Australia's angry fire survivors blame council 'green' policy...

Drudge Report ^ | February 11, 2009 | the eagle has landed

[Fred Nerks]

“The council stood up in court and made us to look like the worst, wanton environmental vandals on the earth. We’ve got thousands of trees on our property. We cleared about 247,” he said.

I saw that couple interviewed on TV, they must have been in their 60's, to go through what they did, losing the court case, and having to pay costs, legal fees and fines to the total of one hundred thousand dollars at that age must have been dreadful. The woman never stopped crying during the interview. It was heart breaking to watch.

There have been firefighters who have commented that because they have been prevented from clearing fire-breaks and fire-trails, they have spent more time trying to access the fires than actually fighting the fires.

[manc]

I really do believe Liberalism is a mental disease much the same as homosexuals

[This_far]

In Montana there is legislation to mandate that homeowners in the outskirts cut down and maintain a fire zone around their houses... with potential fines for not doing so.

Pros and cons, especially if the GREEN factor is considered: plant trees to shade the house.

Darned if you or don’t.

[Truth29]

Officials who prevented reasonable protective measures and contributed to the current death and destruction should be held accountable for their action. There needs to be a way to charge them with something like contributory negligence or manslaughter. Suing municipalities doesn't deter because it is your own tax dollars being used against you. Individual liability and judgments would deter, but attorneys and judges have to figure out how to make it so.

[Malsua]

bttt

[MSF BU]

Drive a one inch steel pipe a few feet down as proximate to the root of the tree as you can. Pull the pipe out and pour in some “Blue Root” into the hole. Repeat as necessary. The old oak tree will become good firewood which will displace many btu’s of foriegn oil or domestic gas.

[InvisibleChurch]

how did so many people die? were there no warnings?

[dinasour]

Greenies say, you can't clear brush because it might disturb Bambi.

 

 

Bambi says, "Thank you".

[Quix]

INDEED.

. . . I hope they insist that the folks responsible have to leave their properties maximum tender-boxes.

Actually, I’m not quite that harsh but I wouldn’t protest, if they did.

[rawhide]

"We've lost two people in my family because you dickheads won't cut trees down," he said.

Says it all! The greenies are killing people with their asinine regulations.

[Red Boots]

Environmentalists kill people !

Again !

[TheZMan]

Under penalty of jail?

My point is, what real power do they have here? It’s your #@!$#@$ property ffs.

If that’s the case, get the hell out of there - fast.

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

Eucs are basically designed to feed Koalas and spread wildfires. Here (No. CA) they are considered weeds. You may note the rabid exception in the Walnut Creek tree regs I listed earlier excepting “Blue Gum” trees. You cut down some number of Eucalyptus trees and they will channel Barbara Boxer into your chainsaw, and two hairy Berkeley graduates will come and interview you on videotape about your work with non-native species for the local community access channel. After the interview, they’ll ask for a group hug and invite you on a whale-hugging biodiversity expedition.

[ArmstedFragg]

One of the thing I love about Aussies... they get right to the point.

[ArmstedFragg]

how did so many people die? were there no warnings?

They have a program called "Go Early or Stay and Defend". Fast moving blaze defeated 'go early', and 'stay and defend' doesn't work when the BTU's get higher than your ability to cool them. Lots of amateurs got way over their heads. In my California town, we call the program "Go Early or Stay and Decease".

[DB]

That just makes it a bigger fire hazard until the tree is finally dead and you can legally remove it.

[DB]

They should sue to get all their money back now that the truth is obvious to all.

And sadly, it is no different here in California.

[DB]

We are mandated by law to clear 100 feet around any structure as a fire protection zone here as well.

Just can’t touch a tree...

[DB]

There were 60+ mph winds in the fire zone. The fire literally moved faster than many could drive their cars on the roads there. In addition apparently the winds changed direction radically and quickly causing the expected path the for fire to be entirely wrong meaning there was virtually no warning in the new direction.

So in other words, I wouldn’t blame the victims in this case.

[Richard Kimball]

"We've lost two people in my family because you dickheads won't cut trees down,"

Tin foil hat time people. And yes, it's my tin foil and my hat. This has been going on in California for years. The problem is many of us, including the great Rush Limbaugh, have concluded that these are simply misguided policies. I think they know exactly what they're doing. The massive California wildfires destroy homes. The environmentalists don't want the homes protected. They want the homes burned so people will abandon the areas and they can become ecologically "pure" again.

I don't know enough about Australia to understand all the politics, but I suspect the same is true there. They don't want people living in the country. They want them living in the city. They want it to be impossible to protect the houses.