WE’VE been hearing some pretty outlandish claims being made about the causes of the devastating Los Angeles’ fires.
Climate change is to blame, many say.
For others, it’s down to a lack of management involving empty reservoirs, fire-fighting capacity, no water in the fire hydrants, lack of preparedness for fire, and a city council spending more money on its woke agenda than measures to address a foreseeable risk.
You couldn’t help but reflect on the situation in Los Angeles when local residents, firefighters and woodlanders got together last Saturday at The Gurdies Nature Conservation Reserve for a ceremony “of loss and renewal” to mark the recent fire.
Certainly, it’s a question of scale and impact when comparing and contrasting the two.
While The Gurdies’ fire burnt around 192 hectares and impacted a handful of structures, also threatening dozens of homes, the Los Angeles’ fire has so far extended to more than 20,000 hectares, destroying or significantly damaging 9000 structures with 24 fatalities.
And while the recent Grampians’ bushfire impacted 76,000 hectares, it’s the location of the Los Angeles’ fire in forested residential areas, and on the edge of the main built-up area, where there’s a population of some 13 million people, that’s the main issue.
But some of the same issues apply.
If indeed climate change is going to increase the risk of such events happening in the future, there needs to be a quantum shift in our thinking about bushfire, especially as they might impact residential areas, and our investment in mitigation and risk management.
And just as the authorities are already talking about “retreat” as the most viable option where infrastructure and homes are being impacted by coastal erosion, be warned, they’re also going to start talking about “retreat” as the most feasible option for those living in or around bushland.
But it’s time the authorities got serious about land management, about properly resourcing the response to fire and also keeping us informed about what they can do and just as importantly, what they can’t do to keep us safe.
Those living in and around bushland can then make their own informed choice about what to do next.
The whole situation must also shed a new light on the appropriateness of the Bass Coast Shire Council’s ‘Urban Forest Strategy’ and its target of a minimum of 25 per cent canopy coverage across all townships by 2040.
Sure, a modest selection of fire-resistant trees in urban areas would be welcomed by most but if you’re looking to plant a significant number of natives in an offset program (including a target of 40 per cent canopy coverage across “all land tenures” in our townships by 2040), there’s plenty of broadacre areas, well away from our settlements, that would be far more suitable… and safe!
