A recent report from friends who suffered terrible losses of buildings, fences, pasture and cattle in the Coonabarabran fire commenced with the ominous and oft-repeated message: “a raging fire came out of the National Park straight for us”.
There is only one way to limit fire damage – reduce the fuel available.
Fuel load can be reduced in three ways – by grazing animals, by planned small “cool” fires, or by mechanical reduction with slashers, mulchers or dozers.
Australia’s grassland landscape was created and managed by generations of Aborigines who were masters at using man’s most useful tool – fire. Every explorer from Abel Tasman (1642) and Captain Cook (1770) onwards noted the smoke in the sky and the burnt trees whenever they landed. This burning created the open grassland landscapes that dominated pre-European Australia. Aborigines lit fires continually, so their small patchwork fires caused no permanent damage to the environment and created and maintained the healthy grasslands on which many animals and Aborigines depended.
Misguided tree lovers and green politicians have locked the gates on ever-increasing areas of land for trees, parks, heritage, wilderness, habitat, weekend retreats, carbon sequestration etc. Never before on this ancient continent has anyone tried to ban land use or limit bush fires on certain land. The short-sighted policy of surrounding their massive land-banks with fences, locked gates and fire bans has created a new alien environment in Australia. They have created tinder boxes where the growth of woody weeds and the accumulation of dead vegetation in eucalypt re-growth create the perfect environment for fierce fires. Once ignited by lightning, carelessness or arson, the inevitable fire-storms incinerate the park trees and wildlife, and then invade the unfortunate neighbouring properties.
Many of today’s locked-up areas were created to sequester carbon to fulfil Kyoto obligations. Who pays the carbon tax on the carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere by wild fires?
The green bureaucracies and politicians are clearly mis-managing their huge land-bank. Aborigines and graziers did a far better job. There should be a moratorium on locking up any more land and a return to sustainable management for existing land holdings.
Viv Forbes,
Rosewood Qld Australia
I am happy for my email address to be published.
Related articles
- Bushfires rage on in Australia ‘helped’ by climate change (updatednews.ca)
- Bushfires rage on in Australia (bbc.co.uk)
In my part of the world, we don’t have so many bureaucratic crazies. National Parks and other institutions would like to do lots more vermin control and fire maintenance, but money and resources are never near enough. The real problem is money and wealth.
Wealth. If Abbott can roll his main opposition,John McTernan, in the next election, there needs to be a urgent shift toward wealth generation based on cheap, abundant, reliable energy for all. This needs to be based on coal and the renovation of our coal power generation. It will be expensive and controversial, and I would be happy to see Abbott hire the likes of McTernan to spin this energy revolution so that climate and enviro monies are diverted toward it, as happened in Germany with Merkel, who talked green while she dug brown.
As we achieve more wealth, it must be re-invested in real infrastructure and the dismantling of green fetishism. No money must go to the the likes of GIM or Goldman Sachs, who are delighted at the prospect of trading in a fraction of thin air – even if it is not a weightless fraction. Above all, we will be able to get serious about Conservation. No more gesturing, playing and Bob Carrism.
Whatever we decide to do about fire, weeds, vermin, dunes, watersheds etc, a good job on these things will cost massively. We need to be rich. Liz Macarthur, with some help, established a million pound industry within a few years of the Second Fleet’s arrival. She was a genius, but others have been able to follow because, in spite of our humble origins, nobody has been able to sell us on poverty.
Poor people don’t conserve. They don’t have a high carbon footprint because they can’t afford it but also because hucksters aren’t interested in calculating the carbon from burning twigs and dung. The poor don’t conserve, but they sure do breed. The poor need to get rich and the rich need to get richer.
Mr. Forbes’ propositions are the purest commonsense. But to act on such commonsense takes real wealth. My heart goes out to those suffering in the Australian heat and fires, and in the Indian cold wave and in Russia’s current “snowcalypse”. Let’s generate some real energy and use the hard wealth to meet real demands.
Some interesting and passionate arguments here. I suspect some of the people attacking Philip Bradley are rationalizing. Their main argument is that Western Australia is huge and empty so Philip’s simple advice, namely clearing all brush and removing tall trees within a certain distance, cannot be applied to their special situation. These same types of folks inhabited some suburbs near Colorado Springs and watched their closely spaced houses burn in a wildfire.
Folks, it’s pretty simple. If there’s something flammable near your house, your house will eventually burn. That applies whether you live in the middle of nowhere with nobody around or in a densely packed suburb. You can blame whoever or whatever you want, but the fact is that you choose to live there despite the risks.
[Reply: Some folks in the ritzy Oakland Hills, Calif. learned that a few years back. Now mandatory fuel removal laws. -ModE]
Apologies for rewriting a post, but I thought it had gone missing.
Sounds overly simplistic to me.
Bet you no one had the slightest idea how much of Australia was open grassland compared to now.
Oh wait a second, didn’t all those farmers bulldoze the scrub to make parsture. And those farmers should be protected now right because grass provides very little fuel load? Nope they get burnt out by massive grass fires.
Looks like Viv’s elaborate theory has hit s snag. Or was all this just a scheme to blame someone else?
Bib says
Many of today’s locked-up areas were created to sequester carbon to fulfil Kyoto obligations. Who pays the carbon tax on the carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere by wild fires?
———–
Utter bullshit. Today’s national parks preceded Kyoto by decades.
C’mon Viv cough up with the area of land set aside for Kyoto.
Noelene says:
January 21, 2013 at 2:35 am
For you climate ace..so you don’t have to guess (and be wrong)any more.
http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/committees/enrc/bushfire_inquiry/Final_Report/FINAL_for_web_v2.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Just in case Ace misses it.
So it looks like the Victoria government finally recognizes they really goofed in listening to the greens and is trying to modify their stance. (Too bad the advisors/lobbyists responsible for the idiotic laws can not be brought up on charges)
I’ve read that intense fires not only sterilize but bake-harden the ground some inches below the surface, which prevents the rain for getting through for decades and has very bad effects all around.
Climate Ace says
“Since lightning starts most fires, and most land is not national parks, more fires are going to burn into national parks than out of them.”
Really are you that ignorant . So firestorms come from grasslands and take out the trees?
Than statistically most fires should be extinguished before they hit national parks . Oh wait they are because we all know that once in a a park they go out easy .
By the way I also drove 800 km just to burn fuel and add my own little co2 extinguisher .
Gail Combs says: January 21, 2013 at 3:31 am
====================================
And now the megapods come home to roost- on the brow of the mis-guided environmentalists who insisted on the ill-advised policies which led to the firestorms. Will they acknowledge their mistaken idealism? No- they will blame it on CO2 and come bomb the threads of WUWT with their ill-informed zeal.
Climate Ace assures us that Australians are allowed to clear brush. Others say, NOT TRUE.
I have several online friends in Australia who tell me Climate Ace doesn’t know what he/she is talking about. I see links here and at other places that indicate that Climate Ace is clueless in this.
What to believe?
I will say this: I feel horrible and helpless watching real people fight real fires, while simultaneously fighting governments at several levels who appear to be against their safety. In almost ever other country on this planet it is the priority of the government to look out for the PEOPLE… not the wildlife, not the planet, not some imagined future climate catastrophe, and not vague possibilities. Yes, governments manage wildlife and land, but those are secondary considerations compared to people. Voters, too, I might add.
Here in Alberta we occasionally have grass fires that consume thousands of acres in minutes, leaping across highways and in some cases causing smoke severe enough to cause secondary fatalities for people trying to drive. We recently had almost an entire town burn to the ground because of the exact same kind of narrow mindedness and refusal to mandate proper firebreaks in a forest area. And we’re not even remotely a warm climate or covered in volatile oil producing trees.
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2011/05/20110516-123301.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Slave_Lake_fire
Personal opinion: to those decrying the “noble savage” image of the Aboriginals, consider the reality. It doesn’t MATTER what their motivations were, and it is MEANINGLESS to “blame” them for what the continent is. All that counts is that a management system was in place, and that it is no longer in place. LAW of unintended consequences now comes into play. The management system that replaced what the Aboriginals were doing is clearly not working, the logical step is to either come up with a workable management system or return to the method that was in place before.
Aaah Baa,
What a beaut comment. added to that of Olaf.
Abel and Cook only mentioned the coastal areas of Australia as thhis is all they explored. And who the heck did want to rub two sticks together every morning for cooking hedgehogs (echidnas)?, as you rightly point out.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/20/australias-alien-environment-fuels-firestorms/#comment-1204335
In the open country firesticks and embers were carried and periodically used to torch spinifex etc to maintain the firestick/ember, flash out game and most likely torch an offending neighbouring tribe’s wooden artefacts and sacred objects. And reduce their opportunity of game?
Surely use of fire-farming by Aborigines as presented currently implies a cohesive and collaborative unity of tribal activity. With this mass development surely common language and culture would have proceeded at a greater rate over 40,000 years. History does not bear this argument out.
Otherwise, another great article by Viv Forbes.
Edna Walling, Australian feminist and lesbian gardener, in later life took to roadside regeneration. Little has been written of the work of landscape gardeners, their [Tonnies gemeinschaft]] village development in Australia which the girls exported from Gertrude Jekyll, UK. All that feminist claptrap influenced local Councils and regulation of public/private lands, especially roadside vegetation as portrayed in the Quadrant article.
My understanding is that eucalyptus forests require fire for propagation. Which would explain what could be seen during the TV interview of that family photographed sheltering under a wooden jetty. In the background, there did not appear to be the devastation one would have expected after such a fire. I suspect that might be why only a glimpse could be seen – had there been blackened stumps, I have little doubt the cameras would have lingered over the sight.
It all depends on what you define as “There weren’t that many of them”
In 1788 there was an estimated 314,500 Indigenous Australians.
http://www.nccarf.edu.au/wwwold/settlements-infrastructure/sites/www.nccarf.edu.au.settlements-infrastructure/files/file/ACCARNSI%20Node%202%20Discussion%20Paper%20-%20Population%20Distribution%20Migration%20and%20Climate%20Change%20in%20Australia%20%20Final.pdf
Autralia’s government is run by a bunch of politically correct loonies. Ot but looks like solar 24 did really reach max
http://www.solarham.net/
I am in victoria too,
lucky the big fires own our way were put out due to incredible efforts by all concerned..
however our area has a massive issue with prickly acacia it harbours rabbits n foxes goes up like a bomb burns hard and fast, is all over road verges alonmg with 6ft hight phalaris and a lot of native grases.
none of which the councils are allowed to burn or slash or remove via bulldozer thansk to insane green l;aws,. add 5ft high bracken fern spreads on the council land and bush areas.
then throw in pine and bluegum plantations within a mile of town.
allowed by councils, loss of good farmland and jobs for investors profits.
and incresed rates.
a lot of us live rural cos we hate cities and because its the only cheap land or homes we can afford, the green hobby famers planting the land heavily for carbon credits are a serious hazard to communities here..
nat parks wont help pay half to fence land adjoining they also rfuse to cut overhanging tree or bulldoze propoer firebreaks on their side of the fenceline so fire crews actually have access.
I get told off for grass over 10cm high at town edge with sheep n horse I need to feed off of the grasses over summer.
yet we cant remove the real hazards>?
close to 50% of vic is bloody parks.
wildlife corridors are a great way to allow a fire to run.
deep ripping fireburnt soils and dragging the charcoal down plough n till it. would stop hardpan and allow bacteria and water to fix damage, but the ptb would have a fit.
In the southern US foresters plant pine in plantations of thousands of acres. Not one is without firebreaks, for example every quarter mile or less. Standard practice. The greenies are impractical, with impractical visions. The result: firestorms.
Jimbo says:
January 21, 2013 at 5:47 am
johanna says:
January 20, 2013 at 3:48 pm
………………………..
I am a bit sceptical of the romantic view of Aboriginal burning as well. There weren’t that many of them – vast regions of this vast continent were uninhabited, so the effects were localised in fairly small areas…….
It all depends on what you define as “There weren’t that many of them”
In 1788 there was an estimated 314,500 Indigenous Australians.
————————————————-
Indeed, over an area similar to the contiguous (did I get that right, Anthony?) United States. Thanks, Jimbo, for bringing some sense into the romantic notion of the ‘noble savage’. It’s balderdash. It is quite possible that the vegetation profile of Australia has been shaped by fire, but a few scattered people here and there didn’t do it on their own.
Concern Troll, as I have renamed Climate Deuce, has bombarded us with misinformation interspersed with fact. He has calibrated his latest thread-bombings thanks to feedback from people like me, who regard his gloating over ‘proof’ of CAGW while people’s homes are still smoking as loathsome. So, he has taken a different tack. Since I don’t want to bore readers as he has, I’ll take one example.
Just for fun, apparently, he has thrown in some spurious assertions about ‘artificially created’ gullies in the Great Dividing Range, and how they are useful for fighting fires. What rubbish.
Overseas readers need to understand that the GDR is a string of mountains that runs 50 to 100 miles inside the east cost of Australia for over 2,000 miles. It is largely populated with eucalypts, and is one of the most potent sources for bushfires thanks to lightning strikes. Aborigines certainly spent time there, but they would have been suicidal to light fires there. The gullies that CT claims (a) are ‘unnatural’ and (b) are a great help to firefighters are in fact a feature of the mountains. They are why it took European explorers – who didn’t bother to consult the natives – years to find a way over them. Every time you think you are getting ahead, you hit a gully, and have to go back. That is the topography of these mountains.
As for being a help to firefighters, if CT can explain how a deep gully in rugged terrain during a bushfire is helpful, next thing is, he’ll be selling us sh*t sandwiches and saying that they are good for us.
With regard to the lunatic policies around national parks, CT diverted with some dispute about where the fire started. It doesn’t matter, when a $100m space telescope is almost burned to the ground because the park authority insisted that ‘every tree is sacred’ and they were allowed to grow right up to the walls of the telescope, Like all concern trolls, you continue to deliberately miss the point while weeping crocodile tears.
Philip Shehan says:
January 21, 2013 at 6:21 am
The article from which the above quotes were taken is by Tim Flannery, who also edited and wrote the forward to my copy of Watkin Tench’s journals. Flannery is no politically correct bleeding heart.
Phil, the Flannery who wrote that forward is also the one described below. The one you may perhaps be thinking of (non political etc) must be a different Flannery, I believe:
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Flannery
markx:
At January 21, 2013 at 8:01 am you write to Philip Shehan saying:
You “believe” Philip Shehan was “thinking” of “a different Flannery”?
Surely, you jest.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
January 21, 2013 at 8:26 am
“..You “believe” Philip Shehan was “thinking” of “a different Flannery”?
Surely, you jest….”
🙂 Indeed I do Richard … but unfortunately I posted this on the wrong thread, so the joke is on me!
markx:
re your post addressed to me at January 21, 2013 at 8:33 am
Thanks! I laughed, too. But the trolls need to be corrected when they mislead. So, please copy your post to the correct thread to ensure that any who may have been misled get your correct information.
Richard
CodeTech says:
January 21, 2013 at 5:21 am
…. I feel horrible and helpless watching real people fight real fires, while simultaneously fighting governments at several levels who appear to be against their safety. In almost ever other country on this planet it is the priority of the government to look out for the PEOPLE… not the wildlife, not the planet, not some imagined future climate catastrophe, and not vague possibilities. Yes, governments manage wildlife and land, but those are secondary considerations compared to people. Voters, too, I might add…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That used to be the case. Now the governments only look at people as cash cows and take their actual orders from the wealthy econuts like Ted Turner, George Soros and the malthusians running the UN and WWF.
Top Senate Democrat [says] bankers “own” the U.S. Congress and we already know where the World Bank stands on Global Warming.
Goode ’nuff says:
January 20, 2013 at 11:57 am …
California has not had a “natural” environment for several millennia at least. Like the Australian Aborigines, the California Indians used fire as a tool. With it they maintained immense regions of perennial grass lands in the Great Valley, limiting the success of annual grasses whose shallow roots are vulnerable to fire. They also encouraged larger deer herd sizes by burning over chaparral lands with the counter-intuitive result of improving browse within the chaparral lands (deer like first and second year chemise) and also increased the size of the chaparral lands. Forest lands in the Sierra – whose park-like appearance is remarked on in many historic diaries – were kept open, and importantly, water in streams was maintained above modern levels because of lower transpiration from trees (there were fewer trees in California 200 years ago than there are at present) resulting in higher water tables. There is considerable debate over just how much of California’s land area was essentially managed but a common estimate is above 25%. This certainly true if the Great Valley was mostly in a fire managed state. The current situation is the result of fire suppression over a century or better. That, and the interference of “air quality boards” whose environmental effects has never been properly addressed.
: johanna says:
January 20, 2013 at 3:48 pm
…
I am a bit sceptical of the romantic view of Aboriginal burning as well. There weren’t that many of them – vast regions of this vast continent were uninhabited, so the effects were localised in fairly small areas. As others have pointed it, it made sense from the point of view of finding a cooked dinner in the ashes and clearing a bit of grazing land for kangaroos and such. …
There’s nothing “romantic” about the use of fire by hunter-gatherers. The sole limits on the size of a fire that is not being actively fought are weather and fuel loads. Grasslands will burn from horizon to horizon. In forested areas fire extent and severity is determined by fuel on the ground, and biological structure and age structure of the forest. Frequent fires reduce the scope of a new fire while greater spans between fires correlate with larger, hotter fires.
When you look at agricultural land use, you want to remember several things. For one thing we are a species that exploits marginal environments and natural catastrophes like landslides and fires. Immediately after a fire or slide an entirely different crop of plants appears than what grew prior to the event. These plants are often uncommonly useful, but they require things like lowered competition from other plants, increased ground water, and increased sunlight that a “destructive” event like a fire creates. The direct result of this is that our crops are generally biased toward species that started out on marginal lands in early biological succession stages. So, as slightly smarter than normal apes, our ancestors had the brilliant idea of creating controlled “catastrophes” – areas deliberately burned by fires, and ploughed fields, both of which are “events” that delay biological succession. The same burning practices were employed in North America, and in fact anywhere that “swidden agriculture” (also called ‘slash and burn’) was employed.
In Australia, while there weren’t “many” when you consider population per square mile, that is not relevant since they moved around a lot. They could very well live in an area for while, decide the foraging returns were falling below desirable levels, light a fire and then head off to another area. Small H-G bands can use huge areas in more marginal landscapes.