Deliberately lit? Probably. Burn-off season.

Looks like plantation area, eh?

Hardly what I’d call ‘state forest’ anymore.

I wonder how many other bush-fires will in an attempt be blamed on everyone but forestry burn-offs this year?

Which paper reported this?

For those that aren’t aware;

Bookmark

http://www.fire.tas.gov.au/mysite/Show?pageId=colCurrentBushfires

This is the Tasmanian Fire Service website that lists the status of reported fires around the state.

Interestingly, a caller to 000 soon after the fire started, was informed it was a forestry burn off that had escaped. I bet that sort of candid comment had a short shelf life.

From the pics in today’s papers, this is another perfect example of where pollution further up the valley, whether it be fires, forestry burn-offs or pollution from a theoretical pulp mill, will end up - all in Launceston of course!

Also, while it’s great to read that Jim Markos and Peter Renshaw are warning people not to exercise and stay inside, how come they only do this when they believe the fire is “deliberately lit” by some unknown person and not when the fires are “deliberately lit” by Forestry Tas or Gunns? Come on guys, time to stop being hypocritical and speak out regarding the high levels of woodsmoke the people of Tasmania are exposed to each autumn!

THE yorktown fire was no accident,more a deliberate and controlled burn to clear the land for plantations for gunns,it wont be put out until the required acreage is met.if you happen to lose your property or your life shit happens.

Are you people serious? When do the conspiracy theories end and commonsense prevail?

The fire is believed to have been deliberately lit. That has been widely reported. Since it has been reported as suspicious, police and the TFS will be investigating.

Now some on here want us to believe Forestry Tasmania would deliberately light a fire, reporting it as deliberately lit by persons unknown, and then coordinate firefighting efforts in such a way as to ensure it burns the `required acreage’. This supposedly being coordinated with Gunns and kept secret. Oh, and with no regard to life or private property.

What happens if the investigators point the finger at the responsible FT worker? He’s going to keep quiet and take the blame? Or roll over on the whole conspiracy? Oh, that’s right, sorry, Tasmania Police and the TFS are in on the conspiracy. And since I’m disputing it, then I must be too.

No doubt most would laugh off this nonsense as the rantings of deluded and extremist environmentalists.

But to accuse Forestry Tasmania workers of deliberately and callously lighting a blaze that could claim homes or, worse, lives is offensive.

Like much of the nonsense posted on this site, the claim also does not follow logically.

A fire does not change the status of a tract of land. If it is a reserve, never to be logged, then it won’t be logged. If it is a plantation, then someone just lost on their investment. There is no sense in FT deliberately lighting fires other than for controlled burn offs.

The impression I’ve been getting around Beacy is that it’s generally thought it was a Forestry burn-off that got away.  Why is it ok for Forestry to light fires when there’s a total fire ban?

Maddie it is OK for Forestry to light fires in the permit season because they can control them, cant they. Oops I guess not.
Now hundreds of TFS personnel, nearly all volunteers, are putting in their time and energy and risking their health to control this fire. If Forestry was so intent on getting this fire out then why did they have hardly anyone attending the blaze over the first couple of nights. I guess they would have to pay penalty rates. As with a fire on the East Tamar a few years ago, paid personnel are sent home in the evening and the hapless volunteers are left to do the night shift as it wont cost Forestry or TFS anything.

re 8: Privatise the gains, but lump the costs onto society. I have been told by those with direct experience that plantation company fire resources are woefully inadequate to deal with the potential exposure, and they effectively expect the TFS (read volunteers) to pull them out of the shit. As a volunteer who has issues with the morality of the MIS schemes this sticks in my craw somewhat. When I see fire breaks unslashed and full of 3 inch thick dogwoods I wonder as to the description of criminal negligence. I wonder what the morons who approved this madness in the first place were schooled in, because it most certainly was not common sense.
Re 5 and 6
Red Bob is right, crud is wrong. however it does not invalidate what I say above. A risk has been created, mismanaged, and those who stand to gain no benefit are being expected to wear the costs. Again.

Re #7
NO-ONE should be exempt from total fire ban days.