This magnificent 80-page coffee table book was produced as a prelude to the 1956 Melbourne Olympic Games.
There were others in the series produced by the Australian Publicity Council.
The effusive preface was written by the Premier John Cain Snr.
This small selection of images reflects an unashamed sense of optimism and pride in country Victoria, particularly its forests and the timber industry.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/269527621
By the early 1980s, the Forests Commission employed some 300 foresters, plus a further 500 technical and administrative staff, and well over 1000 works and fire crew, spread across country Victoria in 48 districts and 7 divisional offices.
Most of them lived and worked in small country towns or larger regional cities. Head Office was small by comparison.
More importantly, there was a recognition by the Commission and the State Government of the significant social and economic contribution that departmental staff, and their families, made by simply living in the country and being part of the fabric of rural society.
Families sent their kids to local schools… shopped locally… drank at the local pub… bought coffee at the local café… picked up fish ‘n chips on the way home from work on Friday night… and just sorta fitted in…
Significantly, many of the big departmental purchases like fuel and hardware were also made locally too…
Along with other professionals such as schoolteachers, bank managers and the police, departmental staff often volunteered, or were coopted, for important community leadership roles in local sporting clubs, social and civic groups such as CFA brigades, or service organisations like Rotary or Lions.
As soon as a new forestry family arrived in a small town they were approached by the footy, netball or cricket club to be part of the local team.
And it wasn’t uncommon for the tanker, or tents and pumps from the fire store to be used at a local community event like a school fete, or the grader to quietly run a firebreak around the local footy ground or the golf course on the edge of town.
Some chopping blocks supplied to a country showground in time for the annual fair. Or maybe a load of dry firewood delivered by the crew to the old folk’s home in winter which was always welcomed with fresh scones and cups of tea.
There were unstated boundaries to this philanthropic largess, but the District Forester was a respected figure in the community and allowed some discretion.
When I was the Gippsland Regional Forests Manager, I instituted an annual “Give-Back-Day”. The staff and crew then chose and organised an activity in their local community as a gift. But importantly, there was no media and no fanfare.
Integrity is about doing the right thing, even when no one is watching – C.S. Lewis
The kindergarten at Erica received a lick-of-paint and their garden tidied up, while a cancer respite centre near Powelltown had some dangerous trees felled as chainsaw practice and a bit of earth works done with the D4 to create a walking path. Some simply went en masse to give blood at the Red Cross caravan.
The Nowa Nowa Nudes Festival was quietly sponsored, with a few raised eyebrows and muffled giggles, to support the local community arts project.
But best of all, the winning sculpture was selected by a panel including the local staff at a gala evening, complete with burley blokes in Blundstone boots wearing checked flanny shirts, ladies in colourful frocks, lots of noisy kids, and a “nosh-up” feast of party pies, canapés, chilled bubbles or a cold frothy beer. It was always a fun occasion…
The winning entry was then mounted by the local crew in a section of walking track on a bit of State forest near the river. But more importantly, everyone in the town enjoyed a stronger “Pride of Place”.
I have been fortunate enough to study community forestry in the UK, Canada, Sweden and Indonesia, and have seen the power of partnerships when forestry staff and their families are encouraged to do stuff together with the community.
| Building successful long-term partnerships in country towns was not a quick fix of engaging external PR consultants and media managers, or sausage sizzles, or public meetings with sticky labels on whiteboards, or pointless strategic workshops to talk endlessly about stuff… or even about handing out grant money to others for stuff… but it was about planning, sharing, taking risks and doing stuff together to create lasting and meaningful relationships… |
Taking a few risks and investing in local relationships takes time and energy but “paid-off-in-spades” when things got difficult or tough. People thought twice before writing a nasty letter to the Minister or contacting the local paper when they were cranky about something.
However, the progressive reduction in the numbers and seniority of forestry and parks staff living in small country towns over the last few decades, together with the progressive centralisation of services, resources, power and decision-making, has fuelled a stronger disconnect between the country and city. It has certainly not helped deal with the growing list of rural grievances.
In the years since the amalgamation of the Forests Commission and other agencies into the Department of Conservation Forests and Lands (CFL) in mid-1983 there has been eight more major departmental name changes including DCE, CNR, NRE, DPI, DSE, DEPI, DELWP and finally DEECA.
I can’t remember exactly how many other minor internal changes and convoluted job titles have been wrought but I seemed to have accumulated a large collection of name tags and business cards.
Furthermore, there has been 15 Government Ministers, 13 Secretaries and 9 Chief Fire Officers.
It was sometimes very difficult to remain buoyant while getting used to yet another tongue twister acronym.
Staff became the butt of so many tiresome jokes like CNR = Constant Name Review, DSE = Dept. of Sparks & Embers while NRE became No Rational Explanation.
But the family ancestry of the current organisations such as the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA), Forest Fire Management Victoria (FFMV), Parks Victoria, VicForests (until recently), Alpine Resorts, Catchment Management Authorities (CMA), Hancock Victorian Plantations (HVP), and even the Country Fire Authority (CFA) can all be traced back to an earlier era.
Importantly, there is a strong legacy of tradition, camaraderie and spirit of innovation which remains embedded in the DNA of these modern organisations today.
But for most older bushies, all the corporate branding was lost on them because as far as they were concerned, we still worked for “The Forestry”.
A new FCV pavilion was officially opened by Minister of Forests, Lindsay Thompson, on 20 September 1965 at the Royal Melbourne Show Grounds.
It replaced the original building, which was built in 1922, but was badly in need of expensive repairs.
Victorian timbers were on display along with free advice to visitors, architects and home builders.
Displays at the Show were a feature over the decades.
The Commission provided a wide array of display material and information. The mobile film unit screened programmes and loaned film to ABC Channel 2 for the production of a school’s programme about regeneration of the forest.
In my experience, there are three topics that are guaranteed to upset staff. 1. rearrangements to office accommodation, 2. allocation and use of vehicles, and 3. uniforms.
The matter of uniforms in the Forests Commission has a long and fraught history.
A motion was raised at the 1966 meeting of the Victorian State Foresters Association (VSFA), that a free uniform should be issued by the Commission for firefighting and other official duties, and also to give greater public recognition. It was noted that CFA staff wore a distinctive uniform.
But the matter of uniforms was divisive, and many staff rejected the idea altogether. I’m told one delegate stood up at the conference during the debate and burst out in frustration…
If I wanted to wear a uniform, I would have been a bloody bus driver.
Final voting at the meeting resulted with a small margin in favour. A sub-committee was duly formed to report at the next annual conference.
They examined uniforms in other forest jurisdictions around Australia, and also from Europe, the USA and Canada.
Their final recommendation was for a full-dress uniform of jacket, shirt, tie and trousers, with alternative shorts and long socks in summer. A field uniform was also suggested, but protective bib-and-brace as well as blue protective coveralls were already provided for the crew.
The matter was debated again at the 1967 conference. This was followed with a survey of all staff which was supportive of the proposal.
But it took until the 1968 VSFA Conference before the staff association formally approached the Commission.
Costs and setting precedents were obviously major considerations, but approval was subsequently given for a partial uniform for fire duties, consisting of a polyester shirt, departmental shoulder flashes (epaulets) and a tie. Reflecting the mood of some staff, wearing the uniform was not made compulsory.
The new uniforms became available from 1970, and most foresters and overseers adopted them. They continued throughout the 1970s and into the 1980s, with the Commission’s policy remaining substantially unchanged.
In 1972, a special uniform was issued, which included trousers, but only for rangers at recreational areas such as Sherbrooke Forest.
Repeated requests for trousers to be made available for all staff were unsuccessful, so many District Foresters often purchased their own dark green pants from the renowned clothing manufacturer and retailer, Fletcher Jones.
However, there were some complaints about the quality and fabric of the shirts, and the brand was changed to the equivalent of the dress shirt provided to airline pilots.
In 1978, the Association also became concerned about the flammability of the polyester uniform shirts, but it was not until 1984 that they were replaced with a cotton one.
The rancour associated with a uniform policy did not subside with the formation of Conservation, Forests and Lands (CFL) in 1983.
Fisheries and Parks staff had a strong culture of wearing uniforms, while ex-Lands Department… not so much.
If anything, uniforms became more fragmented as different variations were developed and adopted by staff.
The matter bubbled away for decades with work pants, jackets and polo shirts, falling in-and-out of favour.
The formation of Forests, Fire, Management Victoria (FFMVic) in 2014 was a strong catalyst for renewed standards of uniforms.
Source: Jack Gillespie & John Wright (1993). A Fraternity of Foresters. A history of the Victorian State Foresters Association.
David Parnaby graduated from the VSF in 1940 and was an accomplished cartoonist. He often provided humorous and insightful commentary in the Victorian State Foresters Association (VSFA) Newsletter. The lack of trousers in the FCV unform provided an ideal subject for his cartoons.
The State Forest Department (SFD) was established in 1907 following several scathing inquiries leading to a Royal Commission (1897-1901) into the destruction and waste of Victoria’s forests which followed the gold rush of the 1850s.
Foresters were a lonely voice advocating for conservation and the combined principles of sustainability, multiple use and economic development of the timber industry in rural Victoria.
The more independent Forests Commission Victoria (FCV) followed in 1918 and for the next 65 years remained a relatively stable and independent authority responsible for management and protection from bushfire of a vast forest estate.
The structure, policies and operations of the Forests Commission was initially based on European and British models of forest administration.
The major turning point for the Commission and for the staff was the catastrophic 1939 bushfires and the subsequent Stretton Inquiry. Later in 1950, the Chairman of the Forests Commission, Alf Lawrence, wrote of the staff…
“they were totally dispirited… their work of years lay in ashes… all the protection, planning and works had proved futile”…
The Commission then faced the huge challenge of rebuilding a highly organised and motivated fire fighting force in the busy post-war reconstruction period.
Describing the structure and function of an organisation is relatively easy, but defining its culture is more challenging. And what is organisational culture anyway? Another meaningless corporate buzzword perhaps? I think of culture as:
the shared values, beliefs and behaviours that characterise the staff. It’s best seen in how they support and work with each other, how they deal with highs and lows, and how they interact with external groups and communities.
Culture is sometimes described as the “personality” of an organisation, or “just the way we do things around here”. Perhaps the FCV’s culture could best be described as:
A big extended family with friends, foes, factions and frustrations, but always with a strong sense of purpose and belonging.
The Forests Commission relinquished its discrete identity from mid-1983 when it merged into the newly formed Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands (CFL), along with the Crown Lands and Survey Department, National Park Service, Soil Conservation Authority and Fisheries and Wildlife.
At the time of the merger, the Commission employed some 300 foresters, plus a further 500 overseers and administrative staff and well over 1000 works and fire crew. People were spread across country Victoria in 48 districts and 7 divisional offices. Most of them lived and worked in small country towns or larger regional cities.
The culture of the FCV was shaped over many years, by many people, and by many things, including:
But the changes brought about by the new Cain Labor government in April 1982 were swift and profound. It seemed the accumulated culture of the Forests Commission staff was not particularly valued, and in fact, was seen by some as a hindrance.
Many senior staff felt threatened or disheartened by the new CFL arrangements. Some chose to leave voluntary, while others were “encouraged” to consider their options. In the damaging restructure process, there was a large loss of corporate knowledge and memory.
Many older staff that remained were “gun-shy” and unwilling to commit to CFL in the way they might have to the FCV. It was the same in other statutory organisations such as the powerful MMBW.
The era of the “specialist” was replaced by one favouring the “generalist”.
The culture of the new Department of Conservation Forests and Lands (CFL) presented unique challenges, and some foresters and technical staff from the FCV struggled to make the transition from a powerful, highly regularised and homogenous culture to the new blended organisation.
However, some staff saw CFL as a career opportunity to diversify and were ultimately appointed to many of the senior policy, conservation, operational and regional manager roles in the newly emerging organisation.
It would be very easy to reflect nostalgically, but I have never considered the FCV as the good-old-days, but rather, they were just the old days. Some things are better, while others are not.
So how do you measure success of staff culture? Well, here are a couple for the FCV…
Despite all the changes, there remains a strong sense of pride among staff in Victoria’s rich forest and bushfire heritage.
[1]It’s said the term “Jew’s Bible” originated in the 1930s during the Great depression when banks were loath to lend money. Appearing in the Public Service List demonstrated continuity of employment which the Jewish Community used as a basis of lending.
A simple working plan for the Grampians State Forest had been produced in 1939, but a new blueprint was prepared by Commission in 1974 which reaffirmed its core principles of balance and multiple use.
The document was an innovative attempt at the time to set out a vision for the 210,000 ha Grampians State forests
The plan follows a now very familiar format.
Firstly, the Grampians Forest Management Plan described in varying detail, the European and indigenous history, vegetation, climate, landforms, geology, forest types and land tenure.
It also described some of the uses of the forests such as recreation, bushwalking, camping, timber production and the need for fire protection works such as roads, lookouts and fuel reduction burning.
The plan set some noble goals including:
While the plan doesn’t identify, discuss, nor highlight conflicting objectives or uses, it sets out some management zones.
The FCV’s plan was presented at a forum on 27 September 1975 at the Burnley Horticultural College which was chaired by Professor John Turner from the University of Melbourne. This was followed by a public meeting at Stawell with a field trip to the Grampians on the following weekend.
The proceedings were jointly hosted by the Forests Commission and the Natural Resources and Conservation League (NRCL).
The Chairman, Dr Frank Moulds, gave the keynote address and the State Premier, Rupert Hamer, also attended. Other agencies presented but It’s hard to know what other public consultation, if any, occurred during the management plans’ development, and to what to degree there was consensus about the objectives or mixed balance of uses.
The Plan was probably prepared to inform, and possibly forestall, the Land Conservation Council (LCC) studies of the southwest area and potential changes in land tenure.
The LCC investigations began in February 1976, and the descriptive report was published on 9 May 1979. The proposed recommendations were published in September 1981 and reflected the FCV multiple use submission outlined in 1974.
However, the final LCC recommendations in May 1982, only weeks after the State election, proposed a large National Park for the Grampians with only a small area as State forest to be managed under a multiple use policy.
In November 1984, soon after the election of the new Cain Labor Government, and the formation of CFL, the current Grampians National Park was declared.
The Grampians was the first of many decisions, including the Alpine National Park in 1989 which is Victoria’s biggest, that represented a seismic political shift in land use decision making and priorities.
Sir William Schlich, the famous Professor of Forestry at Oxford University, advocated the idea of multiple use in his classic five-volume, Manuals of Forestry, which were originally published between 1889 and 1896.
“Multiple Use” of forests remained a popular term and seemingly simple enough concept. But like many popular terms, it remained ambiguous.
People often argued about the merits of multiple use forestry, and each employed their own definitions and personal values to identify points of balance.
Even the term “conservation” had different meanings. For some it meant wise use of resources while for others it meant total preservation and exclusion of all human activity.
Some critics argued that multiple use was more a slogan, or buzzword, rather than a blueprint for actual forest management.
Nevertheless, despite the vagueness and imprecision, the Forests Commission and other forest jurisdictions around the globe believed there was real substance to the idea.
As with many other basic and apparently simple ideas, the application of multiple use in practice, and translation into actual on-the-ground management, was more problematic.
From the outset, it was obvious that some management activities in forests were incompatible with others. For instance, the harvesting of timber, burning the bush to reduce fuel hazards, building a road, or removing dangerous trees overhanging a picnic ground, cannot be done without some degree of disturbance to natural values.
Managing the forests for maximum protection, while also maximising the yield of all products, for all values, for all people, from every hectare of bush, whuile all at the same time, is physically and biologically impossible, without compromising the long-term stability of the forest.
It is also important to understand that forest uses can vary from place-to-place and from time-to-time as community needs and expectations evolve.
Multiple use, in practice, involves setting priorities for conflicting and compatible uses for different parcels of forest at different times. This is generally achieved through zoning.
Consultation and compromise were sought, but consensus proved elusive.
In 1960, America legislated the “Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act”. This created the momentum for multiple use planning and the US Forest Service began hiring many new non-forestry specialists, such as soil scientists, hydrologists and wildlife biologists to assist with forest planning on the ground.
The subsequent multiple use plans still required considerable on-ground coordination where specific uses such as timber harvesting, recreation, wildlife protection, mining and grazing was to occur and how conflicts were to be resolved.
Interestingly, the specialists hired to ensure compliance with environmental laws also generated some internal dissent within the ranks which helped shift the culture and values of the agency and eventually had a profound impact on the Forest Service itself.
By the 1970s, US Forest Service Chief, John McGuire, remarked-
that the management of millions of acres of federal lands for multiple objectives in a modern, pluralistic democracy was a “grand experiment” and that “the jury is still out” with regard to the success or failure of the experiment.
Like the Americans, the Victorian Forests Commission aimed to achieve “the greatest good” without being precise about what that meant.
In the forward to its 1969-70 Annual Report, the Forests Commission reaffirmed its long-held philosophy of balance and multiple use for Victoria’s State forests. This clear statement of intent was published about the time of the Little Desert controversy and the subsequent establishment of the Land Conservation Council (LCC) by the State Government to achieve balanced land use of the public estate.
The Commission’s focus, under the new chairmanship of Dr Frank Moulds, steadily broadened to include non-timber resources, uses and values such forest recreation, farm forestry, education, research, as well as the protection of historic places, conservation of biodiversity, soils, water and landscape.
The doctrine of multiple use was repeatedly reiterated and reaffirmed by senior members of the Commission at staff forums, seminars, in books and brochures, and at external conferences, over the next decade and was adopted as a core principle of the organisation.
But it was sometimes unfairly alleged that the Commission’s senior leaders struggled to adapt nimbly enough to the changing political and community attitudes and stuck too doggedly to the doctrine of multiple use of forests as the solution.
The exemplary communicator, and one of the founding fathers of the Forests Commission’s FEAR Branch, Tom Crosbie Morrison, had gentle and uncommon knack of communicating complex concepts in ways people could easily understand. He often spoke passionately of multiple use forestry as the balance of the four Ws – Wood, Water, Wildlife and Wrecreation.
Extract from FCV Annual Report 1969-70.
Sir William Schlich, a famous Professor of Forestry at Oxford University, stated nearly 50 years ago in his Manual of Forestry that the objectives of management of all forests can be brought under one of the two following headings :-
(1) The realisation of indirect effects such as landscape beauty, preservation or amelioration of the climate, regulation of moisture, prevention of erosion, landslips and avalanches, preservation of game and hygienic effects.
(2) The management of forests on economic principles such as the production of a definite class of produce, or the greatest possible quantity of it, or the best financial results.
Schlich wrote that it is “the duty of the forester to see that these objects are realised to the fullest extent and in the most economic manner” and “in the majority of cases they (indirect benefits) can be produced in combination with economic working”.
Schlich’s concept of management, now described by foresters as ” multiple use management “, does not necessarily mean that every forest must be managed to achieve several objectives to an equal extent at all times. It simply means that notwithstanding an acknowledged primary aim of management it is the duty of the forester to realise any other benefits obtainable without prejudice to the main objective.
This is wise use of natural resources-one of the definitions of conservation, almost a household word these days. The use, with assured continuity, of a natural resource is well described by another expression which originated in forestry – “sustained yield “.
The more traditional objectives of forest management such as meeting the public demand for timber and other forest products, preservation of satisfactory water catchment conditions and erosion control are now being rivalled by sharply increasing requirements of the general public for outdoor recreation, preservation of habitats for fauna, unique biological ecotypes, and a variety of historical and scenic attractions. Forest recreation itself can be active such as hiking, skiing, camping and touring or the simple enjoyment of the beauty of landscape and forest in healthful environment.
Evidence of the increasing attention being given to this type of forest use are the 89 forest parks, including four new parks this year, alpine reserves and scenic reserves totalling 63,716 acres of reserved forests where recreational and similar uses have been made the primary aim of management. These are shown on a map included as an appendix to this report.
Achieving the ultimate in forest management is a complex matter, particularly in Victoria with a climate conducive to the spread of fire and unique vegetation susceptible to introduced insect and fungal attack. The pages that follow in this report give some indication of the organization established to care for and manage State forests and, to single out a particularly important aspect, the training of the field foresters and the specialists in such fields as ecology, environmental studies, biometrics, pathology, entomology and hydrology.
Multi-purpose management is being applied by the Commission in reserved forests which occupy 10 per cent. of the land area of Victoria-a proportion which will substantially increase if the Commission’s proposals for the dedication as reserved forest of portions of the uncommitted Crown lands are accepted. The unoccupied Crown lands mentioned comprise 15 per cent. of the State and are subject to the Commission’s management only in respect of the forests contained thereon and only until the ultimate status of the land is determined.
The suggestion has been made from time to time that 5 per cent. of the State should be set aside as National Parks and other similar reserves. It is perhaps timely to draw attention to the fact that the reserved forests, at this point in time comprising 10 per cent. of the State, are subject to multiple use management which embraces recreation and conservation.
Brian Doolan (2018). Institutional Continuity and Change in Victoria’s Forests and Parks 1900 – 2010. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FLUEq_sQjfnU5KZp99qwLNu3-Eap_tT5/view
Moulds, F.R. (1991). The Dynamic Forest – A History of Forestry and Forest Industries in Victoria.
Doug MacCleery (2008). Reinventing the United States Forest Service: evolution from custodial management to production forestry, to ecosystem management.
The Mount Dandenong Observatory Reserve, and the nearby TV Towers, are important landmarks for metropolitan Melbourne.
The summit of Mount Corhanwarrabul at 2077 feet is the highest peak in the Dandenong Ranges and has attracted tourists for over a century who are drawn by the superb views of the city.
In the 1860s, the summit was marked with a survey trig point for the Victorian Geodetic Survey.
The main road was constructed in 1935 for motor traffic which made the summit accessible for visitors. Early facilities included a large carpark and a “camera obscura”, which was removed in the late 1960s. A timber tea-room and cafe was later built.
A new observatory with the popular Sky-High restaurant was designed by prominent Melbourne architect, James Dale Fisher, and was completed in 1971. The site was managed under a licence arrangement with the Forests Commission.
The gardens were maintained by local FCV crews along with the Nicholas Gardens, William Rickets Reserve, and both the Olinda and Mt Dandenong Arboretums.
The nearby Mount Dandenong Arboretum was set aside in 1928 to establish an arboretum of national significance featuring conifers and deciduous trees. The collection includes spectacular trees from around the world including eight that are listed in the National Trust’s significant tree register.
But in the 1990s, the Sky-High restaurant fell into disrepair and the building began to look aged and dilapidated. This culminated with the site being shut down completely in 1997. Antisocial behaviour in the evenings also led to the closure of the carpark, much to the disappointment of countless canoodling couples.
But in 2004, a new lease was negotiated with Parks Victoria which saw the restaurant and surrounding gardens given a $3.5 million facelift.
Alan graduated from Creswick at the end of 1941 and spent time in a FCV construction camp at Taggerty building roads and driving trucks for the massive fire salvage program underway at that time.
Following a well-worn path of many field foresters before him, Alan then moved in March 1945 to Neerim South; in January 1949 to Cohuna; and in 1951 to Barmah.
In August 1951, Alan was promoted as the District Forester at Broadford, followed by Erica October 1953, and Ballarat from June 1958.
In June 1959, Alan moved to Melbourne as the Sales & Marketing Officer and in July 1966 was promoted to the Chief, Division of Economics & Marketing.
In July 1969, Alan was appointed as one of the three FCV Commissioners after the retirement of Alf Lawrence. He was then elevated to the role as Chairman when Dr Frank Moulds retired in May 1978.
During this period, Alan steered the merger of the Victorian School of Forestry and the University of Melbourne.
He also had a strong personal focus on OH&S and was responsible for the introduction of the now familiar green bushfire safety overalls.
It’s often said that Alan Threader was a solid and reserved organiser who took great pride in the Commission’s achievements but avoided the public spotlight.
Alan served as Chairman for 5 years until just after the 1983 Ash Wednesday bushfires and the CFL restructure began. He retired in 1983 to care for his wife.
Victoria’s wet mountain forests are the native habitat of the destructive spur legged phasmid, or stick insect, Didymuria violescens which can cause severe defoliation over large areas and often results in premature tree death.
From the late 1950s the Forests Commission had become concerned about a build-up of large populations of the stick insect.
The major infestations first appeared in summer 1960-61 and were most severe in the Upper Yarra Forest District near Powelltown, though stands in the Neerim, Erica, Marysville and Broadford districts were also infested. The potential loss of wood production because of premature tree death was significant.
The Forests Commission commenced aerial spraying with maldison in the Tarago and Tin Creek areas, south of Powelltown, in the summer of 1964-65.
The chemical had been successfully field-tested by the New South Wales Forestry Commission. Considerable research into the effect of spraying maldison on non-target insects showed that the overall impact was minor.
Spraying was undertaken between January and early February when the less destructive immature stages of the insect were present in the tree crowns.
Between 1968 and 1973, a major study of the biology of the native insect was carried out in even-aged stands of 1939 Eucalyptus regnans in the Central Highlands.
Survey results indicated that although aerial spraying prevented significant defoliation and crown dieback and tree death, the plague potential of subsequent generations had not been reduced. It was found that many stands required respraying in alternate years, and about twice the area of forest needed protection within four years of commencement of spraying.
Between 1964 and 1983, over 21,000 ha of high-quality ash forests in the Central Highlands and northeast Victoria in the Kiewa Valley was successfully treated by aerial spraying with maldison.
Ref: Fred Neumann, John Harris, Conrad Wood (1977) The phasmatid problem in mountain ash forests of the Central Highlands of Victoria, FCV Bulletin No. 25. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1q5SBbcZhmuWhWqrPYqKaX2rMmoakvTvx/view
The soil-borne pathogen, Phytophthora cinnamomi or cinnamon fungus, poses a significant threat to native forests.
It was first discovered in 1922 in Sumatra and is now one of the most widely distributed of all phytophthora species.
This pathogen spreads easily, causing disease, death and potential extinction in susceptible plants, and loss of habitat for animals.
It invades susceptible plant roots and can prevents them from taking up water and nutrients, resulting in root rot.
Phytophthora dieback is often difficult to detect but can cause permanent damage if it not is identified. It can remain dormant for long periods during dry weather and is impossible in most situations to eradicate.
Grass trees are particularly vulnerable and are often used as an indicator
It is generally accepted that P. cinnamomi is a newly introduced pathogen, probably arriving during European colonisation and then spread rapidly agricultural, soil movement and roads.
Particular attention was focused on the jarrah forests of Western Australia in the late 1960s, and the research was valuable for the rest of Australia.
It is mostly found mixed eucalypt forests along the coastal regions of Victoria, especially east Gippsland and around Anglesea. Infections in the heathlands of the Grampians were also notable.
Soil moisture and temperature were highly correlated with the spread and activity of the fungus and tree deaths. Poorly drained coastal soils were particularly susceptible. Older trees have a greater sensitivity to the disease than younger ones.
FCV studies in East Gippsland found that dieback epidemics occurred during years where a 3 or 4-month period of high rainfall occurred during the warmer months and was immediately followed by a similar period of low rainfall.
While fungicides can be effective, restricting soil movement, washing machinery and vehicles in combination with other hygiene measures are the most practical treatments in forested areas.
Marks GC and Idczak RM (1977) Phytophthora cinnamomi root rot investigations in Victoria” : A review with special reference to forestry.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KT72VY8XnZjdx1W8BXEeMU_GjXsZHQtg/view
There had been timber assessments in Victorian State forests since the late 1920’s, coinciding with arrival of the three Norwegian foresters.
The program was accelerated during the post-war housing boom. It was driven by the push eastwards away from the Central Highlands to find timber resources after the 1939 bushfire salvage was completed.
Spending time in the field with assessment branch was a “rite of passage” for many young forestry graduates leaving Creswick.
The work was arduous, and measurements were taken with simple and robust equipment like gunters chains, prismatic compass, Abney levels, barometers and clinometers. Data was recorded by hand onto waterproof paper.
The Statewide Forest Resource Inventory (SFRI) project began in 1993 and followed a few years after the release Timber industry Strategy. The aim was to bolster the existing 1:25000 scale mapping and improve the accuracy of the volume and growth estimates for the forest estate.
This scary looking gadget looks like a speeding radar used by the cops.
The LTI Criterion Survey Laser and Rangefinder was a powerful instrument that could measure and record tree height, diameter at any visible point up the tree. It was used to identify and map tree faults such as branches, scars and knots and to calculate tree taper functions.
When used correctly, it has an accuracy of better than 1% for height and diameter.
It could also measure survey information such as asmuth, distance and elevation.
It was expensive back in the day (more than $20,000) and heavy.
This one turned up at Beechworth when we were cleaning up. I’ve never used one… Does anyone out there know much about them ?
Victoria’s statewide forest resource inventory: program overview. For. Serv. Tech. Rep. 97-1, DNRE. March 1997 https://drive.google.com/file/d/14Tiq_r9ciZl79s7dFMdSrVDu2rAS7jKz/view
The Sirex Wood Wasp (Sirex noctilio) attacks softwood species particularly, Pinus radiata, which is planted extensively across southern Australia to supply timber.
Originally from Northern Europe, the wasp was found in softwood plantations in New Zealand in the early 1900s.
In 1949, the Commonwealth Forestry and Timber Bureau proposed a national planting program to make Australia more self-reliant in timber products after the shortages experienced during the war.
But the threat of the introduced sirex wood wasp brought the softwood plantation program into question.
Detected in Tasmania in early 1952, Commonwealth and State forestry authorities moved quicky to eradicate sirex as early as possible to protect the extensive plantations of softwood on the Australian mainland which were at risk.
A National Sirex Fund was established for surveys and eradication of the insect, and later for research into its control.
Sirex was confirmed in Victoria on 20 December 1961 in some pine logs at a sawmill east of Melbourne. The logs were later traced to a small privately-owned plantation on a dairy farm near Woori Yallock.
The Forests Commission immediately introduced strict quarantine to restrict the movement of potentially infested timber.
Charles Irvine, the Commission’s Chief Forest Biologist, managed about 15 two-man teams, which included many young graduate foresters from Creswick, to inspect all radiata pine trees within a zone centred around the initial infestation.
FCV crews then cut, heaped and burnt the infected material, but the Sirex insect pest continued to spread.
But the insect was soon confirmed in commercial plantations in the Latrobe Valley. It then spread across the remainer of Victoria, Mt Gambier, southern NSW and the ACT.
The worst outbreak was between 1972 and 1979 in nearly 2000 ha of the Delatite Plantation in northeast Victoria.
Search and destroy efforts were not practical on such a wide scale. Biological control was the only feasible option using parasitic nematodes which were later raised in cages by John Morey at the Forests Commission’s Mountain Forest Research Station (MFRS) in Nicholas Gardens near Sherbrook.
It was eventually found that tending of plantations by thinning to encourage vigorous growth, in combination with regular surveys and rapid suppression tended suppress the insect.
The pest became economically unimportant by the mid-1980s, and very little biological control work was required, but the overall threat of another major outbreak remains.
Fred Neumann, John Morey and Robert McKimm (edited by David Meagher). (1987). The sirex wasp in Victoria. Bulletin 29. Lands and Forests Division, Department of Conservation and Lands.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1W0vhlXO7hjYrExNT9VK48KB4UPLY3-tR/view
Prior to formation of the State Forest Department (SFD) in 1907, and later the Forests Commission Victoria (FCV) in 1918, there is little evidence that formal research programs were in place, other than botanical work of Ferdinand Von Mueller and others like Joseph Bosisto, who examined the chemical properties of Eucalyptus Oil.
There is no doubt that research and development work would have been conducted at both the Macedon and Creswick nurseries in the late 1800s, but it’s not well reported.
The 4-year Royal Commission into the destruction of forest which ran from 1897 to 1901 recorded some very valuable information.
The Newport Seasoning Works were established in 1910 to research the sawing and drying characteristics of Victorian eucalypts.
The research and publication of the “Handbook of Forest Trees for Victorian Foresters” in 1925 by Professor Alfred Ewart from the University of Melbourne proved a compulsory reference text.
One of the first specific records of FCV research appears in the 1927/28 Annual Report which mentions work on forest fires and weather along with growth studies of conifers and hardwoods.
The Chairman of the Commission, A.V. Galbraith, maintained a vision to expand Victorian forest research. He wanted to foster programs into forest genetics and silviculture along with working plans, but a lack of funds brought about by the imperatives of the Great Depression and the war years hampered his progress.
Galbraith’s focus instead remained on consolidating the Forestry School at Creswick and building lasting relationships with the University of Melbourne after the bitter falling out with Charles Lane-Poole over the establishment of the Australian Forestry School at Canberra.
It wasn’t until after the Stretton inquiry into the 1939 bushfires and the prosperous post war housing boom that the Commission, now under the Chairmanship of Alf Lawrence, acquired the capacity to deliver on Galbraith’s dream of a Forest Research Branch.
It was a tough road for research proponents. First, they had to support themselves during their post graduate studies. And it was also mandatory to convince the Department and field foresters of the worth of their project.
In 1946, the Commission began holding monthly meetings of the “Forest Council” to question researchers, listen to their reports and give suggestions in an open forum. This rigorous critique in front of peers, practitioners and senior managers led to continuous improvement.
These methods seem harsh but had the effect of establishing a research branch made up of those fully dedicated to their work and determined to see the results implemented in practice.
Much of the early silvicultural knowledge was unsuccessfully translated from European forests of Oaks and Pines.
In response to the difficulties achieving satisfactory regrowth after harvesting, the initial focus of the scientific research was into biology of the eucalypts and developing operational techniques for high intensity slash burning, aerial seeding, planting, thinning and tending.
Eminent scientists like Barrie Dexter, Ron Grose, Murray Cunningham, Fred Craig, Arthur Webb and Leon Pederick conducted their most innovative work in cooperation with the likes of David Ashton, Peter Attiwell, Gretna Weste and many others at the University of Melbourne.
Dr Ron Grose’s painstaking laboratory and field work finally “cracked the code” on the seed dormancy and germination of alpine ash (E. delegatensis). He also showed that the logging slash left behind in alpine and mountain ash coupes needed to be burned in a high intensity fire to provide a receptive seedbed best suited for regeneration.
Athol Hodgson and David McKittrick did practical fire research work. Alan McArthur, Phillip Cheney and others at the CSIRO did some pioneering fire behaviour work. Others from the FCV followed including Richard Rawson, Greg McCarthy and Kevin Tolhurst.
In 1950, Frank Moulds became the first FCV officer to achieve a PhD qualification with studies at Yale University.
Also in 1950, a greater research focus developed under the leadership of Walter Zimmer. He relocated to Head Office in Treasury Place as the Silvicultural Officer and then set about establishing the FCV’s Research Branch, which had its beginnings in the basement of a building at 188 King Street.
Collaboration with other research institutes and publishing of scientific papers was always important. In 1956, the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science met in Melbourne, and, for the first time, technical forestry papers were presented.
The Forestry Education and Research Division first appeared as a discrete entity during the 1957 restructure of the Commission. Dr Frank Moulds was appointed as its first Chief.
The first experimental fertiliser trials were established in 1950 at Anglesea on a site where the original 1920’s plantation that had failed.
The State and Federal Government committed significant funding during the 1960s to expand softwood plantations. This uplift in activity revealed the need for research work into softwood silviculture and regeneration, Sirex control, tree genetics, nutrition, entomology, pathology, fire and nurseries.
Hydrology studies into the effects of forestry activities on water quality and quantity in conjunction with the MMBW were commenced in 1961.
A major review of the FCV’s research effort in 1964 reported that much had been achieved, but there was still much to learn. The Commission recommitted to its research program to underpin the science of forestry and land management.
Forestry Technical Papers (FTP) were first published in April 1959 and were aimed principally for internal circulation.
Research and Development Notes (RDNs) were a later initiative in response to District staff requesting scientific information.
The Research Activity series was published between 1969 and 1977 and provided an annual summary of the assortment of studies conducted.
About 350 quality Research Branch reports were written between March 1971 and March 1992, and many were published in prestigious journals like Australian Forestry.
In the 1960s and 1970s there was a shift of focus onto other environmental topics. Research work expanded to study bushfire, soils and water, hydrology, flora and fauna, recreation, landscape protection, forest management, economics, impacts of conversion to pine plantations, carbon storage, farm forestry, nurseries, and forest ecology were added to the already extensive forest harvesting and silviculture research program.
Forest mensuration and yield regulation was also a new area of study during this period led by Arthur Webb.
As the Research Branch consolidated, it expanded its networks with Monash and Latrobe Universities, government agencies such as the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission, Soil Conservation Authority, Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, the Arthur Rylah Research Institute and the Department of Agriculture.
At the Commonwealth level, relationships with the CSIRO, Royal Australian Air Force, Bureau of Meteorology, Department of Defence and the National Sirex Committee were strengthened.
While at an international level, the fire research group led by Athol Hodgson and the innovative fire equipment workshops at Altona under Rocky Marsden had built strong relationships with their North American counterparts.
The Commission also maintained regional research centres at Creswick, Orbost, Sherbrook and other locations.
But in accordance with the government directives in the 1990s about downsizing and outsourcing, the Department’s sizable Research Branch underwent a major transformation. During 1993/94 it became the Centre for Forest Tree Technology (CFTT) as a separate “business unit’ from its parent, the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (CNR).
CFTT, with Dr David Flinn as its interim director formed an alliance with the University of Melbourne later in 1998 with the aim to secure significant portion of its funding from the Commonwealth. overseas and the private sector.
But then in 1999, along with all sections of the public service there was another Government wide downsizing of staff, and nine positions were lost.
By 2000/01 the CFTT still had 58 staff involved in forest research working on 67 projects. They published 26 peer-reviewed papers, plus many more technical reports.
Between 2001 and 2006 the Government invested over $37 million in forest research, development and education.
But forest research capacity continued to collapse at State and Federal levels across Australia from the early to mid-2000s.
By 2014, Forestry Tasmania could boast the last remaining internal forest research group.
Turner J, Flinn D, Lambert M, Wareing K, Murphy S (2011) Management of Victoria’s publicly owned native forests for wood production: A review of the science underpinning their management, Forest and Wood Products Australia, Project Number PRC 147-0809, pp. 216. https://drive.google.com/file/d/14WJY9HIH-QHDIcPGCaaelgetPpIal4Dq/view
https://www.victoriasforestryheritage.org.au/activities1/researching/961-big-picture-r-d.html
The Silvicultural Systems Project (SSP) was a key research initiative that followed the release of the Timber Industry Strategy (TIS) in 1986.
Long running controversy about clearfelling of forests for sawlogs and pulpwood (woodchips), which was the dominant harvesting and regeneration system, led to the SSP to develop and evaluate alternatives.
SSP trials were established in mountain ash forests at Tanjil Bren in the Central Highlands, and mixed species coastal lowland forests at Cabbage Tree in East Gippsland.
Each trial area was about 10 ha and included several alternative silvicultural treatments including group selection with variable sized gaps and strips, shelterwood, seed tree and clearfelling. Burning and mechanical site preparation after harvesting were compared for each treatment .
A primary objective was to determine if alternative silvicultural systems could successfully regenerate eucalypt forests after harvesting.
The studies were probably the most comprehensive silvicultural and ecological studies undertaken in Australian native forests. The studies covered operational safety, economics, soils, tree growth, silviculture, water quality and biodiversity.
An interim progress report was prepared in 1990. Many other technical reports were prepared.
The SSP trials demonstrated that clear felling, followed by high-intensity slash burning and seeding, was the most operationally and economically effective, but alternative harvesting and regeneration systems were possible.
The studies also highlighted the importance of what I call the Silvicultural Trinity of S’s – being Seed supply, Seedbed and the subsequent Seasonal conditions for successful seedling germination, survival and growth.
The SSP trails were run in conjunction with a Value Adding Utilisation System Trial (VAUS) in East Gippsland to examine the silvicultural and environmental effects of harvesting pulpwood for woodchips to manufacture pulp and paper products.
The studies were intended to last for more than 50 years but were maintained for only 12. There have been some intermittent measurements, but SSP was wound down because of Departmental restructuring and funding cuts.
Ross Squire, (1990). Report on the Progress of The Silvicultural Systems Project, July 1986-June 1989. DCE. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xorit838Q3wpS8Te98u45mQuwOV6o7B8/view
The idea of independent certification and labelling of timber began to take hold in Europe and north America during the early 1990s. Retailers and suppliers wanted to promote their products to consumers as complying with sustainable and responsible forestry practices.
Certification also fitted neatly with an idea, that was pervasive at the time, of timber companies having a “social licence” (without defining exactly what that meant, or how it was measured).
A number of certification schemes began with the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) in 1992, and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) later in 1999. These eventually emerged as the dominant global certification organisations.
The FSC and PEFC schemes both operate in Australia and compete in the marketplace. They are slightly different in how they are derived and assessed, with both having supporters and detractors. In some cases, there has been open hostility between the two certification camps.
The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), which is based in Germany, offers forest certification and licences for the use of its logo. The FSC model requires environmental, industry and community groups to reach consensus.
PEFC is a global organisation based in Switzerland and is the world’s largest. It is marketed in Australia under the Responsible Wood (RW) logo as the dominant certification standard. In 2023, there were nearly 12 million hectares of RW-certified forests and plantations in Australia.
The Australian Forestry Standard (AFS), which recognises existing forestry practices like clear felling and woodchips, as well as standards like Codes of Practice and RFAs, was developed in 2002 under the umbrella of the PEFC.
Timber certification schemes all involve a set of written forestry standards, independent and third-party auditing and reporting, as well as a traceable chain of custody from the producer to the consumer.
Environment groups tend to support FSC because they have greater influence over outcomes, while the timber industry prefers PEFC/RW, but retailers and consumers probably don’t care.
Major Australian hardware retailer, Bunnings, instituted its “Responsible Timber Sourcing Policy” in 2003 with a revision in 2018. Bunnings gave a commitment that forest products would originate from certified forests in all its 513 stores across Australia and New Zealand by December 2020.
Bunnings required timber products be independently certified to either the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC), or another equivalent.
Currently, Victorian businesses certified under either PEFC or FSC, include – VicForests, Midway, Pentarch Forestry, PF Olsen (Aus) and Hancock Victorian Plantations (HVP), among others.
VicForests had been a FSC member from 2011 until 2020 but ongoing disputes with some environmental groups, which remained intractably opposed to native forest harvesting, resulted in failure.
But despite VicForests having achieved certification under both the Australian Forestry Standard and the PEFC in 2007, Bunnings dumped Victorian native timber products from its shelves after the Federal Court ruled in 2020 that timber was felled illegally.
Gippsland timber workers and the Construction Forestry Maritime Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU) blockaded the Bunning’s store at Traralgon in July 2020 over the company’s decision.
The Court decision was partially overturned in a successful appeal by VicForests in 2021 to the full Federal Court.
And while Bunnings was not a major retailer of VicForests products, it was a symbolic blow due to the company’s high profile.
I often joked throughout my 40-year forestry and bushfire career that there were three sorts of firefighters in rural Victoria.
Unable to employ much simpler “surround and drown” tactics that usually last less than 12 hours or so, forest firefighters often confront large campaign bushfires in remote and rough terrain that can stretch for weeks or even months.
Comparatively small in numbers, the FFMVic staff and conscripts mostly take-on the critical but less glamorous senior management roles such as incident controllers, planners, situation, communications, mapping, aircraft operations and logistics officers etc…
While out in the bush on the fire front, conscripts with their local knowledge and experience marshal resources, direct operations and are appointed as sector or divisional commanders.
Conscripts also tend to cop the laborious and mucky recovery jobs responsible for picking up the pieces when the colour and movement of the firefight has long faded.
In my experience, Victorian forest firefighters have always been a pretty innovative “can-do” lot with a strong sense of duty who tend to focus on working together and just quietly “getting stuff done”.
Nearly one-third of Victoria is State Forest and National Park, with an even bigger proportion when you just look at Gippsland. It’s a vast estate from the mountains to the sea.
Foresters, Rangers and many others who have full-time roles managing this land find themselves caught up in fighting fires, often in remote and prolonged campaigns, well away from the public or media gaze.
Dry firefighting with bulldozers, rakehoes, chainsaws and axes by its very nature is hard physical work but an essential skill in these far-flung places with limited access to water. It’s something that had been developed and honed over many decades by the Forests Commission.
Logging contractors, machine operators, sawmill workers and truck drivers, along with shop keepers in small rural towns who supplied the fire fight were also critical. I recall the Briagolong publican selflessly opened his kitchen at 3am in the morning to supply breakfast for the hungry and dirty nightshift hordes at very short notice.
Firebombing aircraft and helicopters play an important role but there is no substitute for “boots-on-the-ground”.
When I began as a junior forester just out of Creswick in the 1970s, crews were deployed to chase remote lightning strikes across the mountains and told not to come back until the fires were either out or you were relieved.
In my first summer, there were 606 outbreaks, of which 77 occurred over a period of just three days. Lightning caused most of these in the alpine areas of the State. Many were controlled quickly but eight developed into major fires and Stage 2 of the State Disaster Plan was enacted. The staff were so severely stretched that large RAAF Iroquoi helicopters then came to help but most Forests Commission crews were away from home for about three to four weeks straight without a rest.
We towed a wooden trailer with a canvas cover and set up a rudimentary camp in a small clearing in the bush somewhere on the Dargo High Plains near a river but still close to the fire edge on the rugged Blue Rag Range south of Mt Hotham.
It wasn’t possible to get a vehicle with a water pump or bulldozer close to the actual fire edge so each day our crew walked several kilometres down a steep and slippery scree slope into the Wongungarra River and then bashed our way through the thick scrub before we even got to the fire.
On a couple of the smaller spot fires that summer I know that some crews abandoned their heavy tools and chainsaws at the bottom of the valley and left them sitting on a sandy riverbank rather than lug them back up the steep slopes. Some gear was later recovered by RAAF helicopters, but most was lost forever.
Our camp was a fairly primitive affair, and I quickly learned from the old hands it was wise to come away and expect to remain pretty self-sufficient for the first three days or so until better arrangements for food and supplies could be made.
The improvements to base camp facilities over recent years with hot showers, decent cooked food and medical support has been phenomenal and very welcome.
We took basic rations with us but mostly got our meals back in a basecamp once it was properly established. And I never want to see tinned baked beans or spam again.
Sometimes meals were delivered to the fireline in “hot packs” that looked a bit like packaged airline food and tasted about the same. They were usually cold because they had been prepared many hours before.
Some clever people even took fishing rods with them to try and catch some trout for breakfast in the remote and pristine rivers.
When our crew worked night shift out on the fireline it was common to start a little campfire in the cold chilly hours just before dawn. Then cook some food out of a tin and scratch a patch clear with a rakehoe to lay down in the dirt and ash next to the coals to try to keep warm and snatch some sleep. I hated night shift.
While the permanent staff like me were paid by cheque each fortnight the AWU crews were paid in cash. The pays were made up into small manila envelopes by two admin officers in the Mirboo North office where I was posted and sometimes delivered to the crew out in the field, often by the junior forester (i.e. me or some other lowly shit-kicker).
After the big alpine fires in January 1978, one of the fortnightly payrolls amounted to nearly $32,000 (or four times my annual salary). This humongous pay was delivered by two more senior staff, and they took a .22 pistol with them to protect the money in case of a hold-up. The pistol and ammunition were normally kept in the office safe. Remembering that the AWU crews worked alongside the Morwell River Prison inmates in the nursery and planting trees in the remote hill country of the Strzelecki Ranges, so this was a real risk.
There were so many fires that summer of 1977-78 that the Department didn’t have enough money to pay all the overtime owed to staff. So, while the crew got paid the staff had to wait until the new financial year in July to get our back-pay. It came in one big lump and then the taxman took most of it because marginal tax rates were around 70 cents in the dollar. Ouch !!!
Staff were also paid an additional $3.07 per week as a “disability allowance”, which was just about enough to buy a quarter of a tank of petrol when the pump price was hovering around 22 cents/litre. This miserable amount was to compensate for the strict requirement to be within a two-hour recall from my home district for the whole of the fire season (or about five months). Even when not rostered on stand-by.
In an era before mobile phones, it also meant being contactable by a landline at all times or letting the district duty officer know where you were. This was pretty difficult when I was still single and living on a farm out of town.
Moreover, we couldn’t take any recreation leave over the summer months. It wasn’t until 1985 and many years of union and staff agitation that a limited summer leave roster was introduced. The new system allowed for up to two days leave but was restricted to only 10% of the staff at any one time. Senior staff with school-aged children tended to get first pick, so Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Year’s Day were often spent on fire standby or availability.
And let’s not even mention compulsory staff transfers …
Then there are the bushfire widows.
Generally well away from the media spotlight, very few people other than our families were often even aware that forest firefighters might spend weeks away deep in the mountains with the heat, dust, snakes and flies.
So really, when you think about it, there is a fourth and largely hidden and mostly unacknowledged group of firefighters.
We should all pause for a moment to thank the many long-suffering and unsung “bushfire widows”, who quietly tolerated their firefighting partners heading off to remote locations in the bush with strange sounding names like Mount Buggery or the Terrible Hollow, usually at incredibly short notice and without knowing exactly when we would get back home.
Mostly women, but some men too, were just left simply to left to “hold the fort” and cope with the sudden domestic disruption, they were the glue that kept the show-on-the-road back at home.
The nightly TV news rarely covered the events unfolding in the forests far from home and, until recently, the lack of mobile phones and internet made communications difficult or impossible until we returned.
The Department was like a large and extended family and the friendly staff in the Forest District office were the lifeline.
But while we were away, these pesky bushfires often crept close to the edge of the small country towns where we lived to create real fears for our loved ones.
In recent decades the large bushfires across the mountains created huge plumes of smoke over the horizon which then often drifted into the valleys far below to create an ever-present reminder for our families and our communities. Everyone was affected, attendances at community meetings swelled while the armchair experts ran commentary.
And despite decades of patient and exasperating explanation, the media still can’t seem to fathom the difference between the CFA in yellow overalls and forest firefighters in the green ones… Grrrrr…
Let’s just say that someone very close to me once rang the regional ABC radio station out of frustration to “set the record straight”.
The common and overused media cliché often ascribed to firefighters as “heroes“ never sat comfortably with me and likening them to ANZACs, as some did, was going way too far.
I’m also pretty sure not too many folks outside Victoria’s small and close-knit forest firefighting community fully appreciated that without the support of our families the Department could not respond so rapidly and deploy such a large firefighting force into the field for the extended campaigns that we all endured.
Constantly watching the weather radar and the lightning storms to see if our weekend plans were about to be changed was the norm.
And like many others, I missed out seeing my kids opening their presents on Christmas morning on more than one occasion. Birthdays, school concerts and other important family occasions over the summer were also problematic
Thankfully times, technology and techniques have changed but the culture, commitment, and comradery of the forest firefighters have not.
For me, being shit-scared on the back of the Forests Commission tanker at Cockatoo during the Ash Wednesday bushfires in 1983, and then later in the days after Black Saturday in 2009 looking for bodies on Red Hill Road and then wrangling community meetings in front of large angry mobs at Traralgon are my notable bookends.
And everyone of this small group of conscripts and their families has a story to tell.
I’m proud to say I was a forest firefighter. But we should also not forget our ever-supportive bushfire widows….
* This story is intended as a tribute to my own “bushfire widow” who supported me and our family over many decades. I definitely do not wish any offence or hurt to any real widows who have lost loved-ones during, or as a result, of bushfires.
About one-third of Victoria, or about 7.1 million hectares, is publicly owned native forest.
The first area of State forest set aside for recreation was in 1912 at Centennial Park, which was then part of the Mt Arapiles Timber Reserve.
Recreational use of State forests expanded in the 1930s with greater access to private vehicles and forest roads.
The Mt Buller ski fields were developed by the Forests Commission from the early 1940s.
Under Section 50 of the Forest Act (1958), the Commission began setting aside more reserves, usually for recreation, or the conservation of natural features.
In 1958, the area covered by this provision was quite small being only 700 ha, with the exception of Mt Buller at 1710 ha.
But by the 1950s it became evident that community attitudes to forests and conservation were beginning to shift.
In 1958, the Commission added Lake Mountain and Mt Baw Baw reserves.
Over the next 10 years, the number of Section 50 reserves increased to 81 with an aggregate area of 17,300 ha. These included Sherbrooke, the You Yangs, Macedon Ranges, Grampians (Wonderland Range), Barmah and the Lerderderg Gorge.
In the early 1970s, the Commission, under the new Chairmanship of Dr. Frank Moulds, formed the Forest Environment and Recreation (FEAR) Branch to give greater focus to the multiple use of State forests.
FEAR Branch was an innovative idea and other state forest services around Australia soon followed.
Forest Rangers were also employed in the busier parks from this time.
Work by the Forests Commission started in October 1970, and by 1976 the Victorian segments of the Alpine Walking Track were completed.
By about 1973, the area set aside in forest reserves had grown to 56,000 ha.
In 1979, it was estimated that about 6 million day-visits were made to State forests and people spent about $36 million, mostly in rural economies. The most popular activity was pleasure driving with nearly 80% of the total, followed by picnicking and walking.
Visitation was increasing at about 10-15% per year putting a strain on roads, facilities and meagre district budgets.
Victoria’s Forests & Bushfire Heritage 
