Hi
This provides some perspective!
Steve
Printable View
Hi
This provides some perspective!
Steve
Personal Bushfire shelters are entirely different from public gathering areas. You are confusing the ideas of neighbourhood safer places with community fire refuges and even relief centres. NSPs or neighbourhood safer places-places of last resort are generally open areas that are only to be used when your fire plan fails. They are an option of last resort and your safety is not guaranteed either at an NSP or travelling to one. Safer options include leaving early (this means before you see fire or smoke) having an approved personal Bushfire shelter or defending a well prepared property. An NSP is only designed to offer some protection from radiant heat and ember attack. They are for short term use and services (water, food, bedding etc) are not available. Neither are provisions for pets.Quote:
Originally Posted by wrinklearthur
Community fire refuges (CFRs) are only in the design phase in Victoria. They are like NSPs but they are in fire resistant buildings. They have a limited capacity and no provisions for pets either. Their efficacy is still not proven. There are only three of these currently in Victoria.
An emergency relief centre or ERC is some thing set up by council out of the emergency impact area. They will not be set up near to a fire front. Basic services are available including provisions for pets, bedding, food, shelter. Accesses to state and federal government agencies as well as local NGOs and charities is available at a relief centre.
If you live in a bush fire prone area it is your responsibility to know this stuff and your responsibility for your own families fire safety, not the CFAs or RFSs.
Now obviously I'm talking Victoria here and there will be slight differences state by state. Everyone that lives in country areas of most of Australia should have a personal fire plan and take responsibility for their own safety. They shouldn't rely on engineering solutions sponsored by the government to prop up their lack of effectively planning for fire.
From what I recall, Labor had a large area added to World Heritage not long before the election to try and catch a few votes in marginal city electorates. It has long been a regular tactic by them to declare more forests National Parks to appeal to voters in areas where the natural environment has suffered the most destruction by man. Almost invariably those who have to live with the consequences of these decisions, locals in the areas near the forests are strongly opposed to extra parks, which reduces the resource base of local industries - especially timber. Also, it has regularly been shown that the more the green groups get, the more they want. Makes it difficult for traditional forest users. eg Investment in machinery , etc by the timber industry is based on projected usage for it. Then not long after agreements are made, greenies seem to invariably campaign for more parks.
From what I gather, these extra World Heritage areas in Tasmania were added after the last lot of forestry agreements and the present Government was just proposing to delist just some of this which had previously been logged NOT the whole recently added area. Note if this is in good condition it debunks the claim that logging is detrimental to the long term wellbeing of forests while utilising a renewable resource. As for the spin that more parks will increase tourism, this almost always turns out a big lie. It requires spending by large numbers of additional tourists to replace each forestry or other resource job lost by creation of parks. Also in some areas, tourists are less inclined to visit National Parks than State Forests because of extra restrictions on activities in them.
Note as more parks are declared, the resources to manage them including track maintenance, fire mitigation measures and control , weed and feral animal control, etc etc seem to be more thinly spread. At least when income producing products come from forests and the government receives income from royalties and taxes, it can afford to spend money looking after them.
Seems to me questionable that governments should effectively make agreements ceding power to the United Nations, including Unesco. A problem is that it is largely influenced by green groups. They are more inclined to listen to the likes of the Tasmanian Greens whose policies have largely contributed to making their State an economic basket case than to the present Governments trying to fix it.
^ ok now it's my turn to make some generalizations about some people of a certain given group then apply that wholesale to others that look or act in a similar fashion. Now I'll back it up with some sweeping statements and 'facts' that I seem to remember. I know that key to this is to make the other side slightly more ****ed off than me so that they make an even bigger generalization about the group I belong to which will clearly make there whole argument seemed based on here-say and innuendo to others who read this and then they'll throw out their belief system and agree with me and then the world will be great.... Times infinity plus one to whatever you say forever amen.
That gentlemen and ladies is every argument on the internet ever.
You think something else. Let's agree to disagree and get back to real life.
Before the areas under discussion were added to the WHA, they were subjected to extensive assessment and negotiation. The process took well over a year to complete. Dozens of reports on different aspects were written. The scientific assessments were undertaken by a range of groups both Tasmanian and otherwise, with the final report to government written by an independent academic expert. Then a proposal to add the areas to the WHA had to be put to the international World Heritage Committee. You really are talking through your hat Mox!
Cheers
KarlB
:)
It is a never ending situation Karl, some people ( not necessary the members of this forum)will say that the assessment was done by people with bias views others just do not read what can go against their views.Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlB
It is something similar to the vaccination topic. :(
Unfortunately conservationism is view as a lefty or tree huger ideology.
Hard on the heels of this Land grab is the do-gooder's baying for the removal of 1080. With no money being shared around for management of these areas the adjoining Land Owners are being over run by wallabies.
Fencing would help but the Government bodies are not coming forward at the present with the help for this to happen. So shooting is the only option for a small amount of control, but when a wave / mob of hundreds of Wallabies invade a crop, then the poison 1080 is the only method that can deal with that influx in a short time span.
.
So, you are not only in favor of logging the NP but also poison the native fauna in a nondiscriminatory way ? :( :wallbash:
If it is so we are lucky that you are in the minority and the people that DO GOOD are in the majority which I am on it and proud as well.
Did I say that I was in favour of any of those things, I'm just putting the other side of the debate?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucaro
.
it is well recognised by many politicians that you do not call an enquiry unless reasonably sure it is going to deliver the conclusions you want. The results can be considerably swayed by appointing people you know share your preferences regarding results. Also, if those appointed are receiving generous fees for their supposed impartial advice, they would usually feel obliged to try and deliver conclusions those who appointed them wanted. In the case of professional consultants, being preferred for the next job is also sometimes an important consideration. In any trade or profession, it is sometimes necessary to decide where to draw the line between doing what the customer wants and compromising professional integrity. This often varies with the circumstances. Those who excessively prostitute themselves can gain short term advantage but rapidly destroy their own credibility when word gets around.Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlB
Having observed first hand other supposed consultation processes similar to the above Tasmanian one and knowing it was set up with people approved by Labor and Greens politicians, the recommendations were to be expected. Almost certainly the motions of " consultation" were gone through but the views of many interested parties effectively ignored. If a large number of well reasoned submissions received oppose what the appointed body wants and a small number that offer little backup information support them, they usually selectively highlight bits that support their agenda and try and downplay or ignore everything that doesn't. Also they normally try to hide the fact if submission preferences are against them. Thanks to FOI, interested people prepared to check can expose this.
I am sure that people involved in the Tasmanian timber industry would have expected the recommendation from the supposed "independent academic expert". Even from just knowing that the political preferences of teachers and academics is largely left wing. Wonder how much he visited the areas involved and talked to locals affected. Would expect very little and would largely try to disregard evidence, regardless of how strong it was that did not support the desired recommendations
A classic example similar to this was the Victorian Environment Assessment Council investigation into the River Redgum forests along the Murray River. One woman on a local advisory committee resigned in the early stages of it. Two years before its recommendations were delivered, was obvious to her the outcome was predetermined. It was for large areas to be declared National Parks, which for many good reasons most locals living in adjoining districts were vehemently opposed to. She preferred to direct her efforts into exposing the scam rather than being a part of giving it undeserved credibility.
I would be surprised if something similar has not occurred in Tasmania recently. Re the international body deciding on World Heritage listings, a quote by Mark Twain seems very applicable. ie "It is easier to fool people than convince them they have been fooled." Also, quickly reversing a decision, even with good reason would tend to portray those who originally made it as fools. Worth noting that I was actively involved in fighting a preposterous proposal by a statutory authority regarding local flood management which was supported by the Victorian State Government. Fortunately it was revealed that half the large amount of necessary funding would have to come from Canberra. We got in first lobbying there so federal bureaucrats and politicians readily saw through the lies and spin and did not swallow it. Lack of funding stopped the project. Would have been difficult to have them withdraw funding had it been approved. So we did not need to solicit active support from another large group of people who would have undoubtedly have strongly opposed the proposed scheme if its detriment to them was demonstrated.
Unfortunately, there seems to be too many people who think that because having some National Parks and World Heritage areas is good, the more that can be obtained the better. They also often lack comprehension that for desirable environmental outcomes, sometimes a lot of financial outlay is necessary. This can usually be more easily justified if a forest is managed in a multiple use productive state than the "lock it up and leave it " approach.