Apocalyptic nightmare
There's been something almost other-worldly about some of the videos filmed after the fire fronts ripped through - apocalyptic visions made real before peoples' eyes.
The footage we have seen is awful enough. What images, you wonder and fear, are trapped in peoples' minds.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
The people of these wrecked communities, like Kinglake, the worst affected community, face a dreadful new reality.
This once happy township, set in landscape so rich in beauty, is virtually no more.
I watched the convoy of survivors return to the hills, many not knowing quite what they would find. They had not been allowed back for three days, and tempers were getting frayed.
It must add to the sense of frustration and pain when you are told that the main reason for the delay is because what is left of your community has been turned into a crime scene.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
Covering this dreadful story has taken us all over Victoria - I think we clocked up about 800 km in one day, following the plumes of smokes and trying to get to communities where the firefronts had already come through - and we have been monitoring the local radio stations, whose coverage has been exceptional.
We've been listening to a steady stream of information - where the fires have flared up now, which communities are under threat, what is the latest death toll.
There have been the hopeful weather reports that temperatures have cooled and the winds have died. Then yet another downbeat forecast supersedes it; the winds are up again.
As we have driven these country roads, lined with forests of blackened gum trees, there have been questions as well.
I mentioned a couple of them in my reporting: Should people be allowed to stay and defend their properties? Should there be mandatory evacuations, as there used to be in Victoria, which is arguably the most wildfire-prone corner of the world?
And always that nagging question: Could more lives be saved?
They are difficult questions, which raise the inevitable questions about how much the government should be allowed to encroach into your life, and how safety should be weighed against liberty.
Like I say, difficult questions which the Royal Commission established by the Victorian state government will look into. I would love to hear your responses.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~31~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Safety and liberty lie in the same direction when people want to cut down trees. There are rumours of shire councils making this difficult.
Complain about this comment
Another point. Your readers might not realise that when humans arrived in Australia it was open woodland (mostly not eucalypts) maintained that way by megafauna, as elephants still do in Africa. When Europeans arrived it was open woodland again, but this time fire friendly species (mostly eucalypts) maintained by the sensible Aboriginal practice of regular burning. The idea that dense eucalypt forest National Parks are "natural" is an error.
Complain about this comment
I think after any even like this it's always easy to say 'more could of been done'.
But the primary concern should be re-housing people, and the heart-breaking task of identifying those who died and burying them properly.
Questions should be asked about what more could have been done when the
people are ready.
The role of the Government now should be identifying these 'arsonists', or 'mass murderers' as Kevin Russ rightly said. The people they've killed, the houses ruined, the poor wildlife exterminated......these 'people' responsible need to be found. What's wrong with them? I still can't understand what possible 'thrill' someone could get?!
Excellent reporting though Nick as ever, very informative. Thankyou.
Complain about this comment
"should people be allowed to stay and defend their properties? Should there be mandatory evacuations..."
As you know, Nick, as the enormity of this tragedy sinks in, these questions are already being asked, as they are after every major bushfire event. Everyone has an opinion. None of us are experts.
This time around I suspect the questions will be more searching, and some things will change.
Whether that will mean replacing the stay and defend policy with mandatory evacuations, I don't know. It's not an impractical policy in most circumstances, but in this unprecedented event, as far as we know so far, defending your own home proved impossible for many, even those very experienced in the process. And, as we also now know, those who stayed too long and then attempted to escape were, mostly, those who sadly perished. Still, I'm not sure that even this experience entirely negates the stay and defend policy.
The best summation I've heard since Saturday came from a senior CFA officer who said something like; we have that policy because we acknowledge that we can never have the resources to fully guarantee protection to every small settlement. And besides, Australians would never stand still for mandatory evacuations.
I would guess that after Saturday, a lot more Australians might be more inclined to get out early next time around. But the CFA guy is right, many will still want to stay and defend and will ignore calls to evacuate. We're not exactly timid people.
There are other factors that contributed to Saturday's disaster. One of them is probably the changing demographic of these areas. I suspect that 15 years ago, even as severe a bushfire event as this one would not have led to nearly as much loss of life. Back then many of these areas were mostly sparsely populated, by farming families and long term residents, people familiar with, and respectful of, the power of nature.
These days they are also 'treechange' areas, home to many urban people who have 'escaped' the city for the bush, or have weekend places there. Populations are higher, and many of these relative newcomers have little if any experience of bushfire, or any of the myriad other dangers inherent in living in the bush.
Many of these treechangers are ardent environmentalists. They end up campaigning for 'protection' of forest areas against the 'rapacious' farmers. They end up on councils or in positions of authority within local government. But some of them are the worst kind of environmentalist; those in love with trees and 'nature' but with little or no real knowledge of ecology.
Hence we get councils in the area passing regulations actively forbidding the cutting down of trees, and actually encouraging the growth of trees close to homes. At least one council in the affected area has been reported as encouraging homeowners to surround their properties with tree cover -- to make it look like a forest -- in direct defiance of every CFA recommendation regarding cleared zones. In a bushfire area for God's sake. That beggars belief.
Perhaps, as some experts have suggested, we should be looking to change other policies before we look at mandatory evacuation.
Like mandatory fire bunkers on every at-risk property. They're not the total answer, nothing is, but even 'homemade' bunkers saved a few lives last week. Properly designed underground bunkers might save even more next time around.
Or like changing our ideas of what constitutes "pristine native forest" and "national park." Let's be honest, many of the areas now locked up as national park are in reality little more than vast tracts of regenerated scrub. Once upon a time local farmers grazed these forests and kept the fuel loads down to manageable levels. Perhaps it's time we again put people before trees.
In the end though, it comes down to personal responsibility. If we choose to live in rural, forested areas (and I do) then we have a responsibility to learn how to protect ourselves. To have a good fire plan and the tools to put it into action. And to know when to leave.
We have a good fire plan at home. Good equipment too. But my real fire plan has always been the same: if it looks like it might turn bad, get out early and let the property burn. Life is more precious than 'stuff.'
Complain about this comment
Nick, please help dispel the myth that Australian Aboriginals were perfect caretakers of the environment because they used fire judiciously to clear the bush.
Yes, they used fire to clear undergrowth and to drive animals where they could be more easily caught.
No, they were not equipped to handle the huge fires that often went out of control.
Yes, there is anecdotal evidence that they used fire and the prevailing wind to attack the land of neighbouring tribes they were at war with.
Complain about this comment
It does seem to me that the environmental lobby has a lot to answer for in this disaster.
As someone has already said - it makes no sense to encourage people to surround their property closely with trees, especially Eucalyptus, for God's sake.
What on earth are the authorities thinking about ?
And who are mad people who follow their suggestions ?
I always thought Australians were a savvy bunch, but maybe I was wrong.
Complain about this comment
@grampsgrumps
That's evolution at work. If you burn everything regularly, then those trees best suited to that environment will survive.
So to call anything natural isn't right. I agree though, that saying that the landscape had adapted to this rudimentary management, and that the Australian bush would be better off with a change to the current management plan. I believe (as most likely do you) that the new plan should include a plan to remove the fireload, and that could very well include plans to burn more, and burn regularly.
I look forward to the Royal Commission, and hope that it is wide ranging enough to satisfy all interested parties with its findings.
As for Nick's questions, the current policy may not be wrong, it may be local councils not enforcing mandatory distance between houses and bushland, and not enough back burning being done in native bushland that have contributed most to this tragedy.
There will never be 1 single thing that will have had the capacity to prevent this occurrence, and hopefully we as a nation can find a balance between everything to maintain harmony with our relationship with our land.
Complain about this comment
Editors, where are you? "Peoples' minds"?
Complain about this comment
Impressive level of short-sightedness amongst some responses: their solution to tackling a series of bushfires likely caused by man-made climate change?
Cut down more trees.
Brilliant.
Complain about this comment
These fires weren't really "caused" by man-made climate change: Victoria has always been prone to these terrible fires, in part because the summer coincides with the driest time of the year in Victoria. Climate change might have made them worse, however.
That said, I don't think that anyone is advocating the wholesale cutting down of trees. But judicious burning of fire breaks in forested areas makes a huge difference to the ability of the fire services to access and fight fires, and such fire breaks do not result in the destruction of a significant number of trees compared with the total.
And having large eucalypts close by housings in a fire-prone area like this is not the most sensible way to manage your garden, either.
Complain about this comment
Families in the US Tornado belt have storm shelters.
Could people living in rural / at risk areas of Australia build underground shelters into their houses to escape the flames in an emergency or would they suffocate due to the oxygen being sucked up by the fire?
Complain about this comment
Why build so many wooden houses in the bush on the driest continent?
If you chop down more it will become even drier.
As for putting people first,the sensible thing would be to build below ground.
Complain about this comment
I'm not trying in any way to be clever or superior here, but I live in California. We are surrounded by eucalyptus trees too, imported in the 19th century, they have spread widely because our climate is so similar to Australia.
We have huge fires and loss of property too just like Australia, but hardly any deaths by comparison. 2008 was a bad fire summer in California, all over the state.
Why do we have so few deaths? What are we doing differently? Maybe there are lessons to be learned?
There was a fire about 3 miles from my home here last summer (luckily went the other way but people in my old house were evacuated.) A bunch of houses burned and a lot of livestock perished but there were no human deaths. And we too have a very strong environmental lobby.
If you live in the country, the fire service come around and order you to clear brush away from the house area, and then I think they issue mandatory evacuations when fires start.
Complain about this comment
And our houses are wooden too.....
Complain about this comment
Another thought.....natural disasters, fire, flood, earthquake, tsunami, drought etc have always occurred. They are part of the natural world, part of earth's constant regenerative processes - although arguably we are exacerbating at least some them such as fire and flood by bad management of natural resources.
But there are now just so many people, living often in such marginal areas, like river flood plains and desert margins, that when a disaster happens it automatically affects many more people than it would once have done.
In prehistory people (and animals) migrated from place to place. If the climate failed in one area, and crops failed and it became unlivable, they moved somewhere else. We see such migrations all through the history of the human race. But where can we go now that there are so many of us?
Arguably we are living in areas where we would be better off not living (and I count myself in that too.)
Complain about this comment
battles_atlas, you misunderstand. Putting aside whether climate change has anything to do with this, nobody is advocating the wholesale clearance of tree cover.
We're only talking about rigorously applying the protocols that have been in place for decades. That is, no trees within one tree height from homes, in other words, no eucalypts closer than 30 metres to a home. It doesn't even mean you can't have an attractive garden around the house, shrubs etc are fine, you just need a little commonsense in choosing species.
stevejohnson72, we don't build that many wooden houses. The affected towns/settlements have all been around for 140 years or more, when wood was the primary building resource, so they contain a lot of older homes.
These days houses are built to fire retardant standards. Although it's fair to say that Victoria's building regulations in this regard are far less stringent than NSW.
Complain about this comment
The thing I can't understand is why people didn't leave earlier.
I'm in Queensland and we knew the fires were getting bigger a few days before so why didn't people just pack up and run?
If their town was unharmed then noone has lost anything.
It's terrible but I can't help think that more people would have lived had they left in advance
Complain about this comment
DesktopCynic, it's true there are lessons to be learnt and that discussion is being held all over Victoria right now. As it has for decades, really. The Stay and Defend policy, the impact of councils, the impact of "green" ideology, all those ideas that people mention here and elsewhere. I would suggest that the similarity of the Californian environment to ours has previously opened a dialogue between our nations already, well before these fires. Believe it or not, our CFA isn't an insular community of bumpkins living in a vacuum - fire is heavily researched here in Australia as I imagine it is in California.
But I do believe that many people are unwilling to accept that this fire was particularly ferocious because of the impact of the long drought, the complication of arson, the high temperatures, the rapidity of the fires passive, the winds. Some of those things are impossible to prepare for, no matter what soul searching comes before or after the event. People who had every intention of implementing their fire plan simply did not get the opportunity to use it.
Complain about this comment
DesktopCynic, there's nothing 'superior' in your comments, you are quite right. Our fire people work very closely with those in California because of the similarities you mention. I think there's a bunch of your guys here now, or on their way. For which we are always grateful.
The thing is that we too very rarely have deaths in bushfire, and never before on this scale. 2008 was also a bad year for us but I don't think there were any deaths.
This event was just unprecedented in its scale.
The major difference between California policies and our own is mandatory evacuation. I guess we'll be debating that again.
"Arguably we are living in areas where we would be better off not living (and I count myself in that too.)"
Yes, there's something in that and at least one CFA expert here has already suggested we may have to revisit the rules and regulations on where housing development can take place.
The debate will be whether we should forbid people living where they want to on the basis of what might be a 1-in-100 or 1-in-1000 year event. Or whether we let them live there but only under very stringent fire protocols.
Complain about this comment
post 4 by newsplashx.... You are so spot on. Please send a letter to the government and to the papers to spread your knowledge.
Complain about this comment
KaterinaGX.
I wasn't in any way meaning to suggest that you are 'country bumpkins' and I unreservedly apologise if I gave that impression. It certainly wasn't intended. Yes, there is research going on I'm sure.
I've just been sitting here on the internet for days watching this unfold - like many others I think in this part of the world who have witnessed forest fires close up - watching helplessly the huge distress, the quite dreadful loss of life and the terrible trauma and wondering why so many have died.
One of my acquaintances had her house burn down last summer here in California in a bush fire which flared up quite quickly, spreading rapidly through Eucalyptus and scrub. They were given 10 minutes to leave by the authorities. I don't think Stand and Defend even crossed their minds. But they weren't given the choice. They were ordered out. I'm just trying to contribute to the debate here....Should people be allowed to stay? Even if they want to?
Complain about this comment
DesktopCynic, no offense taken.
My understanding is that Victoria is the only Australian state with the stay and defend policy - can someone confirm that? I imagine there would be some who survived the fire that will argue the abolition of that policy given that they were able to save their homes by staying.
Complain about this comment
KaterinaGX, no, all states actually have exactly the same ‘Prepare, Stay and Defend or Leave Early’ policy.
Victoria is however the only state that uses the "pecuniary interest evacuation model." All of the others do have mandatory evacuation protocols. To be precise, even Vic can institute mandatory evacuation in some specific circumstances.
You can find a good summary of how it all works here: [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
DesktopCynic writes "watching helplessly the huge distress, the quite dreadful loss of life and the terrible trauma and wondering why so many have died."
We all wonder the same thing. The investigations have barely begun but so far it seems the experts agree that it was the sheer speed and rapidly changing conditions prevalent in this particular event that was primarily responsible for the high casualty rate.
All bushfires move fast and are unpredictable of course but this one (well, not one, more like 25) was totally off the scale of anything that we've ever experienced before.
It appears that it was simply too big, too fast, too powerful and too unpredictable for any known control, firefighting or even warning plans to have had any real chance of being effective.
But, we'll wait and see what the Royal Commission comes up with.
Complain about this comment
Oh, broken URL, sorry. Worked for me (a professional journal paper couldn't be 'unsuitable' could it?). Never mind, this might help clarify...
"Every Australian State and Territory has adopted the Australasian Fire Authorities Council’s 'Prepare, Stay and Defend or Leave Early' policy (the Policy) which outlines how emergency service organisations (ESOs) and their members should respond to fire emergencies. As emergency response in Australia falls within State/Territory
jurisdiction, the powers given to ESOs and their members differ in each jurisdiction which means the implementation of this nationally recognised Policy will also be different in each State and Territory. How it will be implemented will depend in part on the common law and in part on what
powers (in particular evacuation powers) are
provided to them by their respective State/Territory legislation. This paper summarises the powers of
ESOs and their members to forcibly remove people from their homes for each State and Territory in Australia. Victoria is generally described as having a pecuniary interest evacuation model and the other States and Territories as having the mandatory evacuation model. As described in the
paper, such a dichotomy is simplistic."
If anyone is interested and does find this paper (Evacuation powers of emergency
workers and emergency-service
organisations in Australia) you'll find that the ability to force people to evacuate is not really all that well defined except in Queensland and in South Australia.
Almost everything related to bushfire here is predicated on the wisdom of the 'Prepare, Stay and Defend or Leave Early' policy. And that in turn is based on sound knowledge and long experience.
Whether it is still valid after Saturday is the big question.
Complain about this comment
it seems to me very likely that climate change has contributed to these fires. I'd direct your attention to this article in support of it http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/fires-the-deadly-inevitability-of-climate-change-20090209-8289.html
I'm sure there will be a frenzy of preventative burning off and tree cutting in the wake of these fires - often probably a good idea. But I think Australians should reconsider our very inadequate response to climate change so far. We, and our PMs representing us, have assumed that the important thing is that we are comfortable, and we have used excuses like not wanting to be the first to act. If climate change has played any part in these fires, it shows us how wrong that reasoning was.
Complain about this comment
DesktopCynic
There are 2 pertinent differences between Victoria and California which influence risk
1. California has been in drought for 3 years Victoria for 13. Southern Australia has excessively dried out, including these flammable forests
2. Both Victoria and California are about 20 -30% forested, but in addition Victoria has, by proportion, a larger area devoted to agriculture. It's the 'garden state' of Australia. This also has dried out grasses, crops, trees which also caught fire
The decision to 'stay and defend' is not merely to save property. In previous fires here where there have been deaths, the risk has been accentuated for people in the process of evacuating, It may be that for Californians, evacuation is safer in that they can more rapidly reach an urbanised builtup area
Complain about this comment
I must admit this seems like the most even handed and well discussed blog on the fires i have seen on the internet, with many well thought-out solutions and suggestions, and without the manic hyperbole found in countless blogs around the world.
I live in the southern edge of the City of Whittlesea, which is the local council area on the north-east fringes of Melbourne, and which the semi-rural/rural northern part has been devastated.
I have lived here almost all of my life and had never experienced anything like last Saturday before (and never want to again). However there are some things that people need to consider before arguing a case for or against rebuilding.
The City of Whittlesea, which used to be the Shire of Whittlesea, is an urban growth corridor for Melbourne. Growing up here, in the wooded hills and grassed plains, we always knew the risks of a bushfire, but chose to live here nonetheless. But in the last 20 years, the municipalities' population has exploded to the point that it has as many people as the City of Hobart (Tasmanian State Capital).
We love living in the bush, because thats who we are, but after last weeks' tragedy, we need to reconsider how we build in these high risk areas. After Cyclone Tracey in Darwin, houses were subsequently built to be "cyclone-proof", again after massive loss of life. One suggestion would be to build underground shelters/bunkers/cellars in all new dwellings, which would no doubt increase building costs, but would save many people from the radiant heat which was the killer.
Finally, to KaterinaGX and DesktopCynic, you both have valid points. The biggest difference between Vic and CA was the length of the drought. We haven't had anything close to "average" rainfall for twelve long years. No matter how many fuel reduction burnoffs were done in the preceeeding years, the bush was bone dry, top to bottom, and the way the flames were crowning across the treetops, nothing could have stopped those fires I believe.
As I look out over my balcony with a heavy heart, and all the surrounding hills are black. The neighbourhood I've grown up in is in ruins. I just hope over the coming days/weeks/months that we can look beyond the sensationalism (primarily from the media) and work through this difficult period, so lives and homes can be re-built and we can continue living in a place we consider our own piece of paradise.
Complain about this comment
I guess at the end of the day, people can stay and defend their property if they really want to. It's a choice they make. But they certainly can't expect anyone else (firefighters) to put their own lives at risk attempting a rescue if it goes wrong, that's for sure. Personally I favor mandatory evacuation every time. It's simpler. One rule for everyone.
But you're right, these were unprecedented fires, beyond anything seen before.
We're supposed to be in our rainy season right now, so we all have our fingers crossed for good rains. If not, we'll be in the same boat as you guys.
Complain about this comment
A recent 2007 survey conducted by the CSIRO and fire authorities seems to have had very little public exposure. Perhaps these reports should be posted up in all fire risk towns.
http://www.bushfirecrc.com/research/d11/vehicle.html
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
This last one has an interesting statistic..'doubling of wind speed quadruples the spread speed of a bush fire'. So a fire moving at 5 kms per hour, moves at 20 kms when the wind speed doubles, fast enough to kill.
So there is ample information out there to prevent the current tragedy. Another irony of the fire is that the regrowth will be twice the density of the previous forest.
As for fire plans to defend the homes, they all have a big flaw, they all require human active involvement. In temperatures reaching 300c at the fire front it is unrealistic to expect a person to continue holding a plastic hose.
It is far more sensible to put an automatic sprinkler system on the roof[ and possibly inside] that is made of copper piping. A fire proof dugout or similar to take refuge from the fire peak would enable the houseowner to emerge later and take control of fire control. Better to have a wet house than none at all.
After all how do they fire control commercial buildings? automatic fire sprinklers.
I have seen this done by a Western Australian homeowner after a bushfire went through his property and his house survived but his neighbours didn't.
As for handling the regrowth of the areas burnt. regular commercial thinning of the trees[ not clearing blocks] will retain the bush look but halve the wood fire material.
Yes, the solutions are out there but not well known or are ignored.
I will remember most the story told of one resident. The couple went into town to get groceries to fill up their freezer. They came home and put them in the freezer and as it was so hot they pulled the curtains shut to keep the heat out, switched on the airconditioning and watched a DVD. When the DVD finished, they opened the curtains and saw what they thought was a dark rain cloud....it was smoke. An hour later they had no home. They survived but I wonder what their fire plan was!
Complain about this comment
I don't know if the politicians will ever allow backburning. The Greens seem to have so much power in the bush these days. However,people in the bush could have sprinklers connected to their roofs in preparation for fires.... I wouldn't want to be on a roof with a hose when a firestorm approaches! Maybe even a sealed concrete bunker with basic supplies and radio, nearby could make a big difference to survival.
Complain about this comment
The missing url on my prevoius post is
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
This an Australian Government site for the Bureau of Meteorolgy. It is an important site as it explains previous weather conditions in bushfires in the past, and statistics.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS