Hi all,
Sorry Rob but I have heard as much scientific work asserting that
"controlled burning" , or whatever term you might want to apply to such
practices, does not always deliver expected/predicted results in terms of
"management" (whatever that is) of fire risk/intensity. Even if extensive
areas of forest had been subject to "controlled burns" prior to the
Canberra tragedy it is not clear at all that this would have prevented the
impacts on human life and property delivered by the high winds and
temperatures that were an instrumental part of the mix in this incident.
Who knows what the impacts were on avifauna in the short and longer term.
To suggest that the fires in Canberra were simply the result of "poor
forest management" without regard to specific weather conditions at the
time, among other things, seems a touch off the money though.
Also, my understanding is that there was tremendous diversity in the use
(direct and indirect) of fire by Aboriginal peoples across the continent
and over time. In some work I've encountered, contrary to many
contemporary views, arguments emerge that not all landscapes were subject
to fire and some areas were never meant to be torched for any reason. Some
people understood very clearly that fire and particular, important animals
(certain birds) did not mix well. I think there's a growing need to
challenge an oversimplified view of Aboriginal land/fire practices coming
to dominance that is really only trying to justify "burning off" in the
more conventional Rural Fire Service sense.
cheers
Craig
> --- On Wed, 10/29/08, Evan Beaver <> wrote:
>> aside, can anyone comment on this statement:
>> "Bushfires are an integral part of the Australian
>> ecosystem."
>
> Aborigines shaped the Australian ecosystem through fire over thousands of
> years. Fire from lightning strikes has also had an influence. As a
> result, many species of native plants cannot reproduce without fire.
>
> Check out the work of Tim Flannery e.g.
> http://www.abc.net.au/science/future/
>
> Many of the horrendous wildfires we have experienced have been due to the
> excessive buildup of fuel by eliminating bushfires. There are areas of
> Australia where areas are burned in a controlled fashion according to
> Aboriginal tradition. It helps to regenerate the ecosystem - but only in
> this controlled fashion. The horrible crown fires such as the one which
> raged through Namadgi National Park and continued into Canberra to destroy
> over 500 homes was the result of poor forest management.
>
> Controlled burning would not release as much CO2 as uncontrolled wildfire.
>
> It's the millions of tons of oil, coal and gas we consume that we should
> be concerned about, not bushfires.
>
> Rob
>
> PS I just read someone else's response and yes, obviously not all habitats
> in Australia require fires, especially closed canopy rainforest!
>
>
>
>
>
> ===============================
> 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:
> ===============================
>
===============================
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:
===============================
|
