Should farmers be paid for the water that is taken from their dams by helicopters that are fighting the bush fires? I heard a story about a farmer that would need to shoot stock after the dams on his farm got emptied by the fire fighting effort. It's not really any different than if the government emptied my bank account to pay for operating the helicopter for the day.
Would the government then be entitled to charge the property owner for JetA1 for the aircraft if the water was used to protect the property that the dam was on? You have opened a can of worms Harrow 
Don't quote me but over here I think the legislation that gives firefighters the authority to take water from anywhere also has provision for it to be replaced if necessary.
Perhaps some of the animal rights activists could get out there once more and help animals in distress from the bushfires. They could even document their actions with cameras.
Select to expand quoteMobydisc said..
Perhaps some of the animal rights activists could get out there once more and help animals in distress from the bushfires. They could even document their actions with cameras.
You are ignoring the fact that there are many people doing just that. But just keep on spreading hate
Select to expand quoteChris249 said..Mobydisc said..
Perhaps some of the animal rights activists could get out there once more and help animals in distress from the bushfires. They could even document their actions with cameras.
You are ignoring the fact that there are many people doing just that. But just keep on spreading hate
Yes many people are helping animals, both domestic and wild. They are mainly local people. Are the activists who trespassed onto private property and took video footage of animals in distress out there right now helping animals affected by bushfires? How is asking a question spreading hate?
Examination of the Animals Australia website shows no evidence this organisation is doing anything about animals in distress from the bushfires.
www.animalsaustralia.org/
It's spreading hate bEcause it is implicit in your claim that there must not be any animals rights activists out there, and therefore they are all hypocrites who are ignoring the plight of native animals injured in the fires.
Select to expand quoteChris249 said..
It's spreading hate bEcause it is implicit in your claim that there must not be any animals rights activists out there, and therefore they are all hypocrites who are ignoring the plight of native animals injured in the fires.
Are animal activists out there assisting animals in distress from the fires? It's a question that should be answered instead of having a go at me.
According to their organisations they are not, or at least they don't publicise it. It's not just native animals suffering either.
The hypocrites are the greenies who protest back burning, because they claim it destroys animal habitat.
Well, success greenies, the habitat is gone PLUS the animals have all been incinerated. congrats to the green scurge.
Select to expand quoteChris6791 said..
Don't quote me but over here I think the legislation that gives firefighters the authority to take water from anywhere also has provision for it to be replaced if necessary.
In our patch, it was taken for granted that all tanks and pools that we took water from were refilled,
We usually went a bit further - helping with flushing out the tanks of sediment, algae, dead possums etc before re-filling every tank to the brim with that nasty chlorinated and fluoridated and oh-so toxic treated town supply water.
Select to expand quoteHarrow said..
Should farmers be paid for the water that is taken from their dams by helicopters that are fighting the bush fires? I heard a story about a farmer that would need to shoot stock after the dams on his farm got emptied by the fire fighting effort. It's not really any different than if the government emptied my bank account to pay for operating the helicopter for the day.
The water is normally replaced at RFS expense by the Lands Dept etc, using water from another region.
If people are giving their time to fight fires, giving water doesn't always seem unreasonable. My property is an RFS SFS watering point for small trucks and choppers and it would seem to be pretty harsh to let your neighbor's property burn rather than let your water be used to save it.
Select to expand quoteboofta said..
The hypocrites are the greenies who protest back burning, because they claim it destroys animal habitat.
Well, success greenies, the habitat is gone PLUS the animals have all been incinerated. congrats to the green scurge.
Which ones? The Greens policies are simple - they do NOT protest back
burning or hazArd reduction. Don't claim that the Greens Party is against such measures because that is a lie.
The other thing you neglect is that the greens are not in government, so they have no power to stop hazArd reduction burns even if they wanted to. And if you don't know the difference between a back burn and a hazArd reduction burn you may not exactly be an expert on the issue.
By the way, one of the fires threatening my place is in an area that suffered a crowning (ie severe) fire 12 months ago. That was far more effective at reducing fuel load than a hazard reduction burn and yet because of the drought, the area is burning yet Again within a year. The centre of the fire burned in 2013 - and bEcause of the bush type and topography it is not an area you can do a hazArd reduction burn in. The practical hazard reduction burns would do nothing to stop these fires.
Select to expand quoteMobydisc said..Chris249 said..
It's spreading hate bEcause it is implicit in your claim that there must not be any animals rights activists out there, and therefore they are all hypocrites who are ignoring the plight of native animals injured in the fires.
Are animal activists out there assisting animals in distress from the fires? It's a question that should be answered instead of having a go at me.
According to their organisations they are not, or at least they don't publicise it. It's not just native animals suffering either.
If you have a go at other people, why can't people have a go at you? You criticised other people so surely you can't say you cannot be criticised yourself?
You are saying that people who don't want animals to suffer unnecessarily should be out there helping them.
But by the same token, people like you who presumably don't want humans to suffer should be out there now, holding a hose or handing out blankets in an evacuation centre.
There are activists for pensioners, activists for indigenous people, activists for sports groups, activists for the disabled, and activists for many other causes and people who are suffering from the fires. Why demand special action from just one activist group, and why assume that the people from WIRES, Koala Rescue and other groups who are out there are not also "animal activists"?
