16-10-00

The Great Lakes Advocate

I have been a small landholder in this shire for nearly 30 years. We live surrounded by bush, with only minimal fire control zones. During the recent spate of fires, I spent hours listening to the sparse radio traffic on UHF CB (Channel 14) between Pacific Palms fire station and its crews in the field, because that seemed to be the only available source of information. (Are you reading me, Great Lakes FM?)

Three of my neighbours lit fires on adjacent properties without warning me, despite the patent danger. (Their excuse might have been that they did not regard a notice in a local paper along the lines of 'Me by the Grace of God Deputy Mayor Peter Thompson' followed by almost unintelligible gibberish as a warning that the statutory fire season had been brought forward.) A fourth alerted me, burned off some grass, and was duly given a talking-to by a passing fire control officer.

You might consider that I worry too much. But the real worry is not the fires themselves, it is the fact that an estimated nine out of 10 are now being started by arsonists. Mainly, they seem to come in two categories. One type is the landholder using fire to circumvent tree preservation orders, an apparently common if contemptible procedure recommended to me years ago by a local real estate agent. The more dangerous, because more damaging to the public good, is the landholder who takes it upon himself to do the job that the National Parks & Wildlife Service allegedly can't or won't do properly.
These misguided hotheads think nothing of torching tens of thousands of hectares of parks and reserves, perhaps to protect a bit of deep-fringe suburban idyll carved from the adjoining landscape. Next, dutifully, the rural fire service crews fan out, but their main aim is not really to stop fires from ravaging our national parks but rather to prevent damage to private property.

May I humbly suggest that we've got this arse-about, so to speak? If it became the declared, official policy for rural fire services to primarily protect the national estate, never mind the odd neo-gothic abode or ten, this would immediately remove the incendiary incentive from adjacent land owners. (It would also do wonders for a building industry from suffering post-GST depression.)

And, as I once proposed when Sydney historic buildings mysteriously fell victim to fire by the dozen, owners of property deemed worthy of preservation should be legally compelled to restore them to the status quo ante. (I'm sure the insurance industry could put the extra premiums to good use.)

With another motive for clearing by arson thus despatched, there remain those who are truly crazy. Hopefully, there are not too many of these in circulation. On the other hand, the Brushy Pt area along the Coomba Rd spewed forth thick smoke again today (Monday, Oct 16) - ah well, it was probably just those ardent Coomba conservationists trying to rid themselves of choking lantana...

XXX

[On second thoughts, I should perhaps just sign myself as "Devil's Advocate" lest some firebrand takes offense and drops a cigarette in our little piece of bush!]