Thoughts for those in bush fire regions

[mbselections00]

Hi all,

With bush fires raging in 3 States - lives and homes at risk, just wanted to share - thoughts are with those who may be effected and so hope it is does not effect anyone here

A sad start to the New Year for many . . . . . . . .

[the_hawk*]

Let it go Chuk clearly some have different infomation and know more than the locals.

[j*oono]

---

@bushies.girl wrote:
The animals were left, they drove of and left them there, didnt take one of them with them. They were offered help to get the animals out, this help was refused, they also had 12 hours notice to get these animals out.

---

Where is the thumbs down.

That's crazy and you should feel ashamed.

[iapetus_rocks]

Often people do have adequate warnings (I mean, they live in a high risk area and they know the risks)  . . . no, they often choose to hope instead. They hope the fire either won't happen or will by-pass their hopelessly inadequate wooden framed, brick veneered buildings.

And anyway . . . they're insured, aren't they?

[imastawka]

---

@bushies.girl wrote:
The animals were left, they drove of and left them there, didnt take one of them with them. They were offered help to get the animals out, this help was refused, they also had 12 hours notice to get these animals out.

---

  Link please,   or you're pulling 'facts' out of the air

[twinkles**stars]

Comments left on their page are disgusting and of no help to anyone. 

[aps1080]

---

@iapetus_rocks wrote:

I wish I had saved (archived) my previous posts on this subject re people who choose to live in bushfire-prone areas.

Maybe i'll save this one and trot it out again the next time.

People who choose to live in bushfire-prone areas, in non-fire-proof houses are absolutely bat-bleep crazy and deserve little or no sympathy. They know the risks they take and they know the risks they place their families and their animals in.

It happens every few years or so. Every few years. it's not an anomaly; it's not unusual; it is exactly the opposite; it is usual and in time, almost inevitable.

I have sympathy for the animals left so neglectfully to die in agony.

I have no sympathy for selfish, callous fools.

Because of people who choose to live in such risky areas, the fire insurance rates for the rest of us rise and continue to rise to subsidise their selfish thoughtlessness.

It's not as if many of them even work to cut back the trees and bush around their houses.

Just look at the tv news where some sobbing wally is standing outside their burnt out house. And then look at the background. look at the trees or remains of such, standing so close to the building.

And people have the nerve to act surprised and even shocked when the inevitable bushfire engulfs them.

They take a calculated risk. In cold blood. They do the maths and they take out insurance and they build wooden-framed inflammable houses in high-risk areas.

And then they want my sympathy?

---

I tend to agree and watching the news the other night of a house that was saved, literally at the door, you could

see that the owner had done as much as they could - no trees up close, really close cut grass or paddocks around.

He was probably a bit lucky as well.

It reminds me of a farmer just out of Melbourne who survived the Black Saturday fires. The fire came over the ridge at high speed and 100 feet high and stopped dead because for about 500 - 800 mtrs in front (and all around) his house was a purposefully vacant, devoid of fuel paddock.

Sad about the Kennels and animals.

[azureline**]

Armchair heroes. 😞

[bright.ton42]

---

@imastawka wrote:

---

@bushies.girl wrote:
The animals were left, they drove of and left them there, didnt take one of them with them. They were offered help to get the animals out, this help was refused, they also had 12 hours notice to get these animals out.

---

  Link please,   or you're pulling 'facts' out of the air

---

I'd really like to see where you got that info bushies, I'm not criticising,  just trying to get to the truth of it as what i heard

was totally different.  It just doesn't make sense to me that if they had 12 hours notice they coulldn't get the animals out. Apart from being humane this was their paying business,   people had paid them big money to look after their pets over the holidsays, so it was totally in their interests to get them out safely. 

[punch*drunk]

I dont know the details but I imagine it would be pretty hard to relocate that many animals on short notice...and where to? If 40 dogs were saved and and yet still many died and also all the cats, we're talking about a massive amount of animals. You'd need a cage for each one and a pretty big truck.

I'd try and rescue my neighbours dogs if I had to leave in a hurry, but if I couldnt get them in the car or keep them in the car safely with my own dog, I would have to leave them.

Just in the few houses around me there are probably 100 birds (chooks and geese) 4 dogs, a couple of cats and 2 alpacas, there are also sometimes a couple of cows. You simply cant take them all on every extreme day and you certainly wouldnt be able to round them up and fit them all in a car in an emergency.

[aps1080]

"You'd need a cage for each one and a pretty big truck."

Bugger the cages.

I'd just throw them in and let them sort it out, IF I had a vehicle that could take them.

Maybe leave behind those you know might be a problem ?

(Not being critical of the kennel owners, just stating what I might do although I acknowledge it would be very hard.

Was thinking of my kennel where I put my dog).