the fire hazard reduction program

[Frank O'Connor <>]

Ross McFarlane points out the common claim :

There is a need for some prescribed burning, for ecological reasons
as well as for public safety. They create a mosaic of vegetation classes
that different species need - e.g. malleefowl feed on wattle seeds etc.
in disturbed habitat, and the Triodia that Mallee emu-wrens live in
senesces in long unburned habitat. And the firebreaks can protect some
long-unburned "lifeboat" patches from landscape scale
bushfires.

The concept of mosiac or patchwork burns sounds nice.  But in
practice they blanket burn large areas of the south west and particularly
the Kimberley, the latter year after year.  Sure, some patches
somehow survive, but in my experience I can't believe that these patches
are enough for the dependent species to survive.  Even if they do
hang on, their numbers are greatly reduced.

I have no problems with firebreaks as a means of stopping fires, and
especially to give access to fight fires, but apart from bulldozing /
mowing them, I see no concept of creating a firebreak in the prescribed
burning.  When they have done a prescribed burn to protect habitat
of threatened / endangered species, at least two I know of have got out
of control and burnt the area meant to be protected.

_________________________________________________________________
Frank O'Connor           Birding WA http://birdingwa.iinet.net.au
Phone : (08) 9386 5694              Email :

===============================

To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to: 

http://birding-aus.org
===============================