News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 'No fuel, no fire' policy must be enforced: Wilson Tuckey 

'No fuel, no fire' policy must be enforced: Wilson Tuckey

11 Feb, 2009 10:54 PM
Public policy, driven by the pursuit of minor party preferences, was a recipe for disaster of the greatest possible magnitude for humanity and the forest, outspoken federal Liberal MP Wilson Tuckey, WA, said this morning.

He has blamed both major political parties, in part, for Victoria's bushfire tragedy, saying some of the weekend wildfires were preventable.

A former Forestry Minister, he says current policies that have locked up forests created excessive fuel loads.

He told FarmOnline: "I'm sorry I didn't fight harder for fuel reduction policies in state forests.

"I didn't adequatelty prosecute the slogan: 'no fuel, no fire'," he said.

Forests today, he says, have nearly 10 times the number of trees to the hectare than they did previously, he told FarmOnline.

Both major parties had been “running around, putting in more reserves to get green preferences", he told the ABC yesterday.

Previously, much of this set aside country was grazed and managed by farmers or managed by professional foresters.

The choice is either to have forests managed by industry or as reserves, Mr Tuckey says.

"In both cases, the reduction of fuel load is a daily requirement and it is not always necessary to do it with burning," he told reporters in Canberra.

Mr Tuckey says firefighters need better access to such country to fight fires.

"When you had a forests products industry...we used to have roads and we used to have bulldozers."

That machinery was traditionally used to help put out a fire the day it started.

"I am heartbroken at what's happened because it was preventable," he told the ABC.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
At last, a politician with guts. I agree with Wilson - too many politicians are crawling up to the minority parties or groups.

I bet a lot of that forest area in Victoria has never seen a controled hazard reduction burn and this is the result we end up with - deaths and such a huge loss.

It seems to take such events to wake up governments. But I see that the media and politicians are already crawling up to the climate change peanuts.

Posted by pete, 10/02/2009 2:01:12 PM
Keep fighting, Wilson. Let's hope the Victorian Government is not as weak as the ACT Govt, which simply bowed to the green pressure.

Our fire of 2003 was (we thought) as tough as it could get. But tragically we have been proven wrong.

What did the ACT Govt learn from the 2003 fires? Nothing. We have the same forest policy, the pine plantations (all Govt owned) are all back growing and preparing to devastate us all over again.

Please, will the Government grow a spine and tell these green pests where to go?

Posted by Bruce, 10/02/2009 2:43:14 PM
Good on you Wilson! There was an expert on TV last night saying that same thing.

He said that WA was the only State to have a systematic back-burn program.

Posted by Helen, 10/02/2009 8:00:01 PM
I agree strongly with Wilson Tucky. A lot of things need to change when it comes to locking up large forests.

It is a bad idea to let the fuel build up over many years and not have a reduction burn off in the winter.

Do the greenies know how many of the animals would have perished in the Victorian bushfires, not to mention the tragic loss of human life.

Something must be done by our politicians to ensure this doesn't happen again.

Posted by Craig, 10/02/2009 8:55:58 PM
Australia naturally is a land of fire. Our vegetation abounds. If we don't control this, humans don't survive. If we don't want death, then let's clear the green (undergrowth) before it turns into fuel.

NSW wants 30pc under national parks, a corridor from Victoria to Queensland for the fires.

So which city will be first to lose a 1000 people?

Sorry, but our national security and lives should come first.


Posted by Ray, 10/02/2009 11:18:28 PM
Pine and blue gum plantations are the growing menace. They have taken over farmland.

But how would you conduct a fire reduction burn in a pine/blue gum plantation?

Why, in the rebuilding effort, don't you make it mandatory that every house built in a fire-prone area has a couple of, say, 8ft culverts horizontally buried on the property?

The entrance should be bricked up, with a fire-proof door at the entrance end, and with couple fire extiguishers, water, torch and oxygen.

Cheap and easy.

Posted by Bluey, 11/02/2009 8:49:15 AM
Spot on, Wilson Tuckey. You are talking commonsense.

Brumby has just locked up thousands of hectares along the Murray River, thereby excluding grazing and selected forestry.

That is likely to be the next big burn. How genuine is the government when re-election comes up and green preferences are sought at such risk?.

Posted by waterwise, 11/02/2009 4:32:31 PM
We lost on-third of our property to national parks. So all cattle were removed.

It took only a couple of years and the area was totally unmanaged - with only a couple of rangers to monitor the area.

When it did burn, the fire was so hot and furious that nothing survived. So greene's don't call yourselves 'preservers' - the stupid rules you have put in place through our gullible polies only suit your selfish, faceless world

Posted by anne, 11/02/2009 5:08:18 PM
When the mountains were grazed and the loggers were in working in our forests, we didnt have the fire risk we have today.

Come on, the public owns these lands and it's time we took back control.

Even the aboriginals used fire before white man came along.

Maybe all the conservatives should be made to live in their so-called national parks and forests and, if so, I am sure there would be fire reduction and of course trees and hazards cleared so they could be protected.

No fuel, no fire means no loss of life, mankind or animal.

Some common sense should prevail.

Posted by jack, 12/02/2009 6:07:30 AM
I have said it before and I will say it again, common sense should prevail.

In this day and age, how could so many lives be lost? We are not a 'third-world' country. This is Australia, so let's start looking after it, like the first Australians did, with burn-offs.

How many of our native species have we lost, let alone stock and human life?

Obviously most greens are vegetarians.

I thought that we were a 'developed' country but obviously we are going backwards.

SA has a state election coming up within the next 12 months and if I see that either one of them has the Greens as their second preference, I'm voting for an independent, not for stupidity.

You watch both the major parties and the Greens back-pedal and pass the buck on this one.

Thank you, Mr Tuckey, for your concern on behalf of the Australian people. As far as I'm concerned, the Greens are just as responsible as the arsonists that lit the fires.

Posted by Esme, 12/02/2009 8:24:30 AM
1 | 2  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Photo: The Age
Photo: The Age
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
10 February, 2009
POLL
Q: Do you agree with Wilson Tuckey's 'No fuel, no fire' policy - that regular reduction of fuel load must be enforced in forest reserves?

Yes, it's the major bushfire issue that needs attention.
(81.9%)

Yes, it's an issue, but not the major problem.
(12.1%)

No, it's not such a big problem.
(6%)

Total Votes: 587
Poll Date: 11 February, 2009

Most popular articles

Advertisement



Queensland Country Life







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...