Fire alerts and track closures

[geoskid]

I assume everyone knows that this area was caused by glaciation, and that our sun will eventually die and 'swallow' earth.
I like it how it is too, but it is a category error to want it to be the same forever.

I'm all for conservation, if it is about not needlessly prematurely bringing an end to what we find familiar and aesthetically pleasing. But those that want to insist that this is the way it "should" be, are wrong.
There will come a time, shortly, that we will need to take a look at our notions of 'native' and 'feral' species. These are descriptive terms that carry information about origins - that is all . Somewhere, somehow, these descriptive terms describing what was and is, have been transformed into what should. Big No NO ! Not a problem in a stable environment. We don't have a stable environment any more. So far this is fact ( let me know any problems you see).

This is the bit that is eating at me , ecologists please help me understand.( refer me to appropriate texts).

Is it possible that by hanging onto our notions of native=good, non native =bad (flora & fauna) in a rapidly ( regardless of causes) changing environment in evolutionary terms, that we could actually reduce biodiversity.
Our notions of weeds, for example, are actually biologically, very successful life forms, but we want to restrict them. Likewise with Fauna - no you cant live here , you didn't originate here (sound familiar?) , despite them being able to flourish. In short, in rapidly changing environmental conditions, we want to keep out what can live here well, in favour of what we are familiar with that may no longer be suited. Humans can't even manage themselves.

Lovely photos, narrative is way, way too small.

[durks]

I assume everyone knows that this area was caused by glaciation, and that our sun will eventually die and 'swallow' earth.
I like it how it is too, but it is a category error to want it to be the same forever.

Obviously things change; and, in the long term, the Sun will become a Red Giant and completely destroy the Earth.

Equally obviously, whatever effects are going on now, the 'Biosphere' itself will adapt, and the Earth will survive.

However, the salient question is whether or not the weed-like human species has a hand in actively causing the current changes. I have no particular problem with Homo Sapiens making itself extinct, if that's its collective choice - but perhaps mankind should show some humility here, and just back off a bit in order to give other species a chance. It's not just all about us ...

[stepbystep]

@geoskid - we should simply walk as lightly on the Earth as we can...yes, protect, for as long as we can or we fail those that come after. "Speak for those that have no tongues"

[Nuts]

Still burning..

(iv'e wondered abt motivations, I even wonder what drives us to want to help each other, but we still do.. (me too). Presently i'm wondering at the wisdom of trying to 'educate'? Maybe just a personal weight off a personal chest? All thoughtful words and evocative images yet, in following various news feeds, they just seem to be pissing more people off around the net, especially when they are accompanied by goal based 'narrative'.. still then we are driven to 'educate', get over a POV (me too) )


It's a bit early to be drawing conclusions or talking remedies?, even though the options seem obvious/ are well known. I ponder the capacity to eg. 'just burn the buttongrass'.. Half a million hectares inside WHA?, don't miss any!.. really? I can understand the frustration and concern but be careful what we wish for in the conclusions drawn?

Anyhow, lol, I (for one) also appreciate the concern of those concerned.

[stepbystep]

I've had lots of people questioning my motives....meh...look in the mirror...

Humans are strange creatures, I can only act when there is energy and motivation and an opportunity to do something useful. At times I miss the mark, and my efforts are futile or non-consequential, or stupid. But onwards I march in this life! My only hope is that people do what they can, when they can. If it's hopeless, at least they tried.

On the fires I'm pretty proud of some of the conversations Rob and myself started. Here's hoping they continue and fester in the ear of Greg Hunt.....

[Nuts]

I've read oodles over the last week, think I did comment on one article including your pictures. I tried to support some poor girl amid a tide of 'greenie', 'expert' derogatives and 'fire's natural', 'it'll survive' misunderstandings. Happy enough for it to simply be 'questioning my own motivations'.

[Nuts]

Screen Shot 2016-02-05 at 5.16.14 PM.png (47.05 KiB) Viewed 19604 times

[Son of a Beach]

I assume everyone knows that this area was caused by glaciation, and that our sun will eventually die and 'swallow' earth.
I like it how it is too, but it is a category error to want it to be the same forever.

I'm all for conservation, if it is about not needlessly prematurely bringing an end to what we find familiar and aesthetically pleasing. But those that want to insist that this is the way it "should" be, are wrong.
There will come a time, shortly, that we will need to take a look at our notions of 'native' and 'feral' species. These are descriptive terms that carry information about origins - that is all . Somewhere, somehow, these descriptive terms describing what was and is, have been transformed into what should. Big No NO ! Not a problem in a stable environment. We don't have a stable environment any more. So far this is fact ( let me know any problems you see).

This is the bit that is eating at me , ecologists please help me understand.( refer me to appropriate texts).

Is it possible that by hanging onto our notions of native=good, non native =bad (flora & fauna) in a rapidly ( regardless of causes) changing environment in evolutionary terms, that we could actually reduce biodiversity.
Our notions of weeds, for example, are actually biologically, very successful life forms, but we want to restrict them. Likewise with Fauna - no you cant live here , you didn't originate here (sound familiar?) , despite them being able to flourish. In short, in rapidly changing environmental conditions, we want to keep out what can live here well, in favour of what we are familiar with that may no longer be suited. Humans can't even manage themselves.

Lovely photos, narrative is way, way too small.

When it comes to managing weeds, I think that the logic is that humans introduced the weeds, therefore they are not natural (in the introduced environment), therefore people would like to see them removed to return the environment to its natural state (ie, as though not impacted by humans). Obviously this is not achievable in many cases, so people try to manage it as best they can instead. As you implied - it's mostly about what people like, but there is some logic to it.

Of course the counter-argument there is, "well, aren't humans natural too - so whatever they introduce is natural".

As for the fires, and whether they are natural or not, I guess it depends on human impact on climate change and whether that was a contributing factor or not. The evidence shows that these remote fires were started by lightning strikes and are therefore natural. But I guess people may think that human activities are the cause of climate change and that is what's caused the extra-dry conditions that enabled the fires to spread so easily in an area that is normally too wet for fire to spread so fast. We'll never know for certain on that one.

I don't have a strong opinion on any of these ideas above, apart from the fact that I dislike human-introduced weeds in the wilderness (or near-wilderness).

I do like the Tasmanian environment the way it was before humans (or before anglo-saxon humans, to be more precise, I suppose).

I hope people going in there after the fires don't unwittingly carry weed seeds on their clothes/shoes into areas in which there is little vegetation to compete with them, and only bare ground.

[beardless]

Both photos and words have been necessary for me to understand the reality of the impact of these fires. Thanks.

Categorisations about what is and what is not natural are of limited utility. Perhaps it is more useful to think what can be done to limit the risks of this occurring in the future.

It is impossible to put a value on what has been lost. But what remains of these ecosystems is even more valuable. There is now an even greater imperative to protect.

[Nuts]

I didn't have a good understanding of the distribution of lightning (thanks Phil). The strikes in the recent Qld/Nth NSW storm fronts numbered in the 00's of 000's

Not wanting to take anything away from the images or the media input by learned experts (shrug) but together they often, in conservation, need to be or are 'made to fit'. The overaching tangible reality, in fact, is that the effect on rare alpine communities, while devastating no doubt, has been (so far) limited in scope, as a look at the alert maps shows.

But this fact isn't enough. The grounded response isn't enough, nothing can be made of this reality, no greater purpose of influence from or aligned with the expert opinion of our choosing. There's no story, pointing the camera at more benign views.

It would seem, back on the ground, that first response professional teams and air support services are ideal, assuming a reality of needing to deal with hot, frequent fires (climate change acknowledged but set aside for now). The answer is 'simple', just throw money! (as in.. pay more tax or we'll just see further support for 'user pays' incursions and the complexities of environmental and social impact that will bring)




http://www.smh.com.au/environment/expla ... mn9ay.html

[tastrax]

Its an extremely complex issue and one which has caused huge amounts of research over the years. There are also some downsides to rapid initial attacks as well but that's an argument for another day. A couple more links that may be of interest to folks.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/ ... -fire-year

https://www.iaff.org/10News/PDFs/cdffirereport.pdf

[Nuts]

The 10am rule (i'm with Smokey).

Thanks Phil. Aside from what comes to light of the science, data, background, having worked on the PWS fire crew and consequently met the managers and seen the professionalism, this is one sector of parks that has had my full confidence. I'd like to think that the TFS statements that they (TFS at least) have been given all the necessary resources is to a current set of constraints of policy and saving alpine environs is not ever considered, politically, a hopeless cause in modern times.

[tastrax]

I reckon the biggest thing that will come out of this latest series of fires is that it was unprecedented on its scale. I know one thing for sure, I would not have liked to have been the person in charge when faced with 80 fires, the current and forecast weather conditions, the dispersed locations and the need for resources. From day one this would have had all the marks of a very long campaign.

I agree, the TFS, PWS and Forestry and private contractors do an amazing job. There will be calls for more resources but they come at a high price for occasional use and remote fire fighters are a special breed that does not suit all volunteers. As it stands now many PWS and Forestry staff also double as firefighters so that also means other programs of work suffer at the same time. Just be thankful that other states and New Zealand had some resources to spare. This is one time when the states actually work as a federation (almost!).

Just think - 80 fires, say 10 helicopters and say 500 volunteers/firies - where would you put them knowing this was a long haul and still needing to cover any new starts!

[Nuts]

Tremendously complex and difficult, i'll not even guess at trying to cover all the constraints that need to be juggled.
The obvious question being asked, probably fairly given its been easy to see the response as a 'live feed', is that concerning the alpine areas encroached and the alternate outcome if those resources had been available immediately... as it was another simple observation that we had good weather and no substantial mainland fires.

[Hermione]

This could be an interesting development http://m.voanews.com/a/drones-power-up- ... 15701.html but looks a while away and like everything else costs money.

[Nuts]

We do borrow resources from the Nth'n hemisphere, makes sense. I have some faith in technology, and ideas such as Al came up with in another topic. But we still need people on the ground, and all at once. I like the federal response. Maybe a larger team, made use of in creative ways between fires? I'm sure our services are up on all this.

[stepbystep]

Prevention:
Land management, buffer zones around sensitive areas. That means NO eucalypt plantations or regen forests on the edge of the WHA. Look at the fires on the Mersey Forest Rd, all regen fuel. Pretty much the same for the Tarkine fires. The rainforest has actually virtually stopped the Tarkine fires. Our buffer zones need to be rainforest regen and/or wet schlerophyll regen.
Cold fire burning within the WHA to reduce fuel loads with internal buffer zones also a priority.

Response:
Permanent large load aerial capability, perhaps shared with Victoria, but always on standby, ready to go.
A quick response remote area crew dispatched as a matter of course to highest priority zones.
An effective and fast prioritisation of resources with a deep understanding of sensitive areas. Incident controllers given the education, and the power to act fast.

Our TWWHA is suffering a death by a thousand fires, the bureaucrats and pollies are in self preservation, lalala, look over there mode...I'm not even slightly interested in blame, I'm totally interested in getting the best possible mix to stop the rot.

Tyndalls under threat now. It's just totally *&%$#!. We've sent the reinforcements home....yes, we need lots of money, and legislators with some guts.

[tastrax]

Plenty of rainforest burnt in the current fires, but yes, traditionally rainforest has had a slowing effect on some fires under certain conditions.. What is a buffer zone - bare earth and how wide? How big does an area need to be to be considered "sensitive" and worthy of a buffer zone? (a stand of pencil pines?)

I don't disagree with many of your points, but you appear to be asking for this to be done across all the WHA in a consistent manner so there needs to be some "standard" or hierarchy of priorities.

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed- ... c-bullets/

[stepbystep]

Smarter people than me can answer most of that surely Phil?

Buffer zones suitable for the area, burning back buttongrass like PWS just did at Cradle, and out near FC, great stuff, more of it needed I reckon. Or replacing eucalypt regen with a more fire tolerant species(FT's domain mostly?). Really big landscape stuff, but to prioritise an area like the Mersey Forest Rd would be wise? We came within one hot northerly of losing the whole box and dice.

[stepbystep]

Interesting comments on the VLAT in that article. Most of the negative reasons against a VLAT are cost and ineffectiveness in tall euc forests. I reckon a quick response could have stomped the plateau fire though.

I agree it's more about prevention than response, also agree on his comments around the conservation movements need to move, just as much as the pollies/bureaucrats...

[tastrax]

Interesting comments on the VLAT in that article. Most of the negative reasons against a VLAT are cost and ineffectiveness in tall euc forests. I reckon a quick response could have stomped the plateau fire though.

I reckon the VLAT would have caused a flood!

I think this is the one sitting in Victoria - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG06xAbBf3Q

[north-north-west]

Interesting comments on the VLAT in that article. Most of the negative reasons against a VLAT are cost and ineffectiveness in tall euc forests. I reckon a quick response could have stomped the plateau fire though.

I reckon the VLAT would have caused a flood!

Appropriate solutions will not be the same for all areas. Obviously.
But one has to agree that fuel reduction - where applicable - should be the first line of defence.

[aloftas]

Honestly NNW, if you were in charge of a portable diesel irrigation cannon, I know, no fire would prevail your spirit...no bog dodgers either

Cheer up people, we can lobby well and lobby hard, once we develop some cohesive strategies.

Best thing is an open communication and from the various persepctives come up with some costed proposals for say 30 pumpsets, some tractors from council and a water cannon


I am just devastated beyond words, but we must gird our loins for a huge influx of os tourism


we are a prism, in facet earth...


and yes, borrow from northern ideas, sophistications and look at Canada


but irrigate these pencil pines and peat


eg a centre pivot on a button grass flats would cause less carnage than me floundering up there in the snow...


Could be taken away after the autumn break.


Anyway, we must avoid being defeatist and negative and kudos, hats off and thank you, to all, the sandwich makers, the folks at home and those on the front line

[Mechanic-AL]

What about more assistance from the Army and Airforce ? Fighting wars, fighting fires. There must be a few parallels there?

[stepbystep]

[quote="Mechanic-AL"]What about more assistance from the Army and Airforce ? Fighting wars, fighting fires. There must be a few parallels there?[/quote

I reckon as walkers we could form a network, that once properly trained as a fire response unit could get in 'behind the lines' to call in water bombers, and observe. Surely knowledge of country, and confidence to walk through it would be a big advantage??

[tastrax]

I reckon as walkers we could form a network, that once properly trained as a fire response unit could get in 'behind the lines' to call in water bombers, and observe. Surely knowledge of country, and confidence to walk through it would be a big advantage??

There used to be a group I think called "Smokewalkers". May have been a group by the Federation of Walking Clubs but not sure what happened to it. The biggest thing these days would be keeping up with the training required.

[tastrax]

Yep - Walking Clubs, Environment Centre and Wilderness Society by the looks of it

http://search.archives.tas.gov.au/defau ... S&id=AC694

https://linctas.ent.sirsidynix.net.au/c ... 555611/one

[tastrax]

Found an article in Tramp magazine - 1979

[north-north-west]

Honestly NNW, if you were in charge of a portable diesel irrigation cannon, I know, no fire would prevail your spirit...
...............
but irrigate these pencil pines and peat
eg a centre pivot on a button grass flats would cause less carnage than me floundering up there in the snow.
Could be taken away after the autumn break.

You would do that without any idea of the long term consequences of irrigation up there? I'd want to be sure it wouldn't do more harm than good before trying something like that. It's not like there aren't places in this country that suffer from the effects of irrigation and, while the ones we know about are in very different ecosystems, there is a very real possibility that the cure could be worse than the disease.

Think about it - where does the water to irrigate them come from? What is the impact of removing that much water from where it is? What else gets transported with the water? What are the logistical problems involved?

Anyway, we must avoid being defeatist and negative ...

Science, pragmatism and realism have to rule the day. We need to work out exactly what should be done rather than blindly rushing off and doing without any awareness of the full impact of our actions.
Then we decide whether it is possible to do what is needed. And, if so, work out the best way to do it with minimal disturbance.

As has been said early on in this debate by more than one person - it's not a simplistic issue.

[north-north-west]

I reckon as walkers we could form a network, that once properly trained as a fire response unit could get in 'behind the lines' to call in water bombers, and observe. Surely knowledge of country, and confidence to walk through it would be a big advantage??

Fully support this idea. Similar to civilian search & rescue groups.