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 slparker » Thu 03 May, 2018 2:50 pm

potato wrote: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.


There is one instance (Evans published pamphlet - ironically before he came to Tasmania) where colonial speculators 'talked up' the bountiful opportunities in Tasmania - but talked down the Indigenous (and bushranger) presence. The quotes I have mentioned are from diarists - not sources that were contemporaneously published. What would diarists and surveyors have to gain about describing how Aborigines burnt the land?

then i can only conclude, with all due respect, that you have a confirmation bias. You are thinking of reasons why the area could not have been burnt deliberately when the evidence leans towards the systematic and deliberate use of fire in many areas of Tasmania. Evidence which accords with that on Mainland Australia where fire was (and is) used for similar reasons by Indigenous people - an idea that seems less controversial.
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 » Thu 03 May, 2018 3:58 pm

potato wrote: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.


I find this attitude rather ironic, given that the term 'fire-stick farming' was coined by an archaeologist who specialised in Tasmanian prehistory.
"Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens."
User avatar
north-north-west
Lagarostrobos franklinii
Lagarostrobos franklinii
 
Posts: 15060
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 » Thu 03 May, 2018 4:10 pm

We've come a long way since when Rhys Jones coined the term. It was actually applied to dry forests in the north of Australia.
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 Neo » Thu 03 May, 2018 7:55 pm

Hot topic.
Interesting read :)
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 » Sun 06 May, 2018 8:22 am

Ok, the results from the survey

From 23 respondents, Hazard reduction burns, yay or nay

Strongly agree: 5 (21.74%)
Agree: 1 (4.35%)
Neither agree or disagree: 4 (17.39%)
Disagree: 7 (30.43%)
Strongly Disagree: 6 (26.09%)

Nay wins, with a grand total of 13 votes.
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 » Mon 07 May, 2018 7:10 am

I’d say it’s not much of a ‘win’ but illustrating the clear polarity on the issue, even when considering the likely sampling bias.
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 whitefang » Mon 07 May, 2018 8:05 am

Hughmac wrote: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.


In general, prescribed burning does not aim to achieve high intensity burning. They will usually be low to moderate intensity (flame height of up to around 6 metres) to consume surface, near surface and bark fuels.
User avatar
whitefang
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 387
Joined: Wed 09 Apr, 2014 11:36 am
Location: Adelaide Hills
Region: South Australia
Gender: Male

Re: Bushfire hazard Reduction - worth it?

Postby Hughmac » Mon 07 May, 2018 8:14 pm

Burning out the whole understory is what most people would consider a high intensity fire. I was speaking to a landholder in Hilltop today whose property was supposed to be almost surrounded by a 'controlled' burn last Friday, who told me National Parks had postponed the burn because it was too wet! The rainfall at Moss Vale, the nearest weather station I know, has been a total of 45mm over the last two months, compared to an average since 1869 of 172mm. They are clearly not aiming for a low to moderate intensity fire if that makes it too dry.
Hughmac
Athrotaxis cupressoides
Athrotaxis cupressoides
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat 14 Apr, 2012 9:20 pm
Region: New South Wales

Previous

Return to Bushwalking Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests