Fires burning in Qld’s Arcadia Valley. Source: Rowan Peart
A QUEENSLAND producer is calling for some “small changes that would make a big difference” in the management of fires, asking authorities to allow for wider breaks along fence lines and loosening the rules on backburning.
Rowan Peart and his wife Maddie run two properties – one in the Arcadia Valley in Central Qld and one near Moonie in Southern Qld.
While both properties avoided the fires seen in recent months, Mr Peart said he had experienced many of the issues previously raised about bureaucracy and fear of litigation in past efforts to control fires.
“I never want to sound like I am ungrateful for the Rural Fire Service, I am a volunteer myself but I think the RFS is getting a layer of bureaucracy put on it that is limiting us from being able to safely and effectively fight fires,” he said.
“I think the fire department’s main goal is to prevent loss of life and everything else comes a distant second. Of course, we don’t want anyone to lose their life, but as farmers whose livelihoods are at stake, we put a lot more emphasis on protecting infrastructure and grasslands than the RFS.”
He said the current situation was untenable and two minor regulation changes would make a big difference to managing fires.
That was the first time I had ever heard that you could not use backburning to control a fire
Allowing wider breaks along fence lines
Under the current Qld vegetation management regulations, the entire easement for a fence line on freehold land can be 10m wide. “Necessary” clearing is allowed to maintain existing infrastructure and fire breaks can be 20m wide or 1.5 times the tallest adjacent tree.
Rowan Peart
Mr Peart said he would like to see all fence lines classified as infrastructure.
“We have a lot of leasehold country where our fences can only be cleared to 6m wide – not many machines used for clearing are that narrow,” he said.
“These fence lines are often where you backburn from and it is really dangerous when you are stuck between a fire and a fence within a 6m window, especially toeing a trailer. All you need to have is one tree fall over in front of you and things can get very ugly very quickly.
“All other infrastructure can be protected by a break that is 1.5 times the tallest adjacent tree and fence lines, should be treated the same. This should include State Forest leases.
“If the fence is your responsibility to maintain, then you should have the right to clear up to 20m either side of the fence. This would also serve as a defendable line when the fire season is on and help stop the widespread destruction that seems to be becoming more regular,” he said.
Mr Peart said the construction of exclusion fences across Qld had involved a significant capital outlay from producers and more needed to be done to protect them.
“Exclusion fences are just so incredibly expensive, it can be up to $10,000/km for materials and construction,” he said.
“I have seen cases where an exclusion fence is pretty much destroyed after a fire.”
Allowing for earlier backburns
The second change Mr Peart said he would like to see was a loosening of the restrictions on backburning. He said fear of litigation was stopping landholders from backburning and putting them in some dangerous situations.
“We had a fire here about four-years-ago that was out of control and heading for our place. When we went to do a backburn we were told it was a total fire ban, I nearly fell over on the end of the phone,” he said.
“That was the first time I had ever heard that you could not use backburning to control a fire. Now, we are seeing them not issue permits to backburn unless the fire is an imminent threat and if you wait until then it can be 11am and blowing a gale – a time when no one would want to backburn.”
Mr Peart said he understood why the fire department was heading in this direction, but he said it was not a practical measure for producers.
“I know the RFS doesn’t want every cowboy lighting up fire fronts whenever and wherever they like, but when we simply cannot ask our local fire warden for permission – the situation has become too complex” he said.
“It really rubs people up the wrong way when farmers have been doing this for a long time, they understand fires, they understand the terrain and know where to cut them off.
Mr Peart concluded “These changes would have a positive, tangable effect on bushfires in Australia. I don’t know if anything will change, I only ask; if not, why not?”
This is a very good article. Fires act differently in different parts of our country. Practices that are considered dangerous in the South of the country due to conditions are certainly not dangerous in the North of Australia and in fact these practices should be considered a much safer way to control fires and should be able to be carried out without fear of litigation. Land owners have been using these methods for generations and are skilled in implementing them. Over generations they have worked out the safest and most efficient and effective method to control fires and manage land.
Law makers need to have more consultation with landholders surrounding these issues. It would actually achieve better practical, safety and environmental outcomes if these consultations happened.
Thanks for your efforts with this Rowan. We are struggling with the same issues in the north, and more so being surrounded by National Parks without the staff or equipment to manage bush fires. Much to be discussed to get a Good Neighbour Policy happening.
Great to hear the feedback. There’s been a lot of positive feedback offline as well.
I’ve been contacted by some heavyweights that are pushing it up the line.
It looks like we’re getting some traction!
As a RFS volunteer and a primary producer, I totally agree with these suggestions. The situation a few years back where all backburning required approval from Kedron was totally unrealistic and downright dangerous. This requirement has thankfully been relaxed and delegated to local officers.
What an abuse of power. What an insult to farmers equipped and experienced in protecting their properties from fire. What incompetence from any authority which prescribes an “imminent threat” requirement for approval to backburn. This is centralist control writ large, and clearly the product of ideological ignorance of rural industries and life in the bush. At the very least a Fire Warden should be able to give recorded, conditional approval in advance, covering the most likely scenarios to emerge. At the end of the day, it is going to be the farmer who makes the call, which exposes the incompetence of the “imminent threat” criterion imposed by a faraway authority. How any bureaucrat might determine that an “imminent threat” did or did not exist after a fire has passed, and not having been there at the time, demonstrates both the stupidity of the criterion and of those who seek to impose it.
Unfortunately we are seeing far too many blockies moving into large scale primary production areas who sometimes a little difficult to get through to. These people do need to be “controlled” or things can become very difficult for their neighbours.
As a RFS volunteer, we are frequently dealing with people who have no idea about fire safety, nor do they believe that fire permits regularly or conditions apply to them.
Increasingly risk averse public service is making fire fighting impossible to do. Aircraft only look good on the evening TV. In practice they achieve little. Burning back into a fire from a road or fence line is the only practable way to defend a line. (or buildings) Fire fighting should be left to the land owners. In my area , when the rural fire chiefs arrive , the locals go home in disgust.
How sad. How sad that we have to fight to justify common sense and practices that have been proven over more than 100 years.
Practical hands on experience with a common sense approach is needed. As Rowan said ‘ if not why not’ . We’re loosing more country to fire by not doing these
Changes.
I fully agree Rowan, I have been down this same road.
I won’t hold my breath
As a landholder and Captain of a large rural brigade in NSW I agree with Mr Peart.
I fully endorse Mr Peart’s proposal.