Bushwalk Australia

Just found this on the PWS website. Walkers should avoid the Wineglass Bay track On May 25-26.

Fuel reduction burn at Wineglass Bay Lookout Track on 25-26 May

Weather permitting, the Parks and Wildlife Service will undertake a fuel reduction burn at the Wineglass Bay Lookout Track, within Freycinet National Park, on Monday 25 May and Tuesday 26 May. The burn is part of the statewide Fuel Reduction Program, which is aimed at reducing the bushfire risk to help protect lives and communities.

Freycinet National Park will remain open during the burn, with walking tracks at Sleepy Bay, Cape Tourville lighthouse, White Water Wall and Richardsons Beach accessible.

The Wineglass Bay Lookout track, Hazards Beach Track and Mt Amos will remain closed during the burn and re-open once it is safe to do so. It is very important that visitors respect these closures for their own safety.

For information about Freycinet walking tracks, contact the visitor centre on 6256 7000. A list of PWS planned burns is available on the PWS website at http://www.parks.tas.gov.au.

cheers

Peter

I wonder if there will be any wildlife left once these state govt sponsored arsonists have incinerated the area..

You mean those tame wallabies everybody keeps hand feeding biscuits and who are trained to approach to the sound of the plastic wrapping those biscuits ? There should be more effort put into making Wineglass Bay a bit wilder again.

No I mean all the wildlife, not just the wallabies imbeciles feed biscuits etc...Tasmania has an infatuation with lighting fires..its an obsession, everywhere you go here..its almost like they have nothing else to do but light fires...Why would any Govt / person that is not completely of the lunatic variety set light to the wine glass bay area?

To protect tourists in a highly vulnerable area I suspect

RichB wrote:No I mean all the wildlife, not just the wallabies imbeciles feed biscuits etc...Tasmania has an infatuation with lighting fires..its an obsession, everywhere you go here..its almost like they have nothing else to do but light fires...Why would any Govt / person that is not completely of the lunatic variety set light to the wine glass bay area?

You obviously have an obsession about this (I hope you are not a closet Pyromaniac) it has been explained in detail to you in previous posts that controlled burn offs are are a necessary evil to prevent major conflagrations ( such as in Dunallay ) what alternative do you propose ? from your previous post I believe that you have a serious mental problem that you would rather save an animal than a Human Child so I should rest my case .
Sorry the rules don't allow me to call you you a Richard pate or an eight day clock fondler or even a TROLL ? however whichever, you do need help, problem is not sure as to what level of psychology to advise you to seek.

corvus wrote:

RichB wrote:No I mean all the wildlife, not just the wallabies imbeciles feed biscuits etc...Tasmania has an infatuation with lighting fires..its an obsession, everywhere you go here..its almost like they have nothing else to do but light fires...Why would any Govt / person that is not completely of the lunatic variety set light to the wine glass bay area?

You obviously have an obsession about this (I hope you are not a closet Pyromaniac) it has been explained in detail to you in previous post that controlled burn offs are are a necessary evil to prevent major conflagrations ( such as in Dunallay ) what alternative do you propose ? from your previous post that I believe that you have a serious mental problem that you would rather save an animal than a Human Child so I should rest my case .
Sorry the rules don't allow me to call you you a Richard pate or an eight day clock fondler or even a TROLL ? however whichever, you do need help, problem is not sure as to what level of psychology to advise you to seek.

Its not in my nature to get involved in this type of thing as a rule but I love it when someone says what everyone is thinking!

The thing is the Wineglass Bay area is one of the main attractions for tourists in Tasmania...The other thing is tourists wont want to visit a burnt, barren,Wineglass bay which is also devoid of wildlife...thought about that?
I find it hard to believe how many of you who claim to love the beautiful Tassie outdoors actaully agree with the incineration of our beautiful places..Very sad..

Are you from Australia, RichB? Do you not understand the role of fire with Australian vegetation?

Strider wrote:Are you from Australia, RichB? Do you not understand the role of fire with Australian vegetation?

+1. It's also a fuel reduction burn, not a random purposeless act.

GPSGuided wrote:

Strider wrote:Are you from Australia, RichB? Do you not understand the role of fire with Australian vegetation?

+1. It's also a fuel reduction burn, not a random purposeless act.

Its a perfect time of year to do a low intensity burn which the vegetation and therefore the animals require. If it's left to build up the resulting and inevitable fire will be a very large fire that will actually change the place for ever. There are places around King Lake and Marysville that the bush has been changed significantly due to the extreme intensity of those fire, some species have simply not survived in mature form which means they will be outcompeted by pioneer species and so the mix of the bush changes for a long time (100+ years)
If you like the look of the area and want to keep it that way then occasionally it has to burn, this is by far the best way to do it.
If you walk the track next winter and have a look at all the seedlings that have sprouted and the amount of available grazing for said wallabies you will agree.

And so RichB, you are wrong.

I can't imagine these burns have a lot to do with habitat management for wildlife?

I hate tourists. Unfortunatley I don't think I will ever visit this area because of this. I have been visiting Tassie for over 30 years and have gradually seen most of the wild places destroyed by the Parks having to pander to old farts who leave their rubbish everywhere, because they figure there are lots of people to pick up after them. Without regular controlled burn offs, the surrounding country is at risk of uncontrolled fires. Usually tourists are pretty well ignorant with regards to conservation, regeneration and keeping wildlife wild. So long as they have their rite of passage they don't care about anyone or anything. The number of times I have seen some poor wallaby or wombat trying to escape a pair of clowns shaking a packet of biscuits while the other tries to shove a video camera up their butt really annoys me. I know they are a major source of income but as far as I am concerned the wilderness comes first. And yes, I am extremely passionate and protective of any wilderness.

Nuts wrote:I can't imagine these burns have a lot to do with habitat management for wildlife?

It is an ecology that relies on fire. You can burn it at a time of your choosing in a controlled way or wait until it burns itself in an uncontrolled way.
My point is if you actively exclude fire for long periods in the way we have you will end up with extreme fires which are bad for humans and bad for wildlife.
So yes they have a benefits for habitat management but the primary purpose of the is for fuel reduction.
I suppose I was referring to RichB's comments about the destruction of animals etc

Funny that. I thought we are all tourists/visitors.

How often does Tasmanian flora 'require' burning? With fuel loads as great as they have likely ever been there is still only the occasional .. mid-summer..wildfire started by lightning.

Nuts wrote:How often does Tasmanian flora 'require' burning? With fuel loads as great as they have likely ever been there is still only the occasional .. mid-summer..wildfire started by lightning.

Most landscapes in Tas have fire as part of the natural process and therefore they need to burn, the frequency and intensity of those burns is the question smatter people than I are trying to answer. See here for some reading http://www.bushfirecrc.com/projects/b31 ... odiversity.
I think the fuel loads being really high and not having enough enough fuel reduction burns leads to less fires but when we do have them they are more likely to be Dunalley s type fires. The path the managers seem to be taking is more small controlled fires to avoid the big ones.

The problem is the people incinerating our landscapes are not competent in what they are doing..Just have a look at the Dial Ranges, and the western side of Rocky Cape National park..Absolute incompetence and destruction of beautiful places..thats if you actually love beautiful places or empty,charred landscapes..

Like last time: viewtopic.php?p=260857#p260857

Show me the evidence or stop blowing around all this hot air.

You are insulting a great many parks staff, researchers and members without giving any justification bar appeals to humanity.

Outside of 2nd SD...

icefest wrote: Show me the evidence or stop blowing around all this hot air.

Welll.. 'they' Did just try to fry NNW.. not the height of competence

Who started that RC fire Rich? These others being cited were started by campfires and or on private property (and consequently, as it follows, any burn off regime on public land wouldn't have helped or been to blame).

I'd prefer a bit more insight but wouldn't be overly concerned about who you are insulting, there is no personal attack and anyone in a public role would/should be able too/ be well versed in managing their emotions & putting public comment into useful perspective.

I hesitate to get involved in this type of discussion (these days anyway ), but since people on both sides of this debate seem very sure of their position on burning the bush, I would like to point out that there is a lot of uncertainty over the effectiveness of “controlled burns” as a tool for preventing wildfires by reducing fuel loads, and should probably be considered on a case-by-case basis. Note that after any major bushfire event in Australia, fierce debates rages in political, land-management, scientific and (especially) public forums about what could, or should have been done to prevent, or minimise these events. And often there are huge disagreements over the findings, blame is thrown around, but not much action for management seems to be applied other than more controlled burns, land clearing (buffer zones) and the like, which may or may not be effective (for example, many wildfires start out as grass fires in cleared areas, and/or can cross cleared areas such as buffers if the buffer is not maintained, and also note that many extreme bushfire events generally occur when hot, dry windy conditions are met, and may occur regardless of fuel reductions).
Also, as far as ecological advantages of burning the bush go, different native vegetation respond differently to fire, so some will have a positive effect, but many also will not. For there to be a positive effect from fire on biodiversity, seasonal timing of fires are often critical, as is frequency, intensity, area and pattern of burn etc, and of course these may differ across regions. I am sure these have been discussed elsewhere on the forum at some point in the past.
Anyway, just some food for thought, so-to-speak.

Pteropus wrote:I hesitate to get involved in this type of discussion (these days anyway ), but since people on both sides of this debate seem very sure of their position on burning the bush, I would like to point out that there is a lot of uncertainty over the effectiveness of “controlled burns” as a tool for preventing wildfires by reducing fuel loads, and should probably be considered on a case-by-case basis. Note that after any major bushfire event in Australia, fierce debates rages in political, land-management, scientific and (especially) public forums about what could, or should have been done to prevent, or minimise these events. And often there are huge disagreements over the findings, blame is thrown around, but not much action for management seems to be applied other than more controlled burns, land clearing (buffer zones) and the like, which may or may not be effective (for example, many wildfires start out as grass fires in cleared areas, and/or can cross cleared areas such as buffers if the buffer is not maintained, and also note that many extreme bushfire events generally occur when hot, dry windy conditions are met, and may occur regardless of fuel reductions).
Also, as far as ecological advantages of burning the bush go, different native vegetation respond differently to fire, so some will have a positive effect, but many also will not. For there to be a positive effect from fire on biodiversity, seasonal timing of fires are often critical, as is frequency, intensity, area and pattern of burn etc, and of course these may differ across regions. I am sure these have been discussed elsewhere on the forum at some point in the past.
Anyway, just some food for thought, so-to-speak.

Always good to bring some balance to an argument