Graeme
My impression from the scientists was that no amount of hazard reduction
would have stopped the bushfires in the Jan 2003 bushfire. Due to the
conditions of 'extremely hot weather' and 'very windy'. Hazard reduction
may have reduced the intensity of the fire, but not stopped fire. I cant
remember which scientist has this view, but one of the fire scientists I
am sure says the only useful hazard reduction burning is backburning
immediately before a fire.
Personally I don't agree.
I am a strong supporter of burning for 'hazard reduction' and for
biodiversity conservation.
However
I do not support 'hazard reduction' burning at all costs.
Potential costs can be identified as
-threatening biodiversity, both endangered species and communities, and
threatening whole patches of ANY ecological community (reducing chance
of recolonisation [ie speckled warblers] or enhancing changing to
another ecosystem) -soil erosion and water quality impacts -social costs
such as human health/asthma These factors should be taken into account
in any 'fuel reduction' burning. With careful use of fire we can achieve
a win-win-win result. But we are not at present.
I am also not a supporter of 'fuel hazard increasing' burning. A study
in Victoria in pea and wattle dominated ecosystems (similar to our 'dry
forests') found that burning actually increased fuel after 4 years, due
to an increase in fire loving species such as peas, wattles, etc. The
article is one of these
http://www.csu.edu.au/special/bushfire99/abs.html
I am not a supporter of 'political reduction' burning. Which seems to be
the main reason for burning CNP around the edge and within Canberra
suburbs. Eg with a drought over the past 3 years there is virtually no
fuel to burn in a lot of the CNPs I visit.
I believe the time has well past the 'just trust the fire authorities'
attitude in the ACT due to many examples of the above problems.
Benj Whitworth
-----Original Message-----
From: Clifton
Sent: Thursday, 12 April 2007 12:06 PM
To: Whitworth, Benjamin - BRS;
Cc: ; Tony Lawson
Subject: Pinnacle- And Burning CNP [SEC=PERSONAL]
Marnix,
No it is not a joke. It is hazard reduction (not hazard
burning). Up 'till about 10yrs ago, the NSW Rural Fire Service
annually
carried out low intensity hazard reduction burns in the NSW section of
the Brindabella Ranges. These typically happened in the area of Pig
Hill and Two Sticks Fire Trail. However complaints from concerned ACT
citizens about smoke haze resulted in these activities ceasing. The
rest is history.
I happened to be in the area mentioned above on the day before the Jan
2003 firestorm. I was on the ground but talking to the crew of "Georgia
Peach"
about what could be done to save a dangerously developing situation. I
would have swapped 100 choppers for a bit more hazard reduction.
It is not fair to ask Volunteers to go fire fighting into forested
country that has not been hazard reduced. It is too bloody difficult.
The sceptics will just have to trust the Bushfire authorities. The
community has demanded protection and smoke haze is a side effect.
Cheers. Graeme Clifton
|
