Man Fined $50,000 for Saving House

[Toro]

They were labelled law breakers, fined $50,000 and left emotionally and financially drained.

But seven years after the Sheahans bulldozed trees to make a fire break — an act that got them dragged before a magistrate and penalised — they feel vindicated. Their house is one of the few in Reedy Creek, Victoria, still standing.

The Sheahans' 2004 court battle with the Mitchell Shire Council for illegally clearing trees to guard against fire, as well as their decision to stay at home and battle the weekend blaze, encapsulate two of the biggest issues arising from the bushfire tragedy.

Do Victoria's native vegetation management policies need a major overhaul? And should families risk injury or death by staying home to fight the fire rather than fleeing?

Anger at government policies stopping residents from cutting down trees and clearing scrub to protect their properties is already apparent. "We've lost two people in my family because you dickheads won't cut trees down," Warwick Spooner told Nillumbik Mayor Bo Bendtsen at a meeting on Tuesday night.

Although Liam Sheahan's 2002 decision to disregard planning laws and bulldoze 250 trees on his hilltop property hurt his family financially and emotionally, he believes it helped save them and their home on the weekend.

"The house is safe because we did all that," he said as he pointed out his kitchen window to the clear ground where tall gum trees once cast a shadow on his house.

"We have got proof right here. We are the only house standing in a two-kilometre area."

Fined for illegal clearing, family now feel vindicated | smh.com.au

 

[Old Rocks]

If one wishes to save the trees, then zone that area forest, and do not allow people to live there. If people are allowed to live in an area like that, it only makes sense to have a reasonable firebreak arround the house.

Near Bend, Oregon, they were having some fires, by no means as intense as the ones in Austalia, and some houses were endangered. The firefighters would not attempt to save the houses where the trees were right up against the house. It endangered them and their equipment too much. Time for a reality check, people. If you wish to live in the middle of a forest in an area prone to fires, be prepared to lose your home.

 

[driveby]

If one wishes to save the trees, then zone that area forest, and do not allow people to live there. If people are allowed to live in an area like that, it only makes sense to have a reasonable firebreak arround the house.

Near Bend, Oregon, they were having some fires, by no means as intense as the ones in Austalia, and some houses were endangered. The firefighters would not attempt to save the houses where the trees were right up against the house. It endangered them and their equipment too much. Time for a reality check, people. If you wish to live in the middle of a forest in an area prone to fires, be prepared to lose your home.

Didn't you mean to say "it's Bush's fault" ? ......

 

[del]

If one wishes to save the trees, then zone that area forest, and do not allow people to live there. If people are allowed to live in an area like that, it only makes sense to have a reasonable firebreak arround the house.

Near Bend, Oregon, they were having some fires, by no means as intense as the ones in Austalia, and some houses were endangered. The firefighters would not attempt to save the houses where the trees were right up against the house. It endangered them and their equipment too much. Time for a reality check, people. If you wish to live in the middle of a forest in an area prone to fires, be prepared to lose your home.

that high pitched whistling sound was the point sailing over your head...

 

[dilloduck]

If one wishes to save the trees, then zone that area forest, and do not allow people to live there. If people are allowed to live in an area like that, it only makes sense to have a reasonable firebreak arround the house.

Near Bend, Oregon, they were having some fires, by no means as intense as the ones in Austalia, and some houses were endangered. The firefighters would not attempt to save the houses where the trees were right up against the house. It endangered them and their equipment too much. Time for a reality check, people. If you wish to live in the middle of a forest in an area prone to fires, be prepared to lose your home.

that high pitched whistling sound was the point sailing over your head...

In all fairness he DOES have to keep one eye on the melting glaciers at all times too.

 

[del]

If one wishes to save the trees, then zone that area forest, and do not allow people to live there. If people are allowed to live in an area like that, it only makes sense to have a reasonable firebreak arround the house.

Near Bend, Oregon, they were having some fires, by no means as intense as the ones in Austalia, and some houses were endangered. The firefighters would not attempt to save the houses where the trees were right up against the house. It endangered them and their equipment too much. Time for a reality check, people. If you wish to live in the middle of a forest in an area prone to fires, be prepared to lose your home.

that high pitched whistling sound was the point sailing over your head...

In all fairness he DOES have to keep one eye on the melting glaciers at all times too.

silly me-i take it all back.

 

[Swoop187]

I love nature but you know the worlds messed up when trees are more valuable then people and their property.

I think this earth movement thing has gone way too far. Sadly and obviously the renewable trees have been sided with by illogical whack jobs.

 

[Old Rocks]

The point is that if you wish to save the forest, you don't allow people to live in the forest. If you wish to have a community, then you do the things appropriate to the survival of the community. That means cutting a reasonable firebreak for the protection of homes. Of course, if the case is that you don't own the land that the forest is on, then that also presents a problem.

 

[KittenKoder]

The point is that if you wish to save the forest, you don't allow people to live in the forest. If you wish to have a community, then you do the things appropriate to the survival of the community. That means cutting a reasonable firebreak for the protection of homes. Of course, if the case is that you don't own the land that the forest is on, then that also presents a problem.

Um ... duh?

 

[alan1]

They were labelled law breakers, fined $50,000 and left emotionally and financially drained.

But seven years after the Sheahans bulldozed trees to make a fire break — an act that got them dragged before a magistrate and penalised — they feel vindicated. Their house is one of the few in Reedy Creek, Victoria, still standing.

The Sheahans' 2004 court battle with the Mitchell Shire Council for illegally clearing trees to guard against fire, as well as their decision to stay at home and battle the weekend blaze, encapsulate two of the biggest issues arising from the bushfire tragedy.

Do Victoria's native vegetation management policies need a major overhaul? And should families risk injury or death by staying home to fight the fire rather than fleeing?

Anger at government policies stopping residents from cutting down trees and clearing scrub to protect their properties is already apparent. "We've lost two people in my family because you dickheads won't cut trees down," Warwick Spooner told Nillumbik Mayor Bo Bendtsen at a meeting on Tuesday night.

Although Liam Sheahan's 2002 decision to disregard planning laws and bulldoze 250 trees on his hilltop property hurt his family financially and emotionally, he believes it helped save them and their home on the weekend.

"The house is safe because we did all that," he said as he pointed out his kitchen window to the clear ground where tall gum trees once cast a shadow on his house.

"We have got proof right here. We are the only house standing in a two-kilometre area."

Fined for illegal clearing, family now feel vindicated | smh.com.au

One can look at the result of the SoCal wildfires to see the result of environmentalists restricting personal property rights.

 

[KittenKoder]

They were labelled law breakers, fined $50,000 and left emotionally and financially drained.

But seven years after the Sheahans bulldozed trees to make a fire break — an act that got them dragged before a magistrate and penalised — they feel vindicated. Their house is one of the few in Reedy Creek, Victoria, still standing.

The Sheahans' 2004 court battle with the Mitchell Shire Council for illegally clearing trees to guard against fire, as well as their decision to stay at home and battle the weekend blaze, encapsulate two of the biggest issues arising from the bushfire tragedy.

Do Victoria's native vegetation management policies need a major overhaul? And should families risk injury or death by staying home to fight the fire rather than fleeing?

Anger at government policies stopping residents from cutting down trees and clearing scrub to protect their properties is already apparent. "We've lost two people in my family because you dickheads won't cut trees down," Warwick Spooner told Nillumbik Mayor Bo Bendtsen at a meeting on Tuesday night.

Although Liam Sheahan's 2002 decision to disregard planning laws and bulldoze 250 trees on his hilltop property hurt his family financially and emotionally, he believes it helped save them and their home on the weekend.

"The house is safe because we did all that," he said as he pointed out his kitchen window to the clear ground where tall gum trees once cast a shadow on his house.

"We have got proof right here. We are the only house standing in a two-kilometre area."

Fined for illegal clearing, family now feel vindicated | smh.com.au

One can look at the result of the SoCal wildfires to see the result of environmentalists restricting personal property rights.

Actually, the Cali fires are much more complicated than that, but you are right, a lot was because of the environazis.

 

[alan1]

Fined for illegal clearing, family now feel vindicated | smh.com.au

One can look at the result of the SoCal wildfires to see the result of environmentalists restricting personal property rights.

Actually, the Cali fires are much more complicated than that, but you are right, a lot was because of the environazis.

I know there is more to it than my 20 words above,
but you are right that I am right.