Mike Please re-read my original post. I asked a question which …

Comment on Spot a tree? Chop it down! by Hal Duell.

Mike
Please re-read my original post. I asked a question which you have answered in the negative. OK. I accept your denial. (That’s why I didn’t repeat the question in the second post.)
I then pointed out that fire-fighters have been seen to watch trees burn and not try to put them out. To consider they would do that within the municipality without instruction is, I think, an insult to their professionalism. So who told them not to?
To watch a fire burn would take someone with a level of authority to be found, by my reckoning, only in Council, the NT Police, the Fire Department or AAPA. Perhaps you would care to nominate one of the other three, or make a different suggestion altogether?
If you can establish that someone else prevented the fire-fighters from extinguishing a fire, then I will apologise for speculating that it was AAPA. I note that in our exchange so far you have not denied outright that AAPA was involved in the decisions to allow the trees to burn, but you do keep on about DISCLOSURE. I have nothing to disclose, but the repetition makes me wonder if confirmation is out there waiting for discovery.
I mean either someone told the firies to stand down or the individual fire-fighters took it on their own initiative to allow our magnificent River Gums to burn. I find that second notion hard to credit, but if it is the case, I suggest your argument is with the NT Fire Department.
As to where we go from here, will you now give AAPA approval for Council or some other authority to begin removing the carcasses now littering the Todd, both the standing dead and those already fallen?
ED – The Alice Springs News Online will now ask AAPA whether it has instructed to let the trees burn, and the fire service whether they had decided to let them burn, matters the two correspondents could easily have clarified themselves. We will of course publish the answers.

Hal Duell Also Commented

Spot a tree? Chop it down!
@1 A couple of points:
The trees in the river, whether sacred or secular, are destroyed by firebugs, not by those who attempt to put the fires out.
Does AAPA have no objections to the removal of the carcasses currently littering the Todd’s riverbed? That would be such a welcome statement as they are an eyesore, a fire hazard and a impediment to the timely flow of floodwater through town. As a member of AAPA, is Mike Gillam willing to make that statement?
The Todd looks like a war zone. A cleanup and some replanting would do it and Alice the world of good.
The insinuation that I harbor political ambitions is ill-informed.


Spot a tree? Chop it down!
Bob
About the trees left to burn in the Todd River: Is it that the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority is the source of the resistance to putting out these fires?
It is my understanding that not only are Council and the Fire Department prevented from extinguishing the fires once they start, but that if the tree burns through and falls over, no one is allowed to remove the dead wood either.
If this is the case, it would seem that AAPA considers it best practice for the carcasses to stay so they can either burn again in next year’s fires and/or provide an impediment to water getting away in a timely fashion when the river floods.
In addition to increasing the potential danger from future fires and floods, the visual impact can only be described as very, very ordinary.
Could this be a case of a government instrumentality created with the best of intentions – to protect areas of aboriginal significance – becoming crazed by a sense of its own importance and forgetting that the safety of the municipality and all its residents also deserve consideration? I mean, we are talking of a tree on fire in the first instance and dead wood in the second.


Recent Comments by Hal Duell

Confusion over gallery leadership: government’s fault
“I have no idea what the Member for Araluen is talking about …”
And that comment is true.


Gallery: Gunner sticks with ANZAC Oval
“Every consultation we have done shows the CBD location is the preferred location, and that’s the only location that offers a sense of place and has the space to be able to do it.”
That comment is simply not true.


No sign of council playing ball on Anzac Oval
This is beginning to feel like stalking. What part of “no” doesn’t this man understand?


Wakefield insists on Anzac Oval, ignores majority
Once again it seems to be a case of our way or the highway.
When this location debate first came up, I was of the opinion that the Desert Park was the right choice. But then the traditional owners spoke up at the council meeting debating to MOU or not to MOU, and the TOs seemed to be united in wanting any gallery to be south of The Gap.
So what’s the problem?
If revitalising the CBD is truly the aim, build flats there, and build a skate park at the river end of Parsons Street, and make the area vibrant again.


Wakefield insists on Anzac Oval, ignores majority
Any update from Alex Nelson on the heritage application for the Anzac site?


Be Sociable, Share!