tastrax wrote:Is this really a possibility and what are we prepared to give up to accomplish such an objective?
north-north-west wrote: Actually doing something about climate change wouldn't be a bad thing either.
north-north-west wrote:But, as Mark said, the only way to minimise the danger of these big, hot, fast fires, is to reinstitute the old small, slow, regular, colder season burning regimen. It takes, time, money, effort, understanding and commitment to maintain the program over the long term - none of which we are particularly good at.
stepbystep wrote:Consider what would happen if the Overland Track was razed...
tastrax wrote:north-north-west wrote:But, as Mark said, the only way to minimise the danger of these big, hot, fast fires, is to reinstitute the old small, slow, regular, colder season burning regimen. It takes, time, money, effort, understanding and commitment to maintain the program over the long term - none of which we are particularly good at.
This is what I cant get my head around. If the areas are small and it needs to done regularly then the costs would be very, very high. For instance with the Vale of Rasselass would a regime of a total area burn (albeit in patches) be needed on a 5 year rotation. I just cant see anyone funding that given there are hundreds of these types of areas across the WHA (before even thinking about specific species protection fires in special locations that might need a more regular regime).
north-north-west wrote: Proper collation of knowledge about the appropriate burning regimens for various vegetation communities and areas is the first step.
Gadgetgeek wrote:Total fire suppression is pretty directly responsible for all the major fires in north america.
CraigVIC wrote:For those that listen to podcasts, Outside Podcast, Science of Survival did a four part series on exactly this issue from the American perspective recently called respectively The Sky Is Burning/ Fighting Fire with Fire/ The Future of Fire/ Burnout
I found it very interesting to hear the debate about controlled burns mirrored there with all the same issues about fuel loads and regeneration and plant profiles etc that came after black Saturday in Victoria.
Xplora wrote:Fire management is controlled by politicians who respond only after a tragic event and then only to reduce blame.
north-north-west wrote:Gadgetgeek wrote:Total fire suppression is pretty directly responsible for all the major fires in north america.
Total fire suppression is not the answer in Australiia - there are too many species that need fire to regenerate. It's about safe burning to maximise benefit to the natural ecosystems, which includes the impact on wildlife as well as plant communities.
Buddy wrote:Fire suppression through a planned regime of mosaic burning is an excellent idea. Only dedicating 8 men on the ground on the back of multiple lightning strikes in the Gell is a dumb idea. You are witnessing the results of that now. We need to be burning on OUR terms, not Nature's.
ghosta wrote:Just to illustrate one significant change to the fire regime in Tasmania is that lightning was reported to have started many fires last summer. I am a retired firefighter who spent most of my career in the bushfire field and I know of only one instance where lightning was recognised as starting a fire in Tasmania.
ghosta wrote:
The Australian landscape adapted to the presence of man thousands of years ago...the result was large scale desertification of huge areas of Australia, the consequential drying out of the continent, and the dominance of fire tolerant eucalypt vegetation which is absolutely dependent on fire for long term survival.
ghosta wrote:The campaign to save remnant gondwana origin vegetation communities has already been lost, and all attempts to fight natures repsonse to changed circumstances might delay the inevitable for a short while... for decades perhaps but not for much longer. Attempts to "hit it hard and fast" can never stop nature taking its own course.
Just to illustrate one significant change to the fire regime in Tasmania is that lightning was reported to have started many fires last summer. I am a retired firefighter who spent most of my career in the bushfire field and I know of only one instance where lightning was recognised as starting a fire in Tasmania.
ghosta wrote:Just to illustrate one significant change to the fire regime in Tasmania is that lightning was reported to have started many fires last summer. I am a retired firefighter who spent most of my career in the bushfire field and I know of only one instance where lightning was recognised as starting a fire in Tasmania.
Tortoise wrote:ghosta wrote:Just to illustrate one significant change to the fire regime in Tasmania is that lightning was reported to have started many fires last summer. I am a retired firefighter who spent most of my career in the bushfire field and I know of only one instance where lightning was recognised as starting a fire in Tasmania.
A friend witnessed dry lightning strikes start 9 fires in the SW one evening this summer. Flash, bang, plume of smoke x 9. They were safely evacuated.
north-north-west wrote:
Anthropogenic climate change and habitat destruction are neither natural nor inevitable
ghosta wrote:...nature will adapt in its own way to changed circumstances....
Return to Bushwalking Discussion
Users browsing this forum: Bill P and 52 guests