There's a new link on our Permits to Burn tab, under the heading "Frequently Asked Questions about Fire Wardens and their powers".
The link is to a document on the Rural Fire Brigades Association of Queensland website listing a range of myths about Fire Wardens and giving the actual situation for each, with a detailed explanation. The document is dated November 2012.
By Janet Stanley, Monash University and Paul Read, Monash University
At this time of year, each year – the bushfire season – the complex nature of human behaviour hits home. Bushfires are a terrible event. The environmental destruction, the loss of property and sometimes lives, the damage to infrastructure, the fear and uncertainty, all take their toll in terms of financial and psychological costs. Extensive time and resources are rushed into emergency responses and the immediate aftermath of the fire – the fire needs to be put out, people need to be safe and have their basic needs met.
It is suggested that, of the approximately 60,000 bushfires which occur in Australia each year, one-third to a half are deliberately lit. Some believe that this proportion is much higher.
The occurrence of bushfire is only going to get worse. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report predicts that in south-east Australia the frequency of very high and extreme fire danger days is likely to rise by between 4% and 25% by 2020 and between 15% and 70% by 2050. This increase in fire danger is likely to be associated with a reduced interval between fires, increased fire intensity, a decrease in fire extinguishments and faster fire spread. The implication of this is that many more fires which have been deliberately lit will become more dangerous.
The irony is that so much more could be done, both during and outside the fire season, to prevent the occurrence of fires and prevent the terrible losses and trauma. Yet few resources are allocated to either better understanding the drivers of bushfire or taking action to prevent the fire.
The cost of arson in Australia, according to recent Monash University work, was found to be $1.1 billion in 2009-2010, and this doesn’t include human or environmental costs. If only some of this cost was spent in prevention rather than repair.
The present response largely revolves around environmental modification, particularly around extensive cool burning. There are now serious questions as to whether this policy can be achieved and if it is the best way to go. A more comprehensive policy platform is needed to better target the situational conditions (where fires are lit, such as behind
schools), and behavioural causes (for example, fires are often lit outside after school).
One example of excellent prevention work to raise community awareness, act as a deterrent and facilitate reporting of suspicion of arson is being undertaken by the Gippsland Arson Prevention Program (GAPP), in Victoria. Work is being undertaken on a voluntary basis in a collaboration between all sectors – business, the police, CFA, emergency services, the local council, the Department of Environment and Sustainability, Crime Stoppers and Monash Sustainability Institute.
Very little is known about people who intentionally light fires in Australia. However, we do know that they are largely male. About 40% are 15 to 20 years of age, 30% over 30 and about 10% children aged 10 to 15 years. About half of those over 15 years are unemployed. About two-thirds have, or will have, a conviction for violence – they are troubled people.
Even the little bit of knowledge we have suggests directions for prevention of arson. The disengagement of youth from employment and studying is a disgrace in Victoria, with youth unemployment – 15 to 19 years, the very age group which has the highest propensity to light fires – at 29.5% as of July 2012. This official figure is likely to be an under-estimation of the actual number.
Recent research at Monash Sustainability Institute has shown that some people are reluctant to report a suspicion of arson. Strong pathways from reporting to prevention need to be built, with resources for both arson investigation and an appropriate legal response, and treatment opportunities.
In 2005-06, 2,926 arson charges were laid in Victoria, while 39 people were sentenced in Victoria’s higher courts. Over the five years, 31% – 12 people, just over two people a year – received a term of imprisonment. One year was the most common sentence.
Significant new thinking is needed around bushfire arson prevention, aimed at structural, service design and operational levels and supported by research and evaluation of effects. A reduction in bushfire arson needs transformational, rather than incremental, change across all points of prevention. Not least of these prevention measures is a far more effective response to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Janet Stanley has received funding from the Office of the Emergency Services Commissioner, Department of Justice, Victorian Government and from RACV Insurance, Victoria, which was used for research for Crime Stoppers on community attitudes to reporting arson.
Paul Read's work has been funded by the Department of Justice, Victoria and the Office of the Fire Commissioner.
This article was originally published at .
Read the original article.
I know I already complimented James W on his 15km compass bearing on the Spring Creek fire a week ago, but I just downloaded some photos from my camera - I'd forgotten that I took some shots of the fire from the Gatton-Esk Road when I was trying to locate it.
This is what the fire looked like from 3km away (using some zoom), seeing it against the darker hills behind. James was taking his bearing from the top of the range further to the right of this photo and five times as far away.
Taking a bearing on it from 15+ km away without that dark background and getting it spot on is a great bit of compass work.
The smoke in the Spring Creek, Adare, Vinegar Hill and Ringwood areas today (Saturday 15 December) is coming from a controlled burn at the Spring Creek jail. The Gatton Springdale Rural Fire Brigade was in attendance at 10.00am this morning.
There was a fire in the Spring Creek jail land last weekend, though on that occasion some of the Smokspotters lost a lot of time in identifying the location. This was because:
the cross bearings we obtained on the wide front of smoke suggested that it was in either the eastern edge of the Lockyer National Park or in the land owned by the jail;
the Queensland Rural Fire Service Current Bushfire Incidents web page showed a permitted burn with fire crews in attendance at the junction of Millers Road and the Gatton-Esk Road (the jail is at the other end of Millers Road). This was approximately 5 km from where we had identified the fire location (were our bearings wrong?);
when we were unable to contact the Grantham Rural Brigade First Officer we contacted the Deputy, who had not been informed any controlled burn in that area (though from our bearings the fire was in, or on the edge of, the Grantham Rural Fire Brigade area);
we then spent more time trying to find Smokespotters who could give us a better bearing on the smoke, but without being able to improve the location.
In the end it was decided that the fire was either in the jail land (in which case it was under control) or
in the edge of the Lockyer National Park, so a message was left for the
QPWS Duty Officer to contact one of the Coordinators. He/she didn't.
It was not until the next morning, when the smoke was still thick in the area, that the source was identified as the jail lands.
Today the Current Bushfire Incidents web page again showed a Permitted Burn at the corner of Millers Road and the Gatton-Esk Road.
The X shows the approximate location as identified by Smokespotter bearings (see image below for a more accurate location), the XX shows the location of the nearest point of the fire to the indicated location.
Here's a picture of the situation this morning (Saturday 15 October) plotted on a Google Earth base - you can click on the image to see a larger version, but unless you open it in a new window you won't be able to see the text at the same time:
The area outlined in yellow is where the fire was burning. Our bearings (red lines) were within one km of the nearest fire - not bad considering that James W's bearing was taken over a distance of 15km (the other was only 6km) and the smoke was "smeared out" by a northeasterly wind. The expensive bearing compasses we use are well worth the money. In fact the projection of James' bearing was right on the fire. It was my bearing over 6km that was off the mark; I'll blame the wind.
The place pin on the right shows where the Queensland Rural Fire Service's Current Bushfire Incidents map located the permitted burn - over 3km from the nearest point of the burnt area.
I've made efforts in the past to have the Smokespotter Coordinators notified when there is going to be a planned burn on the jail lands because of both their proximity to the Lockyer National Park and the unreliability of the Permitted Burn locations on the Current Bushfire Incidents web page (which means that we waste Smokespotters' time in trying to fix the location of sighted smoke). Clearly I haven't yet found the key person who will see that this happens, but I'll keep trying.
The smoke in the Vinegar Hill, Adare, Ringwood area appears to be likely to be coming from a Permitted Burn in Millers Road, Adare that can be seen on the Current Bushfire Incidents map on the Rural Fire Service website.
I've done a bit of digging around to try to sort out some discrepancies we have seen over the last few days between the Forest and Grass Fire Danger Ratings maps which are available on the Queensland Rural Fire Service web site and the Fire Danger Ratings included in Bureau of Meteorology District Forecasts.
BOM Fire Danger Ratings (which apply to quite wide areas compared to the QFRS FDR map zones) have sometimes been higher than the mapped ratings within the same area in Southeast Queensland (and apparently across wider areas of the State).
As I understand it, the QRFS FDR maps are constructed on the basis of BOM data, using a computer program to produce the ratings. There is no human intervention in the production of these ratings, which is what you would expect because the Fire Danger Ratings are in fact what is called the McArthur Fire Danger Indices (Forest and Grassland), and these indices are calculated using a standard formula. The purpose of the indices (Ratings) is to provide a relative measure of the difficulty of suppression for a standard fuel type.
While these indices generally work well enough in practice, the reality is that not all variables can be included. For example the calculation assumes a fuel load arranged as a standard continuous pasture.
The BOM FDRs are apparently produced on the basis of the same data set (I have no confirmation of this), but with a degree of human intervention that takes into account actual fire behaviour as reported by fire fighters in particular districts. This allows for adjustment based on variables which are not allowed for in the calculation of the McArthur indices, such as for example, continuity of fuel.
This produces a more "refined" FDR, but not currently at the detailed scale that is available in the Fire Danger Rating maps.
So, I guess the "take home message" is that you should check the BOM website - in our case their Southeast Coast Forecasts, via the Updated weather Ipswich & Fire Danger link in the right hand column of this web page, and always ask FireComm whether it is safe to burn when you notify them of your intention to light up a permitted burn.
You can find more information on the McArthur fire danger indices on the web. For a fairly simple account you can read this presentation from the Bushfire CRC, or for more detail this paper from the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research which compares the McArthur Forest Fire Danger Index approach with the Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index.
If you have some "inside knowledge" of how the system works and can improve on my attempt at explanation please feel free to contact me so I can share the information with readers of this blog.
This morning, after I updated the LVR fire danger rating map, I was puzzling over the fact that the highest rating in our area was "Very High", with most of the Lockyer Valley Region as "High". This just didn't seem to be consistent with all the media references last night to Fire Weather warnings for today. In fact I had much the same concerns when I uploaded yesterday's fire danger rating map - the ratings just weren't consistent with either what I was hearing on the media, or with the weather we were experiencing here, which was obviously very dangerous from a fire point of view.
I opened the Bureau of Meteorology's weather forecast page for the Southeast Coast, knowing that they give fire danger ratings. (The BOM link ("Updated weather Ipswich & Fire Danger") is in the column on the right hand side of this blog .
While the BOM doesn't give a separate fire danger rating for the Lockyer Valley Region, they do give ratings for the overall Southeast Coast District and separate ratings for areas within Southeast Coast, including Ipswich. Our weather forecasts aren't usually too different to those for Ipswich, so presumably the fire danger rating won't be very different either.
Overall, BOM's forecast for the Southeast Coast District (issued at 4.45am this morning) has the Fire Danger as: "Very High to Severe", and for Ipswich it is "Severe". Gold Coast is "Very High" and Sunshine Coast is "Severe".
These ratings are at odds with the current Rural Fire Service's Forest Fire Danger Ratings map for the area, which shows no areas of Severe rating at all. Here's the current Forest Fire Danger Rating Map from the RFS web site, downloaded early this morning. No "Severe" ratings anywhere.
Just to be sure, I checked the RFS Grassland Fire Danger Ratings to make sure that they were not "Severe". In fact they are, in general, more benign than the Forest ratings.
In future, when there are media reports of high fire danger in SEQ, I'll be checking the BOM site as well as the RFS site.
