Bushfire hazard Reduction - worth it?

Bushwalking topics that are not location specific.
Forum rules
The place for bushwalking topics that are not location specific.

Re: Bushfire hazard Reduction - worth it?

Postby taipan821 » Thu 19 Apr, 2018 8:48 am

This is becoming a very interesting read, it's sort of your normal topic argument, but with some really interesting reports and articles thrown in. Thanks for the reading everyone.
taipan821
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Thu 16 Aug, 2012 8:49 pm
Region: Queensland
Gender: Male

Re: Bushfire hazard Reduction - worth it?

Postby GPSGuided » Thu 19 Apr, 2018 7:14 pm

potato wrote:I'm not totally convinced the managers are burning in a considered manner in every case - this was a prescribed burn in the middle of Namadgi National Park. The burn was a long way from any assets or lives and the area poses very little risk to suburban Canberra as its simply too far south.

Maybe we should find out more about Park's thinking in making these decisions. "Burn was a long way from..." per your description makes no sense if there's political pressure.

In the meantime, reading through the MJA article and the methodologies, the 197 premature deaths b/n 2001-2013 in the Sydney area was certainly based on quite a bit of assumptions and statistical plays. For these short term health deteriorations and deaths, and being so sensitive to these PM2.5/other pollutant levels, I don't know how this cohort could have survived a neighbours' smoky BBQ the next day. Premature by what time frame?

https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news ... ation.html
https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2018/208 ... -2001-2013
Just move it!
User avatar
GPSGuided
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 6968
Joined: Mon 13 May, 2013 2:37 pm
Location: Sydney
Region: New South Wales

Re: Bushfire hazard Reduction - worth it?

Postby Hughmac » Wed 25 Apr, 2018 4:44 pm

Would like to throw my two bobs worth in here as a botanist. Personally I am convinced that most controlled burns are a waste of time, and an act of complete environmental vandalism. They were a knee-jerk reaction to the 1939 fires in Victoria, basically promoted on the basis that doing something is better than doing nothing. There was never any scientific support for the idea. The analysis quoted in the original post sounds about right in that it is only successful in about a third of cases, and is just as often counter productive. What this analysis doesn't address is the long term impact on the environments affected. Repeated burning eliminates species that are fire sensitive and changes the plant community composition to fire loving plants that are far more likely to sustain and intensify fires when they occur. It also destroys the organic content of the soil, significantly reducing its ability to hold moisture, and often making it hydrophobic, thereby increasing runoff and potential erosion. There is also no consideration given to the inevitable impacts on the birds, mammals and reptiles that occupy these environments.
For anyone interested in on the ground evidence for all these assertions, go for a walk down Starlights. I was there on the weekend, and the top half of the trail has just been burnt for the second time in three years. Plants that used to be common there such as Pomaderris, Pultenea, Gompholobium and Dampiera have disappeared, while the fuel load of fallen trees, branches, leaves and shrubs is massive. It is 20 kilometres from the nearest village in Hilltop, in a declared World Heritage area, and what has been done to it is nothing short of criminal. I have no doubt that the whole ethos of burning the bush is an ongoing expression of the colonial attitude that Australia's natural environment had to be 'tamed' to be of any value to European settlers, and buys directly into the 'heroic settler' narrative.
Hughmac
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat 14 Apr, 2012 9:20 pm
Region: New South Wales

Re: Bushfire hazard Reduction - worth it?

Postby Neo » Wed 25 Apr, 2018 6:19 pm

Thanks hughmac
Neo
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1886
Joined: Wed 31 Aug, 2016 4:53 pm
Location: Port Macquarie NSW
Region: New South Wales
Gender: Male

Re: Bushfire hazard Reduction - worth it?

Postby taipan821 » Wed 25 Apr, 2018 8:38 pm

Here is a survey monkey link: Hazard Reduction Burns, Yay or Nay?

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/PHM8VBV I'll let it run for a while then publish the results

It will be interesting to learn what the majority view is
taipan821
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Thu 16 Aug, 2012 8:49 pm
Region: Queensland
Gender: Male

Re: Bushfire hazard Reduction - worth it?

Postby Warin » Thu 26 Apr, 2018 7:20 am

taipan821 wrote:Here is a survey monkey link: Hazard Reduction Burns, Yay or Nay?


Far too broad.

Suburban interface only burns - frequency of burns in this area?

Bushland where fire is identified as a reproduction mechanism .... - frequency of burns in this area?

Bushland with a large weed problem - frequency of burns in this area?
User avatar
Warin
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1407
Joined: Sat 11 Nov, 2017 8:02 am
Region: New South Wales

Re: Bushfire hazard Reduction - worth it?

Postby taipan821 » Thu 26 Apr, 2018 7:47 am

Warin wrote:
taipan821 wrote:Here is a survey monkey link: Hazard Reduction Burns, Yay or Nay?


Far too broad.

Suburban interface only burns - frequency of burns in this area?

Bushland where fire is identified as a reproduction mechanism .... - frequency of burns in this area?

Bushland with a large weed problem - frequency of burns in this area?


ok, I'll remake the survey, what questions would people suggest?
taipan821
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Thu 16 Aug, 2012 8:49 pm
Region: Queensland
Gender: Male

Re: Bushfire hazard Reduction - worth it?

Postby wildwanderer » Thu 26 Apr, 2018 9:14 am

Hughmac wrote:Would like to throw my two bobs worth in here as a botanist.~SNIP~.


Thanks Hughmac. Good info and perspective.

taipan821 wrote: ok, I'll remake the survey, what questions would people suggest?


My 2 cents.

Some Suggestions. ( also try and keep the language simple, otherwise many people may not know what terms mean in relation to fires eg 'suburban interface', 'reproduction mechanism' etc)

Do you believe hazard reduction is an effective way to manage fire risk?
Yes/No

Do you believe back burning is an effective way to create a fire break/remove fuel during an active involuntary fire/bushfire ?
Yes/No

Do you believe the benefits of hazard reduction outweigh the reported negatives of deaths/hospitalizations due to breathing in smoke caused by the hazard burns?
A – Yes hazard reduction should still be used.
B – No the hazard reductions do more harm than good.
C – I don’t agree with the evidence/conclusions that significant deaths/hospitalizations occur due to hazard reduction burns.

Do you think the current frequency and scale of hazard reduction is
A - About right
B- Greater frequency/scale needed
C- Less frequency/ scale needed
D- No hazard reductions burns should be done at all.

Do you believe hazard reductions should be done?
A- Everywhere there is significant vegetation
B – Everywhere there is significant vegetation but only within 30km radius of nearest human settlement and/or significant infrastructure.
C – Only within 5km radius of nearest human settlement and/or significant infrastructure.
D - Only within 1km radius of nearest human settlement and/or significant infrastructure
E- No hazard reductions burns should be done at all.
User avatar
wildwanderer
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1640
Joined: Tue 02 May, 2017 8:42 am
Location: Out of lockdown \o/
Region: New South Wales
Gender: Male

Re: Bushfire hazard Reduction - worth it?

Postby potato » Thu 26 Apr, 2018 9:33 am

I'm not sure a survey is any good as in my experience it is better to focus on the science rather than opinion.
potato
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Thu 28 Jan, 2016 1:06 pm
Region: Tasmania
Gender: Male

Re: Bushfire hazard Reduction - worth it?

Postby wildwanderer » Thu 26 Apr, 2018 10:16 am

potato wrote:I'm not sure a survey is any good as in my experience it is better to focus on the science rather than opinion.


to be honest though... unless one of us is the State Fire Service commissioner or a senior politician what we think is not going to have much impact.

I think the survey (as taipan821 mentioned) is a nice concluding exercise. Interested forum members have read the case presented by both sides. Let see the results. (although obviously wont be scientific and it depends on who reads the forum topic and responds.)
User avatar
wildwanderer
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1640
Joined: Tue 02 May, 2017 8:42 am
Location: Out of lockdown \o/
Region: New South Wales
Gender: Male

Re: Bushfire hazard Reduction - worth it?

Postby taipan821 » Thu 26 Apr, 2018 10:26 am

wildwanderer, thanks for the input, however after reading your example questions, the original survey covers the original question, 'Bushfire hazard Reduction - worth it?'
I'll leave the survey open for two weeks, then publish the results here. I strongly recommend that people share the link if they want.

at this point in time, only 5 people have done the survey...more input is required!
taipan821
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Thu 16 Aug, 2012 8:49 pm
Region: Queensland
Gender: Male

Re: Bushfire hazard Reduction - worth it?

Postby taipan821 » Sat 28 Apr, 2018 4:40 pm

A little update: so far only 11 people have done the survey, so it'll be a very small sample.
had a hazard reduction burn today, majority was grass that had grown during the wet season and some wood that the landholder had cleared, great training for the new fire fighters on just how hard it can be to get a fire going (the jerry can was empty at the end of the day) and just how much water and foam is needed to properly extinguish a 'small' (2 x 2 x 6 metre) fire.
taipan821
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Thu 16 Aug, 2012 8:49 pm
Region: Queensland
Gender: Male

Re: Bushfire hazard Reduction - worth it?

Postby Neo » Sat 28 Apr, 2018 9:17 pm

Bump the link to the survey monkey
Neo
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1886
Joined: Wed 31 Aug, 2016 4:53 pm
Location: Port Macquarie NSW
Region: New South Wales
Gender: Male

Re: Bushfire hazard Reduction - worth it?

Postby taipan821 » Sat 28 Apr, 2018 11:53 pm

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/PHM8VBV

Consider the link bumped. fill out the one question, it doesn't take long!
taipan821
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Thu 16 Aug, 2012 8:49 pm
Region: Queensland
Gender: Male

Re: Bushfire hazard Reduction - worth it?

Postby johnw » Sun 29 Apr, 2018 11:28 am

taipan821 wrote:https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/PHM8VBV

Consider the link bumped. fill out the one question, it doesn't take long!

Just a thought. You may get better participation by creating a poll within this forum as a new topic. That way it will be seen by more people who may be interested, in addition to those who have been following this discussion, and they don't need to go to an external link.
John W

In Nature's keeping they are safe, but through the agency of man destruction is making rapid progress - John Muir c1912
User avatar
johnw
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 8964
Joined: Wed 23 Jan, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Macarthur Region - SW Sydney
Region: New South Wales
Gender: Male

Re: Bushfire hazard Reduction - worth it?

Postby north-north-west » Wed 02 May, 2018 11:20 am

Hughmac wrote:I have no doubt that the whole ethos of burning the bush is an ongoing expression of the colonial attitude that Australia's natural environment had to be 'tamed' to be of any value to European settlers, and buys directly into the 'heroic settler' narrative.

Except that the Aboriginal inhabitants developed a complex system of burning thousands of years ago.
The way we burn now is very much a part of that colonial attitude. We'd have been better off learning the specific practices as applied to various sites prior to colonisation and continuing it.
"Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens."
User avatar
north-north-west
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 15062
Joined: Thu 14 May, 2009 7:36 pm
Location: The Asylum
ASSOCIATED ORGANISATIONS: Social Misfits Anonymous
Region: Tasmania

Re: Bushfire hazard Reduction - worth it?

Postby potato » Wed 02 May, 2018 11:43 am

north-north-west wrote:
Hughmac wrote:I have no doubt that the whole ethos of burning the bush is an ongoing expression of the colonial attitude that Australia's natural environment had to be 'tamed' to be of any value to European settlers, and buys directly into the 'heroic settler' narrative.

Except that the Aboriginal inhabitants developed a complex system of burning thousands of years ago.
The way we burn now is very much a part of that colonial attitude. We'd have been better off learning the specific practices as applied to various sites prior to colonisation and continuing it.


Yes and for entirely different purposes. Unfortunately much of the traditional knowledge is lost... but even if we had the knowledge, we wouldn't have listened to it anyway. The colonials just know better.
potato
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Thu 28 Jan, 2016 1:06 pm
Region: Tasmania
Gender: Male

Re: Bushfire hazard Reduction - worth it?

Postby GPSGuided » Wed 02 May, 2018 12:52 pm

How systematic was the Aboriginal's management plan? What criteria did they use? I wonder if they are sufficiently defined for replication?
Just move it!
User avatar
GPSGuided
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 6968
Joined: Mon 13 May, 2013 2:37 pm
Location: Sydney
Region: New South Wales

Re: Bushfire hazard Reduction - worth it?

Postby slparker » Wed 02 May, 2018 12:59 pm

potato wrote:I'm not sure a survey is any good as in my experience it is better to focus on the science rather than opinion.


Yes, there is no point having a belief. What does the evidence state?

The popular science website 'TheConversation' has a series of articles on hazard reduction and the epidemiology of airborne smoke. It's probably worth a look.
slparker
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1404
Joined: Fri 25 Apr, 2008 10:59 pm

Re: Bushfire hazard Reduction - worth it?

Postby north-north-west » Wed 02 May, 2018 1:17 pm

GPSGuided wrote:How systematic was the Aboriginal's management plan? What criteria did they use? I wonder if they are sufficiently defined for replication?


Different regimens for different ecosystems, involving varying size, season, duration and interval. It was a very complex set of practices.
And while thee are some areas where the knowledge has been retained sufficiently to be used today, unfortunately the details have been lost in too many places.
"Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens."
User avatar
north-north-west
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 15062
Joined: Thu 14 May, 2009 7:36 pm
Location: The Asylum
ASSOCIATED ORGANISATIONS: Social Misfits Anonymous
Region: Tasmania

Re: Bushfire hazard Reduction - worth it?

Postby peregrinator » Wed 02 May, 2018 2:54 pm

north-north-west wrote:
GPSGuided wrote:How systematic was the Aboriginal's management plan? What criteria did they use? I wonder if they are sufficiently defined for replication?


Different regimens for different ecosystems, involving varying size, season, duration and interval. It was a very complex set of practices.
And while thee are some areas where the knowledge has been retained sufficiently to be used today, unfortunately the details have been lost in too many places.


For an illuminating examination of what indeed appears to have been a most systematic approach, see Bill Gammage's, The biggest estate on earth: how aborigines made Australia (2012).

Not only has some of the knowledge been lost but there may have been significant ecological changes, quite apart from infrastructure built by Europeans. For example, fire was used to aid hunting, and it is obviously very difficult to get accurate numerical data about prey and predator in pre-colonial history. And most of the prey were grazers.

Addressing the stated topic more directly, I suspect that one thing we can learn from these indigenous operations is that every situation poses different solutions. The current operations performed by bureaucratic managers, beholden to somewhat uninformed politicians, seem far too unsubtle.
peregrinator
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Fri 15 Apr, 2011 2:50 pm
Region: Victoria

Re: Bushfire hazard Reduction - worth it?

Postby potato » Wed 02 May, 2018 3:51 pm

The effect of indigenous burning on Australian ecosystems is and will remain one of the most contentious debates among ecologists. The records over the timespan lack the resolution and there are simply too many other factors (climate) changing during that period to clearly demonstrate what was controlling ecosystem change, if any.

Speaking of records, there are good but not perfect fire regime records held in tree rings (which go back tens of years) and swamps/lakes etc (that go back hundreds to thousands of years). These records provide an overview of burning at that location over the decades or millennia. Bureaucrats and those who are rusted on to the idea that burning is worthwhile don't review this science as it tells a very different story about pre-European fire regimes that what they want to believe.
potato
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Thu 28 Jan, 2016 1:06 pm
Region: Tasmania
Gender: Male

Re: Bushfire hazard Reduction - worth it?

Postby taswegian » Wed 02 May, 2018 4:51 pm

potato wrote:These records provide an overview of burning at that location over the decades or millennia

What these records don't record is how the fires started.

Looking at Tasmania, for which my observations are limited to, I'd ask what areas of aboriginal originated burns are actually known to be or can be proved to have been undertaken?
I'm not doubting they existed for one minute, but am cautious in accepting everything laid down as 'this is how we have done it for eons'.

Why are some areas recorded as 'impenetrable forest' (Forests of Arden just for one), and early explorers record misery in traversing the dense forests of n'west Tasmania, and then throw in areas of 'open bush', 'grassy plains' etc. Latter generally in minority.

If you want a record of what life was like when the land grants were first surveyed in 1850's onwards, then read some of those old original grant surveys.
I have read very few as saying there are extensive or even not so extensive areas of open, grassy plains etc.
I could post heaps of old Grant surveys, but that's not really necessary to seemingly 'prove a point' which I'm not interested in.

Apparently there are excellent records from the Gog of eons of pollen and other stuff in sediments that show fires, and evidence of vegetation types now long departed.
I guess that's been demonstrated in many other locations.
User avatar
taswegian
Phyllocladus aspleniifolius
Phyllocladus aspleniifolius
 
Posts: 888
Joined: Tue 27 Jul, 2010 8:34 pm
Region: Tasmania
Gender: Male

Re: Bushfire hazard Reduction - worth it?

Postby Hughmac » Wed 02 May, 2018 8:04 pm

The scope and specific details of indigenous fire regimes is unfortunately quite poorly understood. That they utilised fire to manage some environments is beyond doubt. The assumption that they used fires in forest environments is largely an extrapolation of what they were known to have done in arid environments, where a patchwork of areas at varying stages of recovery maximised a diversity of food resources. It would seem improbable they deliberately set fire to the forests of south-east or south-west Australia, given the ferocity that fires in these environments can generate. If they did use fire in these environments it would have been very carefully managed to ensure that only low intensity fires developed, not the high intensity fires that prescribed burning aims to achieve.
Hughmac
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat 14 Apr, 2012 9:20 pm
Region: New South Wales

Re: Bushfire hazard Reduction - worth it?

Postby slparker » Wed 02 May, 2018 11:17 pm

taswegian wrote:
potato wrote:These records provide an overview of burning at that location over the decades or millennia

What these records don't record is how the fires started.

Looking at Tasmania, for which my observations are limited to, I'd ask what areas of aboriginal originated burns are actually known to be or can be proved to have been undertaken?
I'm not doubting they existed for one minute, but am cautious in accepting everything laid down as 'this is how we have done it for eons'.

Why are some areas recorded as 'impenetrable forest' (Forests of Arden just for one), and early explorers record misery in traversing the dense forests of n'west Tasmania, and then throw in areas of 'open bush', 'grassy plains' etc. Latter generally in minority.

If you want a record of what life was like when the land grants were first surveyed in 1850's onwards, then read some of those old original grant surveys.
I have read very few as saying there are extensive or even not so extensive areas of open, grassy plains etc.
I could post heaps of old Grant surveys, but that's not really necessary to seemingly 'prove a point' which I'm not interested in.

Apparently there are excellent records from the Gog of eons of pollen and other stuff in sediments that show fires, and evidence of vegetation types now long departed.
I guess that's been demonstrated in many other locations.

There is extensive evidence in the historical record of indigenous burning in Tasmania and also extensive tracts of cleared terrain. For example, much of the midlands valley.
There is also plenty of botanical research supporting this.
If you have ever walked on buttongrass plains you have walked on land burnt for centuries by Tasmanian hunters.
slparker
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1404
Joined: Fri 25 Apr, 2008 10:59 pm

Re: Bushfire hazard Reduction - worth it?

Postby potato » Thu 03 May, 2018 8:57 am

slparker wrote:There is extensive evidence in the historical record of indigenous burning in Tasmania and also extensive tracts of cleared terrain. For example, much of the midlands valley.
There is also plenty of botanical research supporting this.
If you have ever walked on buttongrass plains you have walked on land burnt for centuries by Tasmanian hunters.


Its tricky to confirm this, even with the botanical research as lightening strike is also very common.

The paper suggests that before people arrived at about 41ka, fire was already on the increase. Figuring out what the signals are telling us after people arrived is very problematic as climate was also a very big player.

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/34/12150

I don't think we'll ever know for certain here as there was too much going on... unless we get a time machine.
potato
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Thu 28 Jan, 2016 1:06 pm
Region: Tasmania
Gender: Male

Re: Bushfire hazard Reduction - worth it?

Postby slparker » Thu 03 May, 2018 11:46 am

potato wrote:
slparker wrote:There is extensive evidence in the historical record of indigenous burning in Tasmania and also extensive tracts of cleared terrain. For example, much of the midlands valley.
There is also plenty of botanical research supporting this.
If you have ever walked on buttongrass plains you have walked on land burnt for centuries by Tasmanian hunters.


Its tricky to confirm this, even with the botanical research as lightening strike is also very common.

The paper suggests that before people arrived at about 41ka, fire was already on the increase. Figuring out what the signals are telling us after people arrived is very problematic as climate was also a very big player.

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/34/12150

I don't think we'll ever know for certain here as there was too much going on... unless we get a time machine.


Gammage's book discusses burning regimes in Tasmania at length. he has also written a paper on the matter: see Gamage (2008) Plain Facts: Tasmania under Aboriginal Management. landscape Research 33.(2).
Also
Jackson, W.D.(1999) The Tasmanian legacy of Man and Fire. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania. 133(1)
(who states - "The incidence offire in Tasmania is overwhelmingly due to human activity. Lightning-induced fire is rare, unlike in mainland Australia")
Marsden-Smedley (1998) CHANGES IN SOUTHWESTERN TASMANIAN FIRE REGIMES SINCE THE EARLY 1800s. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania. 132


That said, you don't have to examine the scientific literature to see that Tasmanian Aboriginal people were burning extensively. Their burning regimes were mentioned by du Fresne, Batman in his diaries, Governor Macquarie, Robinson etc.

descriptions by colonials in the early 1800s describe the open nature of the valleys and the 'native roads' kept open by fire. Illustrations of the midlands, for example, show a landscape of wide open sloping country with mature trees at open intervals. Glover, when occupying land near deddington, portrayed a landscape of mature trees at interval and hillsides with many juvenile trees growing. Why would there be so much juvenile flora all growing at the same time in 1830?
paintings of the hills behind the Cataract Gorge in the early 19th century show hills wiht sparse mature trees. Looking up the gorge today you see hills thick with eucalypt forest.

In 1829 Widowson described the midlands: 'The same extent of land naturally cleared cannot be found in any other part of the island' cleared by whom and for what purpose? He further states: " (the land is) moderately wooded by small clumps of trees as if planted by man to ornament an estate"

Glover described the midlands: 'it is possible to drive a carriage as easily as a gentleman's park in England'

Breton (1833) states: 'the contrast is very striking when,after riding through the bush the traveller comes unexpectedly upon a plain, sprinkled here and there with small clusters of trees and, crossing it again, finnds himself in an extensive forest' and ' ...on the plains it often occurs that hardly a tree is visible'

Here is an example of burning in the south west of Tasmania in the historical record:

"After much fatigue in getting through, we suddenly, on reaching the top of the hill, opened into ground recently burnt, with a most beautiful valley extending SW, beneath us. The whole of this ground had been
burnt, apparently immediately before the late snow, and I conclude, by the natives. The valley had the appearance, at a distance, of undergoing all the processes of agriculture, - some parts looking like freshly
ploughed fields; and again, other parts possessing the most beautiful verdure from the sprouting of the young grasses and rushes."
William Sharland in 1832 on the Loddon Plains,
slparker
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1404
Joined: Fri 25 Apr, 2008 10:59 pm

Re: Bushfire hazard Reduction - worth it?

Postby taswegian » Thu 03 May, 2018 1:28 pm

Sparkler your comments are valid and I don't have any issue with those references.
But it doesn't say the whole of Tasmania was similarly treated and that is supported by countless grant surveys and reports by (Hellyer for egs) in our Northwest of dense impenetrable forests.

I've a very open mind on this and yet have to be cautious in applying observation in part to create a theory or fact of 'how it was done pre white-mans intervention'.

Picking on button grass plains. Are button grass plains only in existence due to firing by aboriginal intervention?
If so where did button grass originate?
Why aren't our extensive button grass plains being 'reclaimed by nature'?
If they are reverting, then where are examples and what are they reverting to?

Those early encounters with burning and aborigines can't be denied.

What does concern me is building 'science' on events never witnessed in eons past and applying them as a solution to the woes of 2018.
Without discounting changes in climate etc.
It's not an easy topic.

To me what is important is what is the best way to mitigate being wiped out in the event of a catastrophic fire event.
Too often in such situations we get bogged down in technical, or personal ideology and miss doing what is subject to the point in question.
User avatar
taswegian
Phyllocladus aspleniifolius
Phyllocladus aspleniifolius
 
Posts: 888
Joined: Tue 27 Jul, 2010 8:34 pm
Region: Tasmania
Gender: Male

Re: Bushfire hazard Reduction - worth it?

Postby slparker » Thu 03 May, 2018 1:47 pm

@Taswegian
It is certain that parts of Tasmania were not deliberately burnt as part of a firing practice. Which makes sense as you would only need to burn areas to encourage pick for herbivores and to facilitate movement. Those areas of most fertility and ease of passage (i.e.plains) would be those most burnt. Of interest to me was historical description of extensive burning by Aboriginal people of the summit of Ben Lomond - which tells me that alpine areas were also included in deliberate burning.

I am not a biologist but my interpretation of the papers in respect to buttongrass plains is that, yes, there are instances of a return to rainforest but the process is slow. Gammage's book describes it and from memory there is a paper published about the Diddleum plains and upper north esk which describes the post-colonial transition from sedgeland back to rainforest. I will try and find it.

In regards to ideology - none of the evidence I cite is necessarily relevant to what we ought to do in 2018 in respect to burning or not-burning. I just reject the notion that firing was not practiced deliberately by the Indigenous Tasmanians - there is too much evidence for it.
slparker
Athrotaxis selaginoides
Athrotaxis selaginoides
 
Posts: 1404
Joined: Fri 25 Apr, 2008 10:59 pm

Re: Bushfire hazard Reduction - worth it?

Postby potato » Thu 03 May, 2018 2:29 pm

slparker wrote:In regards to ideology - none of the evidence I cite is necessarily relevant to what we ought to do in 2018 in respect to burning or not-burning. I just reject the notion that firing was not practiced deliberately by the Indigenous Tasmanians - there is too much evidence for it.


I'm not rejecting the notion deliberate burning. I'm just pointing out that fire and aspects of the vegetation structure were around long before people arrived in Tas. The influence of people on the vegetation structure observed when Europeans arrived in Tas is something of debate. Button grass plains have been around longer than 41ka - did humans have much to do with their distribution after that..? Maybe yes but who really knows.

I'm sceptical of anything early settlers wrote as they were often writing home about the glorious opportunity of the new country. They tended to talk it up a bit.
potato
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Thu 28 Jan, 2016 1:06 pm
Region: Tasmania
Gender: Male

PreviousNext

Return to Bushwalking Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests