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.
taipan821 wrote:Here is a survey monkey link: Hazard Reduction Burns, Yay or Nay?
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?
Hughmac wrote:Would like to throw my two bobs worth in here as a botanist.~SNIP~.
taipan821 wrote: ok, I'll remake the survey, what questions would people suggest?
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.
taipan821 wrote:https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/PHM8VBV
Consider the link bumped. fill out the one question, it doesn't take long!
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.
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.
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.
GPSGuided wrote:How systematic was the Aboriginal's management plan? What criteria did they use? I wonder if they are sufficiently defined for replication?
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.
potato wrote:These records provide an overview of burning at that location over the decades or millennia
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.
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.
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.
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.
Return to Bushwalking Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 guests