Lov_Dog
Kennel Enthusiast
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 2,994
- Reaction score
- 1,697
From the UoW report wiki has referenced, the following areas were affected ~44 years ago in the 1974-5 fire season (with very pertinent caveats):
NT: Barkly Tableland, Victoria River district, near Newcastle Waters
SA: North-west of state (arid and semi-arid zones)
WA: East and north-east of Kalgoorlie
and
NSW: Bourke to Balranald, Cobar Shire, Moolah–Corinya—most of the Western Division --- 11M acres -- 6 fatalities
>> Apart from NSW in above list, NT, SA and WA were likely very very remote regions, uninhabited and thus may have been extremely difficult to defend.
I suspect these points and many similar have A LOT to do with the sheer size of affected area and minimal to do with climate change.
Further, communications, technology and fire defence mechanisms were likely not as mature as those implemented today.
And the population size was effectively half what it is currently.
I hazard a guess that the estimation of affected land size would have been exactly that, estimations/approximates, compared to the more accurate estimates we are blessed with today.
Lastly, and again apart from NSW, there were no lives lost in the largest of fires listed, suggesting they were likely left to burn out rather than actively extinguished.
Shout out to Tropical Cyclone Tracy which wiped a great proportion of Darwin .. it wouldn't be naïve to conclude that resources were likely directed to TC Tracy affected area rather than less inhabited regions.
Exactly what point were you trying to make by providing the figures preceded by "let's look at the worst fires in Australia by number of deaths and number of acres burned"?
Since none of your "worst" category of fires suffered the most (human) fatalities, with the exception of 2009 Black Saturday. But I guess the broken clock is still correct twice a day.
It's a long bow you've attempted drawing here, cherry picking such information without providing background to frame your debate.
