|
Stuart raises some valid points about the impact of
fire on birds. While fire does not generally offer many direct benefits to
birds, Australian landscapes have been burnt for so long that the habitat
requirements of many species are linked with a regular fire regime.
The key is obviously to have a burning regime that
has patches of forest burnt at differing intervals creating a mosaic of forest
that is at a different stage since the last burn. This (theoretically!!)
ensures that there should be some suitable habitat for different species
depending on their requirements.
The biggest problems with theory however is that of
habitat fragmentation. In small areas of habitats it is impossible to
maintain a burning regime that will ensure the survival of all previous species
using the area. In cases like this I guess some sort of prioritisation is
needed or to simply let it be and let the birds sort it out for
themselves.
Many fuel reduction burns are not for ecological
reasons but for those of human safety so you get areas close to 'civilisation'
burnt too regularly and more remote areas not at all as national parks
simply don't have the resources to maintain proper fire regimes in larger,
remote parks. Lack of burning, even fire suppression, can lead to
fuel build up far in excess of what would have occurred in the past thousands of
years and much hotter, uncontrollable fires that can render larger tracts of
habitat unsuitable for all but the hardiest of species, or wipe out an entire
habitat area.
Burning always attracts a lot of attention as it
can be difficulat to explain to people how burning an area can be beneficial to
the wildlfie. I've come accross people who fully understand the need to
burn but still don't want to head to a national park for a camping holiday
and find it happened the day before they got there.
Like many things, there are a lot more questions
than answers.
Craig Doolan
| 