Forum rules
Tasmania specific bushwalking discussion. Please avoid publishing details of access to sensitive areas with no tracks.State Govt arsonists..
Tue 26 May, 2015 7:16 pm
And now the State Govt arsonists have their evil eyes on the Tarkine...Why?
http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/we ... al-lunacy/
http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/we ... al-lunacy/
Re: State Govt arsonists..
Wed 27 May, 2015 4:51 am
It seems you are a little opposed to hazard reduction burning.
While the "immediate" results of HR burning seem pretty horrific, in the bigger picture- from both an economic and ecological point of view- HR burning is a very important part of land management.
Sure, these programmes are never perfect and not all of them go to plan- but this is no reason to stop them entirely.
Many landscapes in Australia rely on fire at an interval anywhere between 10 and 20 years. This is essential for reproduction of many plant species in the long term. Given the upper estimate of 20 year fire interval (which is LONG by any scientific analysis of interfire interval) a rate of 5% of publicly owned land per annum would be too INFREQUENT generally (ie on a regular basis, 5% per annum would mean any one patch, on average, would be burned every 20 years).
I wonder how terms such as "Ecological madness" , "ignorance to sensitive and responsible land management", "acheived zilch", "Clearly our understanding and approach towards fire and its ecological impacts hasn’t progressed an inch since European settlement in the nineteenth century." can be verified with any scientific rigor.
I am no big fan of many of the land management agencies generally (as many of my posts will reveal) however this article is way off the mark. If it was backed up with some empirical data and statements, it would have a bit of credibility.
I would encourage you (or any other sceptics) to read a little of "Fire and the Australian Biota" (Gill and Grove), or "The Ecology of Fire" (By Australian academic Rob Whelan) before you jump to any conclusions. This arm of scientific research and understanding has been well established for over 30 years- it is nothing new. A quick read of these publications would indicate that 5% per annum is within the completely acceptable range in many areas.
Looks like the ideal time to head out to the Norfolk Range and get up Holloway, Helen and Mabel again? Maybe even have a little campfire if there is anything left to burn. No risk of an escaped campfire destroying the place
Clarence
While the "immediate" results of HR burning seem pretty horrific, in the bigger picture- from both an economic and ecological point of view- HR burning is a very important part of land management.
Sure, these programmes are never perfect and not all of them go to plan- but this is no reason to stop them entirely.
Many landscapes in Australia rely on fire at an interval anywhere between 10 and 20 years. This is essential for reproduction of many plant species in the long term. Given the upper estimate of 20 year fire interval (which is LONG by any scientific analysis of interfire interval) a rate of 5% of publicly owned land per annum would be too INFREQUENT generally (ie on a regular basis, 5% per annum would mean any one patch, on average, would be burned every 20 years).
I wonder how terms such as "Ecological madness" , "ignorance to sensitive and responsible land management", "acheived zilch", "Clearly our understanding and approach towards fire and its ecological impacts hasn’t progressed an inch since European settlement in the nineteenth century." can be verified with any scientific rigor.
I am no big fan of many of the land management agencies generally (as many of my posts will reveal) however this article is way off the mark. If it was backed up with some empirical data and statements, it would have a bit of credibility.
I would encourage you (or any other sceptics) to read a little of "Fire and the Australian Biota" (Gill and Grove), or "The Ecology of Fire" (By Australian academic Rob Whelan) before you jump to any conclusions. This arm of scientific research and understanding has been well established for over 30 years- it is nothing new. A quick read of these publications would indicate that 5% per annum is within the completely acceptable range in many areas.
Looks like the ideal time to head out to the Norfolk Range and get up Holloway, Helen and Mabel again? Maybe even have a little campfire if there is anything left to burn. No risk of an escaped campfire destroying the place
Clarence
Re: State Govt arsonists..
Wed 27 May, 2015 5:37 pm
Yeah, good post Clarence.
I don't pretend to know, or even have fully formed opinion yet, but the article linked to in the OP is just emotive rhetoric.
Thanks for the recommended reading - I'll try and fit it in amongst the growing pile.
Life long learning -' ya gotta lovit'
I don't pretend to know, or even have fully formed opinion yet, but the article linked to in the OP is just emotive rhetoric.
Thanks for the recommended reading - I'll try and fit it in amongst the growing pile.
Life long learning -' ya gotta lovit'
© Bushwalk Australia and contributors 2007-2013.