I stopped taking clients to Gunlom after successive trips when we found the
area burnt or just recovering and little suitable habitat. I'm afraid this
will be an ongoing problem given the large numbers of visitors now climbing
into that area. We go elsewhere.
As for burning in general, it happens far too often.
Open forest with an herbaceous understorey becomes savanna woodland as fire
destroys the large trees. Regular burning results in fire-encouraging
grasses replacing the herbs and thus reducing plant and fauna diversity.
The spread of Gamba grass has greatly worsened this situation.
In pre European times the only way for most areas to burn, given the low
population, was through lightning strikes.
My semitraditional relatives only burn regularly around their outstations,
one reason being the threat of snakes to young children, and around roads
and some hunting areas. Other areas may not be burnt for decades.
Denise L Goodfellow
on 13/7/08 9:25 AM, Moorhead Family at wrote:
> ....I worry about the so-called environmental burning...there was literally
> only tiny patches of truly large old growth triodia....all 4 trips have
> resulted in there
> being less suitable habitat for WTGW (but also numerous other species) I
> know that this
> a contentious issue with which NTers seem to be defensive about, but I don't
> get it.
> Denise may like to comment but surely in the pre-European era, most fires
> were from
> lighting strikes at the on-set of the wet season? ...surely not going into
> the dry season (now)
> I understand that Aboriginal burning for hunting purposes probably happened
> all year.
------ End of Forwarded Message
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
|
