This is a complex issue that is being reduced to the single monolithic issue of backburning.

If we want to get it right, we need to listen to the experts in the field. The Royal Commission will do just that. Politicians are rarely experts in any field except for the Olympic Sport of Backstabbing.

Ok, they'll get a few cheap shots out of this tragedy. They usually do.

I suggest you go back and mod all of Skippys now before I get annoyed at you for bias.

I don't think it's that Tallow - it's just some people just seem more abusive than others even if the insults are fairly similar. For some reason when Skippy reprimands Grendel - it doesn't seem as bad as when Grendel sneers at someone.  

mantra wrote on Feb 15^th, 2009 at 1:11pm:


- or it could be that I just missed them. Look guys, I've been away and I'm just catching up. Please be nice.

Well let me get in on this personal attack stuff.

All who try and make cheap political gains from this tragedy, are scumbags, to paraphrase one of our greatest PMs.

Like Muso said, this is not a simple issue, where you can target one aspect as the sole determinant.

Now having said that, and bearing in mind my general preference for green principles, Grendel is absolutely right in his statements regarding the pandering to green lobbyists, in respect to their influencing of government bodies, over forestry management issues, but at the same time, it is grossly unfair to try and lay all the blame at their door, for the scale of this tragedy.

We just do not manage our forests well enough, be it in what types of infrastructure we allow to pass through them, or what types of access we have in them, through to maintaining fuel load limits, or even where people should be allowed to construct housing developments in them.

The Royal Commission will be a long process, and will take submissions from many interested parties, including scientists, who will provide much valuable information about the best pratices we should try and implement, to mitigate the potential for any re-occurrence of another tragedy, of this scale.

They will look at fire causes, and dwelling construction standards, as well as dwelling placement within forests, and also the much discussed topic of fuel load reduction burns.

The issue of warning systems, and availability of up to the minute fire and weather status, and predicted activity, will also be high on their agenda.

I think it is fair to say that all political parties, have to pull together on this issue, and cooperate in getting best practices adopted nationwide, rather than going down the usual path of blame and shame.

Quote:


Grendel they are not intended to work on their own. They are a 'containment line'. They let the firefighters in or provide a place where choppers can get the job done.

Quote:


Can you back this up Grendel?

Quote:


You might be on to something there Mantra. I suspect it is the community in the immediate vicinity, not some 'green ring ins' that object. People just label them 'greenies', even thought they could just as easily be motivated by money (maybe they have a property on the market). They label them greenies to score cheap political points from the tragedy. Rather than addressing the real reason why backburning doesn't happen, they take advantage to make environmentalists look bad. That's why the only 'evidence' you ever see is people accusing 'greenies' of being behind it.

Quote:


It will be off the public radar by the time it is finished. Then it will end up in the too hard basket like the last one.

In other words, you make up stuff, and its up to others to chase up the facts? Should we assume this about everything you post?

freediver wrote on Feb 15^th, 2009 at 10:41pm:


If Grendel does find references will you concede the point (I assume it's the one about Greens doing preference deals to influence policy)?