

Given that the ecosystem has been modified, it becomes essential to continue burning the forest, although the frequency of burning should not be too great or it reduces biodiversity and increases the risk of a severe canopy fire at some stage in the future due to excessive growth in the canopy (the canopy should be allowed to burn at intervals. If you have burnoffs too often, that won't happen)

The Wilderness society 6 point plan recognises the above points and others. It might seem like a good idea to have more frequent burnoffs, but the overall result for wildlife and society will be worse.

By the way, I have been a specialist advisor to the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service since 1992, and I have organised a number of exercises and have been using the AIIMS framework since it first came out. I'm also an advisor to our local Counter Disaster committee. So I can see the strategic picture from both the Fire Service and the Environmental point of view.  

I also live in the bush most of the time, so I know what I'm talking about. I've see what happens when a bushfire meets a hill.  You need to see it to understand how quickly it can happen. It makes the hairs on your neck stand up (and you tend to come out with some colourful expletives). It's all too easy to be caught in that kind of situation.

Is that another attempt at a reasoned response skip?

I think you need to separate yourself from your prejudices, disagreeing on an issue, does not make people your enemy, if you think that way then be prepared to have lots of enemies, because absolutely no-one, will always agree with you.

How many times have I had Grendel attack me in the past??

Quite a lot, as you know, but he is just someone who holds different opinions, on some issues, he is not my enemy, nor yours, and I think you need to not lose sight of that fact.

You are right to question the motives of journalists like devine, but that too does not mean that every thing she says, is always wrong.

freediver wrote on Feb 19^th, 2009 at 2:54pm:


An example you have followed, it would seem.

Actually, I had your butt on fire, and your head in the sand, but I take your point, it was a cheap dig, but hey, that is what we do sometimes, when we try to make a point.

I happen to agree that greenie idealism, played a contributing part, in the extreme outcomes of these fires, certainly not a sole determinant, but a part, and I think denying that is unhelpful.

Just trying to make one group the scapegoat, is also unhelpful, and I certainly sympathise with why the likes of devine so enrage you, but even so, if they make a valid point, I will not try and deny it, no matter what their motive.

Well there's been lots more than the "Devine" article here and it also has some factual ie good points.

Unlike the personal attacks and empty rhetoric of others here.