Allocating Blame for Bushfire Damage

..o0o..

Thinking Lateral
Need new thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com

It's a popular topic, right now, to allocate blame for damage caused by bushfires.

(Note the phrasing: "blame for damage". Allocating blame for the bushfires occuring, that's another topic entirely.)

So, why is there so much damage from a bushfire? Too much fuel in the understorey? Too few slow, "cool" burns? Too many hot, heavy burns? Let's start with one suggestion, that we need to follow the pre-european settlement approach: regular, small burns in a patchwork pattern.

The protection of patchwork burning

For whatever reason, the original settlers -- those who arrived 10,000 years ago -- would burn a bit of bush. Several bits of bush, probably, each year. What did this achieve?

First, it cleared away some of the rubbish under the trees. So, in future years, there was less to burn. Less chance of having a major blaze that fed on fallen trees and dried out bushes.

Second, the patchwork approach acted as a series of firebreaks. Burn an area this year and it will be less likely to carry a wildfire the next year. Again, less chance of a major blaze destroying a large area.

So... say some people... that is what we should be doing today.

Under which rock have these people been hiding?!

Try this:

Go to your nearest area of bush. Consider lighting a bushfire, to burn just a few hectares. Uh oh! That few hectares will contain a couple of houses! Or fences, or sheds, or valuable livestock... Are you willing to burn -- destroy -- everything that happens to be in that few hectares of bush?

Sorry, but the patchwork approach to burning is no use. Not while we insist on living, working, building, on every hectare of Western Australian bush.

The fallacy of firebreaks

There was a brief report from Victoria, that one bush dweller could not get permission to clear a firebreak. His local council, apparently, would not allow removal of trees over a certain trunk diameter. Why is it so?

You move to a "country estate". Why? To enjoy the peace and tranquility of bush living. Wildlife and trees are a part of that life style. That's why it's become fashionable to refer to city dwellers seeking "a tree change".

To protect the trees: no-one wants to have a tree change to a bare and treeless desert, even if that's just the neighbour's yard. So councils act to protect the trees against being cut down.

Pretend that you have just bought 1,000 ha of virgin bush. Can you clear a firebreak and still leave all of the large trees? No worries, though the firebreak may need to wander a bit.

Now you subdivide and sell off 100 lots of 10 ha each. Can each of these lots have a firebreak? Well... with just 10 ha, some of those lots will have trees in awkward places. The firebreaks may be a bit harder to clear, because there is less room to let it wander around the large trees.

Then you see the chance of even more profit. You subdivide and sell lots of just one hectare. All of a sudden, a firebreak is a very large fraction of the total one hectare of land. If you avoid a tree here then you may run into your house there. Wander away from the fenceline -- to leave a beautiful grove of trees -- and your firebreak goes straight through the area where you hoped to grow fruit trees.

The smaller the block, the less room is available for a firebreak. Trees and firebreaks become mutually exclusive... Perhaps you should just take a chance, protect the trees, and do not clear a firebreak.

Hey! Your neighbour will probably clear fell his property! That should be enough to protect you... maybe...

So what has gone wrong? Well, the more people that live in the bush, the less room there is for effective firebreaks. But there are still enough flammable trees for a good, hot bushfire. As we found out from Victoria.

Consider the correct problem

There are too many people living in areas which are prone to bushfire. That is the problem.

Too many people mean that we are not able to protect ourselves by selective -- patchwork -- burning. Too many people mean that there are smaller blocks and less room for effective firebreaks.

Solutions

Okay, the obvious solution is, less people living in bushfire-prone areas. How far will we get with reducing the "bush" population? Probably, nowhere.

So we need to accept that there will be bushfires, that there will be property damage. (As an aside: the indigenous approach suited their nomadic lifestyle. When one area was worn out, littered with whatever rubbish and scraps are caused by people... You move on. And the next bushfire will clean up your previous settlement.)

We need to accept that there will be property damage. Do we need to accept that there will be loss of life? No!

Build a fireproof shelter. Every property owner should build their own shelter.

The shelter is for preserving life. Whatever is outside the shelter is expected to be destroyed. If the property owner does not accept that -- they can build a bigger shelter. Build the entire house as a fireproof shelter. Build in enough room to provide shelter for livestock. Shelter whatever is considered too precious to lose.

Or move out.

If you live in a bushfire area, there will be a bushfire. It's all very nice to be surrounded by trees, and grass, and wildlife. If you want to live through a bushfire -- build a suitable shelter. If you want to never face a bushfire that threatens your property -- live somewhere else.

..o0o..

Independent Thinking
Independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com