Prev
Next

Concern for wildlife is sorely lacking

Geoff Russell

by Geoff Russell

14 Jan 05:50am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Animals, Bushfires, Disaster, Floods, Rspca, Welfare

74 comments

“Stock losses”. The words just rolled off a weary farmer’s tongue on a recent news report on the fires. Lip gloss, tooth floss, fairy floss, stock loss. It doesn’t quite capture the terror of plunging around a paddock in searing heat and choking smoke, crashing into fences and ditches in a terrified effort to escape but still being burned alive.

Gee, thanks guys. Is this organic water, though?

Small mercy would be choking before the final blast of heat that preceeds the flames does its worst. Animals got a mention on one SBS report, with one farmer saying how horrific it was. No not the being burned alive, or even the shooting of the blackened survivors, but the mess if the corpses were left too long before burial.

I’m left comparing biro losses and stock losses. Perhaps they need to search under the sofa, that’s where my biros seem to end up.

Our wildlife haven’t even rated a mention in the news reports I’ve seen so far.

But it’s the same in disasters everywhere. We know 20 million Pakistani humans were displaced in the 2010 floods but what of the animals?... the stock losses? There are reports. They take time to compile after the event. Pakistan’s animals died in their millions. Over 300,000 large animals and about 10 million chickens. Those that survived probably suffered the worst. No feed. No bullets.

It’s too early to know how many animals have burned alive in Australia in the current fires. Insurance companies will eventually know. They’ll eventually tally the livestock into deadstock, but by the time the information is available, the fires will be old news and the next glittering bauble jingling in the media’s scanning spotlight gaze will dominate our infotainment.

But disasters show us many sides of human nature. It’s a hackneyed line, but is it true? I think not. Bastards remain bastards. They loot and profiteer. They know which stocks rise and fall with a fire or a flood. But good people can indeed shine in adversity and get their fifteen minutes of media fame. Disasters don’t so much show many sides of a person, or even of a few people, they just show many people. Some risk life and limb to rescue animals, while others plan a killing.

In some people, a perhaps long dormant empathy rises like a fire-storm when they see a suffering animal in front of them. During the 2011 Queensland floods horses got rescued in a variety of circumstances, and even kangaroos and snakes found friends.

But maybe the hackneyed could come true. We could be shown the many sides, perhaps even the contradictions. We could be shown images of those same brave animal rescuers a week later loading their supermarket trolleys with cling wrapped serves of the recently rescued but dead.

We could be shown rescuers in their air conditioned cars listening to music as they wait at traffic lights behind livestock transports carrying un-lost stock in 40 degree heat for an appointment with a stockyard and a long steel bolt.

And in the good times? Between disasters. How do animals fare? Horrific pictures have emerged in the past days of cattle being unloaded from ships in Indonesia. Hoist high in bunches by bridles on their heads.

You may have seen a person pickup 4 stubby bottles in one hand. Now imagine cattle instead of bottles and you almost get the picture. But the flailing. You must imagine the flailing. It’s no mistake that “being treated like cattle” is a common claim from people suffering maltreatment.

But at least these cattle aren’t “stock losses”, and our farmers will bank the cheques and think of their good fortune at getting their animals on those boats instead of lost in some bloody fire and making a foul smelly mess in their paddock.

Comments on this post close at 8pm AEST

Most commented

74 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Aussie Plebeian says:

      05:47am | 14/01/13

      The best way to protect our native wildlife and farm animals is to keep the Greens well away from anything to do with land management. The Greens (Green councils/Green bureaucracy) have, by their interference in fuel reduction burns, ensured that the fires that occurred, burnt hot and wild, exterminating both flora and fauna.

      Controlled fires lit during the cooler months burn ‘cool’ and move slowly, burning only the scrubby, rubbishy undergrowth, scorching the outside bark of trees and not reaching into the leafy canopy; wildlife, when faced with such fires, either moves out of the way, or seeks shelter underground in burrows.

      Uncontrolled summer wildfires burn extremely hot, their flames reaching high into the canopy and deeply beyond the bark and into the sapwood, killing trees. The extreme heat and speed of the fire does not allow animals to move out of the way, and those that try to seek shelter below ground are effectively cooked in their own burrows. The soil too is damaged - all those micro-organisms, bacteria, and micro-flora that help a burnt area regenerate are sterilised by the extreme heat.

      So the Greens, by their stubborn and arrogant interference, could be rightfully called environmental vandals.

      Farmers, foresters, Aboriginal peoples etc, knew how to manage the land, but the Greens said ‘No, we know better than you’ - and the destruction that we’ve seen from the fires is the legacy of the Greens so-called moral superiority. So until someone in Government stands up to the Greens and tells them to ‘sod off’ then this terrible and tragic spectacle of animals getting burnt alive will continue into the future.

      Reply

    • Tel says:

      08:39am | 14/01/13

      ‘The best way to protect our native wildlife and farm animals is to keep the Greens well away from anything to do with land management.’

      Amen to that!

    • Daz says:

      09:32am | 14/01/13

      Aboriginals managed this country for tens of thousands of years hardly leaving a footprint. They were big users of fire. They burnt everywhere they went. It thinned out scrub, made hunting easier and provided fresh green shoots for their prey. Some species of plants have become so accustomed to fire it is only through it that they can germinate. Some species of animals face a tougher life because without it forests crowd out needed grazing area. Without prescribed burning when a fire happens now, due to massive fuel loads it is catastrophic and kills everything.

    • Colin says:

      11:21am | 14/01/13

      @ Daz

      “Aboriginals managed this country for tens of thousands of years hardly leaving a footprint…”

      Er…well…that is a bit of a stretch.

      Why do you think aboriginals burned down forests? For food. The forest burned, animals run out, eat them; but - mainly - the forests burnt down, grasslands are promoted, kangaroos - which they wanted to eat - were promoted as the dominant animal. FIrestick farming.

      And - if they “...hardly…” left a footprint, why is it that we now have a country largely covered with trees that must burst into flame every year to propagate rather than the warm/temperate rainforests that existed here when man first arrived 40-thousand-odd years ago..?

      Humans - no matter who they are - are destructive in many, many ways to the environment.

    • Paul M says:

      11:51am | 14/01/13

      “The Greens (Green councils/Green bureaucracy) have, by their interference in fuel reduction burns, ensured that the fires that occurred, burnt hot and wild, exterminating both flora and fauna.”

      I have no special reason to believe that this is true.

    • Helen of Troy says:

      12:37pm | 14/01/13

      Extremely well said.

    • Bear says:

      12:49pm | 14/01/13

      @paul this is just a righty fantasy. Where is the evidence the aborigines ‘managed the land’ and prevented fires perfectly? It’s all bs, hard to believe this could ever have been done.

    • JoniM says:

      01:27pm | 14/01/13

      All true environmentalists,  animal activists and everyone else that cares for life, should be demanding minimisation of risk of catastrophic fires and destruction of life during the summers, by the regular, ongoing and controlled fuel reduction strategies during the winters.
      This simple and obvious risk minimisation strategy is the one solution worth considering for the protection of humans, flora & fauna and property at risk in these fire destruction-prone areas.
      Seems , however, that some of us prefer not to risk any short term loss of environment or collateral fauna damage, preferring to increase the risk of a potential future uncontrolled disaster to human, animal and plant life? Seems an increased potential for disaster should never stand in the way of one’s ideology ?

    • Daz says:

      01:45pm | 14/01/13

      @Colin

      So what is your point Colin? Or do you just like being argumentive? Are you saying humans should be exterminated so plants and animals can prosper and live in peace? Here’s an idea. Why don’t you go first?

      Compared to us, Aboriginal Australians left very small footprints indeed. The damage they did over hundreds of thousands of years is nothing compared to the damage we have done over a very short space of time. With our introduced predators like the cat and the fox (don’t even get me started on the cane toad) and hard cloven footed animals, our unsustainable agricultural practices, our industrial landscape and our mining. I could go on and on…...

      And they never destroyed any forests. The fires they lit, because of their regularity, did very little damage at all. Their fires were “cool” and did more good than harm in the long scheme of things. The fires you seem to like are the ones of today where tree tops explode into flames where you stand and miles away too. And Australia was not all covered by warm temperate forests 40 thousand years ago as you claim.

      And just for the record Colin, don’t get too arrogant. Human is just another species of animal. You’re just a smart ape. The extinction of one species often leads to the birth of another.

    • NSS says:

      01:47pm | 14/01/13

      Colin, you are correct about “firestick farming”.  However, since white settlement we have cut down enormous numbers of trees, thus providing much more grassland for roos to graze upon and breed up. My late father (born 1919) always said that we would never need to cull roos if we left many more trees intact.

    • Colin says:

      02:24pm | 14/01/13

      @ NSS

      Oh, I agree, NSS; we white folk are responsible for a lot more destruction in a short period of time. I was merely pointing out that with 40,00 (or more) years in which to have influence any group of humans with even the simplest tools can have a dramatic affect on a continent and an ecosystem…

    • Stained says:

      06:23pm | 14/01/13

      Furthermore Daz, Indonesia ought to thank their lucky stars that the migration of man from their archipelago to Oz didn’t operate fire stick farming there!  Nope, they came here and burnt this country instead.

    • Super D says:

      06:02am | 14/01/13

      If the misguided hippies would let controlled burns go ahead then their wouldn’t be so many stock losses.

      I actually am quite amazed that the one aspect of indigenous culture that is ignored is their skilled fire and forestry management. Arguably the only truly useful lessons they have to pass on.

      Reply

    • Michael says:

      08:50am | 14/01/13

      Bush tucker and medicine are also pretty valuable if you happen to get bogged or lost/injured in the bush/dessert, knowing where to find water is also pretty handy once you leave the city.

    • Bear says:

      12:21pm | 14/01/13

      This is just another indoctrinated righty mantra. “why wont the greens let us control burn”! Where are the greens in power exactly!  You can’t control the whole country! Fires will happen but oh yes they are the greens fault! Ridiculous bs. Applause on the article though. Yes barely a thought. I thought about the ‘stock’. Maybe not everyone is uncaring but a hell of a lot are, a whack over the head is fine!

    • Gregg says:

      06:04am | 14/01/13

      No concern for wildlife and just stock losses eh Geoff!
      ” Disasters don’t so much show many sides of a person, or even of a few people, they just show many people. Some risk life and limb to rescue animals, while others plan a killing. “
      And what really is your role in all this? and while you’re at it, do find the missing biro in time to correct a so to show.

      Have you ever been a farmer Geoff? for whilst it might be writers and others in the media that might refer to stock losses and you cannot expect farmers to remember each of their stock by name, maybe you could go out and help them bury the many dead sometime just to find out some more about raw emotions but I would not air your views or otherwise you might come back bloodied and bruised.

      ” We could be shown rescuers in their air conditioned cars listening to music as they wait at traffic lights behind livestock transports carrying un-lost stock in 40 degree heat for an appointment with a stockyard and a long steel bolt. “

      Even your view of rescuers is somewhat distasteful for you might just find that more rescuers are out in more rural areas with traffic lights fewer and further between.

      Just as many people have a great empathy for animals Geoff, maybe you ought to get to work on developing some real empathy for humans and animals.
      Your attitude make me want to puke.

      Reply

    • Dan says:

      03:18pm | 14/01/13

      + 1 Gregg. Great comment.

    • TChong says:

      06:06am | 14/01/13

      “They’ll eventually tally livestock to deadstock”
      It appears that after Geoff thought of this clever phrase, he then decided to build an essay around this hook.
      Plenty of people feel bad for the animals, but , what is the connection between them ( the animal victims) and people sitting in an air con car, behind a cattle truck?

      Reply

    • Animal Lover says:

      06:17am | 14/01/13

      i"m not entirely sure of your focus here. Am I supposed to be saddened at the terrible deaths that many native animals and livestock have endured in bushfires? am I supposed to be glad that people have risked lives to rescue animals? Am I supposed to consider being vegan? Am i supposed to write to my local MP about the disgusting live export trade? I am a bit lost here. I agree with all of your points (except the vegan one) because we still don’t rate animals as highly as we do ourselves.

      Reply

    • Nostromo says:

      08:48am | 14/01/13

      In case anyone has the stomach for it, I ‘recommend’, for want of a better term, watching this movie (Earthlings):

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0358456/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2

      If you still think animals are just here for our eating pleasure & other, far more debased ones, then there’s nothing more to say. If, as the creators intended, it only opens your eyes a tiny smidge more to the plight of our fellow earthlings, then it has achieved its aim. No, it doesn’t set out to turn us all into vegans, but if it doesn’t turn your stomach, or at least move you, then I think we will probably have to agree to disagree on our definitions of the term ‘human’ & ‘humane’.

      (disclaimer: I haven’t been able to bring myself to watch it, as I’ve seen enough similar stuff to last a life time, more’s the pity…)

      I think it’s important to note that bush fires are a natural phenomena & have been for millions of years. As far as those go, there’s not much more we can do for badly burnt, suffering animals than end it quickly.

      But without wanting to turn this thread into yet another political rant, what others have said about the Greens & their culpability in all this certainly rings true, though I’m no forestry/conservation expert by any stretch. I would hope that no one thinks that conserving some dead underbrush & whatnot is worth the extreme suffering of so many thousands of native & domesticated animals. I don’t think we can’t justify saving a handful of rare species at the expense of masses of common ones, though I imagine we’ll lose uncommon & rare species to bushfires over time, if we choose to keep this madness up.

    • Dan says:

      03:16pm | 14/01/13

      @Nostromo - Why promote a video that you haven’t watched because you find it disgusting?

      I’ve seen enough humans hating humans too.

    • gof says:

      08:28am | 14/01/13

      WOW! Look Tony missed a photo op. Or is that Tony getting a drink of water from a professional firefighter?

      Reply

    • Bonestar says:

      09:26am | 14/01/13

      No buddy, it’s a Koala. Your trying too hard, LOL try hard.

    • sarah says:

      08:30am | 14/01/13

      Forgive people for caring about humans more than kangaroos.

      Reply

    • Tim says:

      08:45am | 14/01/13

      So Geoff is an advocate for the humane killing of animals right?

      That we should eat those animals before they ever get the chance to suffer and be killed in a bushfire?

      I agree with him, “stock” is too tasty to be wasted in such a manner.

      Reply

    • subotic says:

      11:56am | 14/01/13

      Yep. I love animals too.

      Them little buggers taste great with chips & salad!

    • Kev says:

      09:22am | 14/01/13

      Your whining makes about as much sense as claiming that people should cry for trees that die after bushfires. Sheep, cattle and other farm animals are called livestock for a reason. They are bred, raised and maintained because the products they produce provide an income for the farmer. They are not pets and they are not family members you deluded twit. Animal liberationist? Well that says it all doesn’t it?

      Reply

    • Bear says:

      12:32pm | 14/01/13

      The concept of “stock” is man made, doesnt mean it’s right or real! Does a cow think its stock and not care if it burns?

    • Observing says:

      02:03pm | 14/01/13

      A cow has no ability to reason, so yes, it does not “think” or “care” you idiot.

    • Bear says:

      02:25pm | 14/01/13

      Thinking and reason are different. Of course it can think you retard. Ouch, pain, that’s a thought!

    • Bear says:

      02:30pm | 14/01/13

      Thinking and reason are different. No wonder righties struggle with climate and weather. That’s possibly the stupidest thing I’ve read here, and the competition is stiff as a brick. Of course it can think, it can’t think ‘what is the answer to this moral dilemma?’’ (reason) but it can think ‘ouch pain,’ that’s a thought!

    • nihonin says:

      02:32pm | 14/01/13

      I moooooove, to 2nd Observing’s comment.

    • Kev says:

      02:46pm | 14/01/13

      Bear - Who gives a shit if it’s man made or not? Because I don’t and neither do most people. Yes it’s sad that livestock are killed due to bushfires but don’t whine because people don’t weep over it like they are people which is essentially what is at the guts of this bullshit opinion piece.

    • Observing says:

      02:52pm | 14/01/13

      Nociception is - like sight, touch, taste and other forms of sensory perception - not reasoning, or thinking. They are handled by completely different parts of the brain, halfwit.

      It doesn’t think “ouch, pain” - how could you possibly know what it ‘thinks’? You can’t communicate with an animal. It reacts instinctively to pain.

      What are arguing is the fallacy of anthropomorphism.

      Btw, completely irrelevant red herring with climate change/weather. Way to stay on topic champ.

    • Dan says:

      03:22pm | 14/01/13

      I’ve got no time for the whiny “won’t someone think of the animals” mob after every natural disaster, but I think its clear a cow feels pain. Thats the whole concept behind the electric fence. If it didn’t hurt they would walk straight through it.

    • Bear says:

      04:26pm | 14/01/13

      @ observer, so for example When a cow senses fear is that taste, touch etc? When they learn behavior like in the bull ring which one? Do you know they kill the bulls in the ring on the first go because they learn what it’s about if they go around a few times? Learning must involve thought.  Youre the only halfwit here.

    • Observing says:

      05:22pm | 14/01/13

      @Bear

      Again you’re just describing instinctual behaviour; specifically the fight-or-flight response.

      The other phenomena you describe is conditioning, which does not involve reasoning faculties.

      Not coincidentally, conditioning, even when practiced upon humans, is by design an elimination [or minimisation as practically possible] of all reasoning processes. Hence the term, ‘pavlovian response’.

      Pavlov is rolling in his grave right now.

      Please enough already, you’re embarrassing yourself.

    • Nev says:

      06:12pm | 14/01/13

      Bear are you sure you haven’t watched “Babe” once to many times. Babe is by know means an accurate portrayal of livestock, but I guess for a lot of people it’s probably their only exposure to livestock, and can give them a totally wrong impression.
      They act both instinctevely and by inate behaviours and learned behaviours.
      They don’t think rational thought’s they have no sense of reasoning. They are well capable of learned behaviours though, and stockmen/women exploit these behaviours wherever possible to make it easier on the stock and themselves.

    • Jax says:

      09:31am | 14/01/13

      The fire danger to these animals is terrible.  On another note I constantly drive past paddock after paddock full of cows/sheep/etc all standing out in the baking hot sun all day because the farmer has completely bulldozed the entire property - no trees for shade.  No simpathy for farmers who operate like this when they hit hard times - they should be doing ‘hard time’

      Reply

    • Observing says:

      01:10pm | 14/01/13

      A pretty stupid assumption to make there. You see a paddock devoid of trees so you assume the current landholder is responsible for this.

      “hard time” for failing to provide shade to livestock, what a delusional joke!

      I’m not surprised such idiocy and utter contempt for liberty and property rights is coming from someone who thinks livestock should actually be accorded rights.

    • Gordon says:

      10:16am | 14/01/13

      Remarkably, I think the author will find that humans are actually capable of keeping more than one thought in mind at one time. . I don’t need to see pictures of animals burnt alive to understand the horrible nature of it, and that we should avoid cruelty in our practices. We can actually feel sympathy for a burnt out farmer without somehow forgetting that maybe it was worse on someone or thing else. If Geoff feels his particular take on events is not getting enough airplay I guess there is a youtube channel somewhere that he can fill up with as many sad pictures of dead animals as he feels is necessary.

      Reply

    • LC says:

      10:29am | 14/01/13

      I sincerely apologize Geoff if we regard the safety, wellbeing and losses of our own species in these disasters above others. Because all other species don’t think the same way, as nature intended, right?

      Oh wait, looking at the bottom of the page, it says you’re an animal liberationist. My mistake, carry on.

      Reply

    • True Blue Ozzie says:

      10:36am | 14/01/13

      Oh please lets get real here, if it were not for the “greenies having there head up their a##s ! and denying that controled “burn offs” is the only safe way to dispose of natures massive fuel loads, native animal’s and live stock whould not be suffering from our recent bush fires!
      Controled burn off’s give native animals and live stock, areas of shelter and food, while the fuel load has been greatly reduced, while regenerating the burnt off area for future inhabitant of wild life and stock. The massive fires Australians have seen over recent years are a direct result of “TREE HUGGERS” not allowing controled burn off’s. Our elders of this land, and the early white settlers had it right, they understood the land, yes I was raised on the land and controled burn off’s are the only way to go.
      I ask would you rather have areas for native and live stock animals to shelter and feed, or large mass’s of land totaly destroyed along with every living thing following one of these massive bush fires ????????

      Reply

    • firie says:

      10:43am | 14/01/13

      This article speaks heaps about the ignorance of the modern townsman about country life. For the record, there are wildlife recovery teams that go into burnt areas as soon as it is safe. Do not ever dare imply that farmers do not care about their livestock after a disaster. You have no idea of the awful impact this has on a farm family. The aftermath is not something the media is invited to see and nor should they be. Again for the record, there will be vets and DPI people assessing and treating or shooting stock along with the farmers and volunteers. Burial pits will be dug with heavy equipment. I have witnessed that many times and you have no idea what it does to the farmers. Try going out there as a volunteer with Blaze Aid and you might have something to write about.

      Reply

    • Nev says:

      11:06am | 14/01/13

      I’m not sure what to make of this article, but seeing as Geoff Russell calls himself an animal liberationist and seems to be using this article as a thinly veiled attack on farmers and others such as firefighters.
      Geoff I would think that seeing as it’s people like you, that agitated and pushed for regulations that restrict burn offs (Native Veg act), I think it’s a bit rich to be attacking people because of the outcomes of that very same legislation that had this result.

      Reply

    • Shane* says:

      11:23am | 14/01/13

      Geoff, I value the lost life of 61-year-old Peter Cramer much much more highly than any animals’ lives. Concern for wildlife isn’t lacking. It’s just being kept in perspective.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      11:51am | 14/01/13

      I’m sorry, but I think this is a pretty disgraceful attempt to use a tragic situation to push a personal vegan, animal liberationist barrow.  It’s one thing to see a disaster unfold and argue for different bush management systems, better communications, more safety awareness but this article does nothing of the kind.  It simply uses the bushfires as a “hook” to publicise the author’s views on animal rights. I’m not impressed.

      Reply

    • JoniM says:

      04:16pm | 14/01/13

      Spot on marley !
      You would think that these sort of idealogues might keep their heads down during the bushfire season ?
      But I guess they still don’t get it !
      Human trumps animal in priority and life interest stakes, at least for most people !

    • Jenny says:

      11:52am | 14/01/13

      A brilliant article Geoff! So very true.

      Reply

    • Helen of Troy says:

      01:27pm | 14/01/13

      Read and re read and still can’t find the “very true” bit.

    • St. Michael says:

      02:34pm | 14/01/13

      Yeah, can you also point out the “brilliant” part if you find the “very true” bit at some stage?

    • Leigh says:

      11:53am | 14/01/13

      We have just been lectured by a single-minded, possibly fanatical, member of a small minority group who thinks that most of us are “bastards”. Each of us knows what we think of stock being burnt to death; each of us knows that farmers in the main are decent, caring people who suffer severe loss in bushfires (everything they own in many cases); we know they come back again, and continue contributing to our food scources and economy. We know that wildlife suffers, and we hate the fact.

      Unlike the author, we don’t hold our fellow Australians in distain, and we don’t feel the need to lecture them.

      Reply

    • Jay2 says:

      11:57am | 14/01/13

      I do think of the wildlife. Every single time there’s a fire. Ever had to put down half burnt lizards, fledglings and so on. I have and I cry.
      Every Greenie that contributes to the ridiculous status quo, should have to go around and do it too.
      As I’ve said before, it went from ringbarking madness to don’t touch a tree madness, there is no sensible balance.
      Ecological identification of native flora on your property requires an ecological report written by your expert, to lodge at my council to decide when and what you can touch.  My one page letter, stating the bleeding obvious, that there were only six trees, all a common eucalypt with no endangered species living in it, so it could be safely said that running a fence in the middle of my paddock was indeed, also not going to disturb and unidentified endangred orchid that was 2kms from my boundary. That letter cost me $950.00 single page.
      Now, try (as one of my friends did) applying actually remove trees from around his house as recommended by the rural fire service, so his house wouldn’t end up like his neighbours (in the last fire season) who was denied permission and had his house burnt to the ground.
      Little wonder then, that adequate fire breaks or back burning takes place before disaster and tragedy strikes.

      Reply

    • Zeitgeist says:

      01:31pm | 14/01/13

      Wow , smelling of Troy. You quote a Miranda Devine opinion piece as fact!? That’s seriously screwed up!

    • Nev says:

      02:08pm | 14/01/13

      I know you can’t see how the Greens are responsible Caroline, thats the problem the Greens never can, all they ever see is there narrowed blinkered version of what they think is paradise, and they sail on oblivious to the carnage they leave in their wake. Heres a reference from the Native vegetation act 2003 campaigned for by the Greens.
      “Under the Native Vegetation Act 2003 clearing is defined as cutting down, felling, thinning, logging, removing, killing, destroying, poisoning, ringbarking, uprooting or burning native vegetation including native grasses and herbage. Proposed clearing requires a Property Vegetation Plan (PVP) or consent.” If you have ever tried to get a PVP, well lets just say good luck with that!

    • Harquebus says:

      12:23pm | 14/01/13

      Extinguishing bushfires has created this problem. Never before in the history of our continent have animals had to face the destructive sterilizing megafires that we have created.
      Allowing bushfires to extinguish themselves will result lower density fires that are much easier to confront when protecting assets..

      Reply

    • Al says:

      12:44pm | 14/01/13

      Harquebus - or the much simpler solution, back burning and fuel reduction.
      Pity so many councils actualy refuse the permission for people with legitimate concerns to do this.

    • Bear says:

      01:23pm | 14/01/13

      Rural ppl vote conservative so where are all these green councils destroying the country?I know you ppl struggle with fantasy and truth but name one! And try and make it real! And reference the actual bill passed to stop controlled burning! You can’t I know! They only exist in letters columns and the minds of zealots.

      Reply

    • Helen of Troy says:

      02:01pm | 14/01/13

      Oh look, here’s one after two seconds on Google

      A LOCAL council at the centre of Perth’s bushfire disaster has admitted it implemented a strict ‘‘no controlled burning’’ policy for more than a decade over large tracts of managed bushland that fuelled Sunday’s devastating firestorm. As police last night charged an off-duty police officer with starting the blaze by using an angle grinder during a total fire ban, the City of Armadale — deemed one of the state’s most fire-prone local government areas — confirmed the heavily vegetated Lloyd Hughes Park had been subject to the strict ban since at least February 7, 2000, when the current management plan was adopted by the council

      theaustralian.newspaperdirect.com/.../viewer.aspx?...

    • Helen of Troy says:

      02:19pm | 14/01/13

      Perhaps the starkest example of the open conflict between Victoria’s laws and common sense is the case of the Strath Creek landowner, Liam Sheahan and his wife, Dale. The Sheahans own approximately 40 hectares of bush-land near Melbourne. The undulating property is situated close to a State forest, and is almost completely covered with 40 year old re-growth scrub that has no commercial value. Some years ago Mr Sheahan cleared about 250 of the estimated 20,000 trees from around his house, without a permit, approximately 3% of the property. Years later, in 2009, because the Sheahans had substantially reduced the risk of fire, they were almost the only land-owners in the district whose house survived the ‘black Saturday’ bushfires.

      The grotesque perversity of this case is that in 2003 the Mitchell Shire Council prosecuted the Sheahans for failing to obtain a permit. Although the court accepted the evidence of a retained expert, Dr Tolhurst of Melbourne University, that the tree clearing only reduced the fire risk from ‘extreme’ to ‘moderate’, Mr Sheahan and his wife were both convicted, fined and in total, ordered to pay almost $100,000.

      It would be wrong to suppose that Mr Sheehan was a lone maverick whose sole aim was to ignore the law. At trial he was adamant that he was advised by the Mitchell Shire Council he did not need a permit. He claimed that if he had needed a permit, he certainly would have obtained one. As a long-standing member of the local CFA unit and as member of the Shire’s fire protection committee, he had long railed against the Shire’s refusal to engage in managed fuel reduction and more particularly, had opposed the Shire’s refusal to remove trees adjacent to the access roads leading to his property. He argued that given the fuel loads and the proximity of trees to the road, the heat of an intense fire would make his family’s escape from a threatening fire tantamount to suicide.

      http://www.thejusticeproject.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7:current-projects-liam-shehan-&catid=2:current-projects&Itemid=36

    • Bear says:

      03:26pm | 14/01/13

      And this council has a green majority does it!? Doubt it. And it’s from Perth! Perhaps they thought it was pointless to burn the sand!

    • Bear says:

      04:02pm | 14/01/13

      Where is there anything to say these are ‘green’ councils though! Yes, councils are largely f@@med and useless and sticking their noses in the way. But I’m yet to see any evidence of there being some wave of conspiratorial green councils trying to destroy the country. Name one green majority council! I’m thinking it’s more just random dickhead councilors being just that. Of course they are so, but the whole ‘green wave’ things smacks of ppl getting over excited wishing it to be true, rather than actual truth.

    • Helen of Troy says:

      04:35pm | 14/01/13

      @ Bear

      “confirmed the heavily vegetated Lloyd Hughes Park “

      Oh, yeah that would be ‘sand’.

    • Maryland Wilson says:

      01:24pm | 14/01/13

      Australian farmers have the lowest level of formal education among Western countries says Peter McGauran. It was vital to capialise on new scienctific research and technology. The Age 28 January 1991                                                                         (Geoff Russell is one of Australia’s outstanding thinkers and he makes valid points about animal welfare )
      The Age 28 January 1998Australian farmers have the lowest level of formal education among Western countriessays Peter McGauran. It was vital to capialise on new scienctific research and technology.                                                                        (Geoff Russell is one of Australia’s outstanding thinkers and he makes valid points. )
      The Age 28 January 1998

      Reply

    • Dan says:

      03:32pm | 14/01/13

      Wow Mary - thats pretty convincing, being different dates from at least 15 years ago to a page where we can’t cross reference your claims. I would like to cross reference your claim that a former ag minister and son of a family that has been involved in ag for a long time (i.e. the Hon Peter McGauran) thinks that farmers are stupid.

    • BrianB says:

      03:37pm | 14/01/13

      Hey Maryland - Your disjointed comment makes little sense and provides no evidence for your claim regarding Australian farmers level of education.

      I’m here to tell you baby, that I live in a prolific fruit growing area and am aware that business management, science and technology play an important role in modern farming.

      Your patronising and pathetic attempt at ridiculing Australian farmers deserves nothing but contempt.

    • Helen of Troy says:

      02:57pm | 14/01/13

      Am now left wondering where all these animals should be ‘liberated” to? Not anywhere in Australia (bushfire) nor Pakistan (flood), clearly not Indonesia. NZ? Too many earthquakes.

      Comparing loosing biros to loosing stock is so gob smackingly ignorant and flippant to the suffering of farmers whose livilihoods actually dependon stock welfare. This entire article is just inane.

      Reply

    • Jack says:

      03:09pm | 14/01/13

      So Maryland Wilson, Just because I don’t have a university degree I am ignorant and not capable of understanding animal welfare. Here is another perspective. The fact that back burning and other fire risk mitigation is not completed to a satisfactory level these days is due to the university educated “experts” who have no practical experience of land management either calling the shots or opposing sensible land management practises.
      Any time you think you can look after livestock better than an experienced farmer Maryland please feel free to contact one and show us how it’s done!
      By the way, I would rather be considered a dumb farmer than an inner city living green with 2 arts degrees!

      Reply

    • Stained says:

      03:37pm | 14/01/13

      It gets a little tiresome reading how the Aboriginals looked after the environment.  They used fire to hunt the animals escaping it. In fact many species have been wiped out.  They were no wiser than the early settlers who cleared the landscape of every living thing for cropping or grazing.  We all make mistakes and now know better!  I’m not here to blame anyone for the past.
      In burning everything, the only plant that coped with the fires were the eucalypts that eventually took over the continent.  Rainforests and other species were slowly wiped out with the creep of the fire loving eucs.  Remember they have been doing this fire stick hunting for thousands of years, there had to be an affect.  Yet our stupidity continues even with the planting of eucs along new freeways, main roads etc, instead of planting non fire prompting species.
      Every “re forestation” is always eucs, why?  Start looking at reducing the eucs and sow fire
      retardant species.
      Some one posted that the Australian bush was “designed” to burn, what utter rubbish, it was destined to burn when the other species intertwined with the eucs were wiped out over the thousands of years.

      Reply

    • Stained says:

      03:40pm | 14/01/13

      It would be interesting to see how many Greens are within the CFA given their pathetic policies on land management.
      Why the hell has the Coonabarrabran telescope at Sidings Spring still got those eucs so close to it; greenie policies, perhaps the council is in bed with them?  Tear them down, so it won’t be threatened ever again.

      Reply

    • vox says:

      03:52pm | 14/01/13

      If he’s an animal liberationist why doesn’t he advocate turning them all loose.
      We could have bullocks and crocodiles feasting high in Hyde Park, and emus and four foot monitors wandering around the Lodge, and every primary school would have it’s resident dingoes chasing the kids in a free-for-all at lunchtime.
      When fires decimate the animal population in the scrub the resultant decrease means that there may, may, be enough food for all next year.  Fires have been a part of nature since the year zot. We just fan the flames.

      Reply

    • firie says:

      05:58pm | 14/01/13

      I still don’t understand what the author is contributing. Does he have any ideas to manage animals in fires?
      After Black Saturday the notice boards of the fire stations were full of contacts from vets offering to treat farm and domestic animals for free. Horses were taken to the Weribee Vet School and given world best treatment for free. People died trying to save their horses. People are concerned about animals. Teams were trying to feed roos that had miraculously survived the flames.
      You have to keep perspective on fires. These fires are so far being successfuly fought. Yes, a lot of bush burned, a few houses and a lot of stock lost. But people are being kept safe. Look back to 2009. What happened then is still hard to take.

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 22 May 13 07:53PM

RT @JoshuaWithers: Have you seen the Australian version of Breaking bad? He get's cancer and Medicare covers his costs and the series ends.

Paul Colgan

Colgo 22 May 13 05:45PM

How the totally awesome weather in Australia recently is hurting retailers http://t.co/4dvDwDlNZG

Paul Colgan

Colgo 22 May 13 05:29PM

Hell, your name is Excel and Powerpoint.

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 22 May 13 04:56PM

Great fun yarn by @the_mattyoung and @DebKillalea. What the hell annoys you about the evening commute? http://t.co/Eyi82lHiBQ

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter