The Department of Scorched Earth
'Twas his Parkie mate who wrote it, and verbatim I will quote it:
Clancy's gone to Gippsland burning, and we don't know where he are'
After Banjo Patterson
Clancy's gone to Gippsland burning, and we don't know where he are'
After Banjo Patterson
Sustainability? Environment?
The Department of Sustainability and Environment has become the blunt instrument of the politics of wildfire
During the 2009 Bushfire Royal Commission, against dissenting expert submissions and disregarding the incomplete state of fire ecology knowledge in Victoria, a government selected panel recommended a three-fold increase in the amount of burning of our public land, to a minimum of 5% of the total area of state forests, parks, reserves and other crown land per year
While the panel initially recommended burning at least 5 per cent of all public land for fuel reduction every year, they later clarified that their knowledge could only back that up for the ''foothill forests'', and then just in relation to vegetation (more...)
Like the 10/30 rule (now extended to 10/50 metres) a certain ex-premier's media unit thought it would help win an election and immediately adopted the original recommendation, while ignoring the later qualifications. It didn't help...
The ecologically unsound torching of our biodiversity heritage has been warmly embraced by their successors, the folks who bring you private cattle grazing in the Alpine National Park
The Department of Sustainability & Environment has been directed to implement these fire regimes
DSE (who protect and manage our natural heritage on public land) is the perpetually under-resourced and seriously out-ranked poor cousin of DPI (who market, promote and facilitate often unsustainable and irresponsible "harvesting" of the same natural heritage)
Our forests, woodlands, scrubs and heathlands are now subject to a retrogressive, simplistic, "burn more bush and we'll all feel safer" policy, cashing in on recently-stoked community fear levels
During the 2009 Bushfire Royal Commission, against dissenting expert submissions and disregarding the incomplete state of fire ecology knowledge in Victoria, a government selected panel recommended a three-fold increase in the amount of burning of our public land, to a minimum of 5% of the total area of state forests, parks, reserves and other crown land per year
While the panel initially recommended burning at least 5 per cent of all public land for fuel reduction every year, they later clarified that their knowledge could only back that up for the ''foothill forests'', and then just in relation to vegetation (more...)
Like the 10/30 rule (now extended to 10/50 metres) a certain ex-premier's media unit thought it would help win an election and immediately adopted the original recommendation, while ignoring the later qualifications. It didn't help...
The ecologically unsound torching of our biodiversity heritage has been warmly embraced by their successors, the folks who bring you private cattle grazing in the Alpine National Park
The Department of Sustainability & Environment has been directed to implement these fire regimes
DSE (who protect and manage our natural heritage on public land) is the perpetually under-resourced and seriously out-ranked poor cousin of DPI (who market, promote and facilitate often unsustainable and irresponsible "harvesting" of the same natural heritage)
Our forests, woodlands, scrubs and heathlands are now subject to a retrogressive, simplistic, "burn more bush and we'll all feel safer" policy, cashing in on recently-stoked community fear levels
Firestick farming: a strictly European innovation
Now, the very next time anyone tells you the bush in the south east of the country has
always had regular burning or even that the land is completely altered
due to aboriginal people burning it all on a regular basis since they
first lobbed here (allegedly barbecuing all that cute mega fauna in the
process, we're told), suggest they to look at some recent rather
definitive research, both physical and historical...
Read the whole SMH article about the analysis of 70,000 years of swamp sediment charcoal levels here
Also, read this extract from the late, great Ron Hately about the patently dodgy basis for the pernicious aboriginal burning practice mythologies that pervade and pervert fire and land management policy and encumber our battered ecosystems
Read the whole SMH article about the analysis of 70,000 years of swamp sediment charcoal levels here
Also, read this extract from the late, great Ron Hately about the patently dodgy basis for the pernicious aboriginal burning practice mythologies that pervade and pervert fire and land management policy and encumber our battered ecosystems
Tours of Duty
An already chronically starved DSE can ill afford to have a significant proportion of their (and Parks Victoria's) outdoor staff and assets commandeered for months at a time during Autumn and Spring to motor down to East Gippsland or elsewhere in the state and set fire to the bush (see the map below)
This is at the expense and detriment of the land on their own patch that they would otherwise be managing for biodiversity, so the effects on overall public land habitat management are magnified
The re-tasking of large cohorts of natural systems management personnel for extended "tours of duty" with the eponymous Fire BugTM drip torch in hand is the functional equivalent of substantial on-ground staff and equipment cuts for both these organisations
The potential for staff demoralisation in these two agencies should not be underestimated. Nobody works for conservation or parks departments to destroy habitat and degrade biodiversity values by ill-informed poorly-planned too-frequent burning of our ecosystems to fill a quota of such dubious provenance
This is at the expense and detriment of the land on their own patch that they would otherwise be managing for biodiversity, so the effects on overall public land habitat management are magnified
The re-tasking of large cohorts of natural systems management personnel for extended "tours of duty" with the eponymous Fire BugTM drip torch in hand is the functional equivalent of substantial on-ground staff and equipment cuts for both these organisations
The potential for staff demoralisation in these two agencies should not be underestimated. Nobody works for conservation or parks departments to destroy habitat and degrade biodiversity values by ill-informed poorly-planned too-frequent burning of our ecosystems to fill a quota of such dubious provenance
Contact links for the people who can change this are at the bottom of the page
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors Plato (427-347 BC)
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors Plato (427-347 BC)
 Click to enlarge A map of the extent (over 7 months only) of the current prescribed burning program activity in Victoria
|  Click to enlarge Increases in prescribed burning by region
The figures are currently ramping up from a pre-Brumby arbitrary quota of 130,000 hectares and will stay at the 2013/14 levels, year in, year out Although this program of deliberate ecosystem destruction has tripled in the name of "asset protection", the region with the fewest assets (but the biggest timber industry - regular firing thins the trees and removes inconvenient competing under-stories) has by far the greatest area currently being burned |
A disaster of unprecedented scale
Our public forests, woodlands, heathlands and deserts are being subjected to astonishing amounts of burning now, due to a cynical populist political decision after the big fires of 2009. Polygons drawn on maps in a city office and then torched by our conservation staff. No science, no monitoring, no evidence, no brains. Bullshit, bulldozers and blackened biodiversity. Forgive me my intemperance, gentle reader, but this is serious. This has set the whole conservation game in Victoria back 50 years
Our public forests, woodlands, heathlands and deserts are being subjected to astonishing amounts of burning now, due to a cynical populist political decision after the big fires of 2009. Polygons drawn on maps in a city office and then torched by our conservation staff. No science, no monitoring, no evidence, no brains. Bullshit, bulldozers and blackened biodiversity. Forgive me my intemperance, gentle reader, but this is serious. This has set the whole conservation game in Victoria back 50 years
The growing misuse of fire in the management of native ecosystems
Article by Karl Just
The Royal Commission into the February 2009 bushfire event has concluded with a grave recommendation: at least 5% of public land in Victoria must now be burnt for fuel reduction purposes every year. The most alarming implication of this recommendation is that it does not stipulate how or where the bush must be burnt but only how much. It is also concerning because fuel reduction burning to date has mostly been carried out by those with little knowledge or even respect for forest ecology, so that too often when fuel reduction burning takes place there are serious impacts to biodiversity.
Let us take a look at the first of these concerns. The Royal Commissions recommendation for a 5% target will exert great pressure on Government agencies to meet this target every year. As in the past with similar but much lower regional targets, this will lead to a motivation to burn as much land as possible without regard to the attributes of the site. It will likely encourage frequent burning of areas that are ‘easier’ to burn, such as remote areas of forest or woodland that may not even pose a risk to towns or infrastructure. At least one example of this can be cited here, with a large area of remote forest in north-east Victoria near Lake Dartmouth being burnt for fuel reduction this autumn, despite the area already being affected by the Alpine fires of 2006. It is of vital importance that more thought and planning is invested in burning across the landscape to ensure that sensitive vegetation types (such as rainforest) and species are considered and that appropriate frequency is maintained.
So what is at most risk from such frequent and poorly planned burning?
It should be noted that some vegetation communities do require frequent burning to maintain diversity, particularly grasslands and heathlands. However, burning of these more restricted habitats must also be thoroughly planned to avoid adverse impacts to sensitive species.
The second concern the way in which fuel reduction burning is currently being undertaken. I have being hearing countless reports throughout Victoria of serious impacts to sites of high ecological significance during burning operations. This has included burns undertaken during inappropriate seasons; impacts to threatened fauna (such as the death of many Long-nosed Potoroo in at least one fuel reduction burn in south-west Victoria); cutting down of old-growth trees in order to stop them smoldering and extensive bulldozing and clearance of vegetation to create tracks and fire-breaks.
The cutting down of old-growth trees is very saddening, for most of our remaining forests are lucky to support 2-3 of these trees when once there was an average of up to 10-20. These trees are vital for hollow-dependent species such as forest owls and arboreal mammals and without them these species may not be able to persist. Old trees can be protected prior to a burn by removing fuel from around the base of trunks and avoiding these areas where possible. Every effort should be taken when an old tree does catch on fire to put the fire out before further action is required. These trees have taken centuries to grow and are worthy of some attention. Reports I have heard of cutting down old trees because they were smoldering and thus posing a risk are outrageous.
The use of the bulldozer and other machinery during fire operations may sometimes be necessary to create fire-breaks and contain a fire, but the current use appears to be out of control. I have heard reports from one region that nearly every fuel reduction burn that takes place gets out of control (burns beyond the area stipulated in the burn plan), likely due to poor management, and bulldozers are then used without hesitation to contain the fire. From these reports it seems that bulldozing has impacted countless areas of significant vegetation and faunal habitat, depleted or eliminated threatened flora and created areas for weed invasion.
So what can we do? Although government agencies are unlikely to be swayed from the 5% target due to community pressure, it is critical that further guidelines are put in place to prevent inappropriate burning. This should include a more systematic approach to how, where and most importantly how often fuel reduction burning is conducted per region and provisions for providing long-unburnt refuges across the landscape. Government agencies must also begin enforcing measures to prevent such serious impacts to the bush during burning operations, such as guidelines and restrictions for the creation of firebreaks and protection of natural values such as old-growth trees and threatened species. Unless further controls are included within the 5% target, over the coming years we are likely to see great losses and modifications to our already struggling natural systems.
The Royal Commission into the February 2009 bushfire event has concluded with a grave recommendation: at least 5% of public land in Victoria must now be burnt for fuel reduction purposes every year. The most alarming implication of this recommendation is that it does not stipulate how or where the bush must be burnt but only how much. It is also concerning because fuel reduction burning to date has mostly been carried out by those with little knowledge or even respect for forest ecology, so that too often when fuel reduction burning takes place there are serious impacts to biodiversity.
Let us take a look at the first of these concerns. The Royal Commissions recommendation for a 5% target will exert great pressure on Government agencies to meet this target every year. As in the past with similar but much lower regional targets, this will lead to a motivation to burn as much land as possible without regard to the attributes of the site. It will likely encourage frequent burning of areas that are ‘easier’ to burn, such as remote areas of forest or woodland that may not even pose a risk to towns or infrastructure. At least one example of this can be cited here, with a large area of remote forest in north-east Victoria near Lake Dartmouth being burnt for fuel reduction this autumn, despite the area already being affected by the Alpine fires of 2006. It is of vital importance that more thought and planning is invested in burning across the landscape to ensure that sensitive vegetation types (such as rainforest) and species are considered and that appropriate frequency is maintained.
So what is at most risk from such frequent and poorly planned burning?
- Many fauna species depend on pockets of long-unburnt refuges across the landscape to provide different types of habitat and cover from predators. Frequent and widespread burning is likely to greatly reduce the availability of these refuges and create a landscape dominated by recently burnt habitat.
- Too frequent burning will impact a suite of plant species, particularly those that favor long-unburnt vegetation (such as many ferns). Other plant species can take up to a decade following a fire event before they adequately replenish seed-banks and so frequent fire may cause them to decline or be eliminated.
- Some plant communities do not tolerate fire at all or only occasionally and so these ecosystems are likely to be impacted.
- Frequent fire in forest and woodland poses a threat to old-growth trees, because being riddled with hollows and fissures they are far more prone to catching on fire and burning from the inside out, leading to death or collapse of the trunk.
It should be noted that some vegetation communities do require frequent burning to maintain diversity, particularly grasslands and heathlands. However, burning of these more restricted habitats must also be thoroughly planned to avoid adverse impacts to sensitive species.
The second concern the way in which fuel reduction burning is currently being undertaken. I have being hearing countless reports throughout Victoria of serious impacts to sites of high ecological significance during burning operations. This has included burns undertaken during inappropriate seasons; impacts to threatened fauna (such as the death of many Long-nosed Potoroo in at least one fuel reduction burn in south-west Victoria); cutting down of old-growth trees in order to stop them smoldering and extensive bulldozing and clearance of vegetation to create tracks and fire-breaks.
The cutting down of old-growth trees is very saddening, for most of our remaining forests are lucky to support 2-3 of these trees when once there was an average of up to 10-20. These trees are vital for hollow-dependent species such as forest owls and arboreal mammals and without them these species may not be able to persist. Old trees can be protected prior to a burn by removing fuel from around the base of trunks and avoiding these areas where possible. Every effort should be taken when an old tree does catch on fire to put the fire out before further action is required. These trees have taken centuries to grow and are worthy of some attention. Reports I have heard of cutting down old trees because they were smoldering and thus posing a risk are outrageous.
The use of the bulldozer and other machinery during fire operations may sometimes be necessary to create fire-breaks and contain a fire, but the current use appears to be out of control. I have heard reports from one region that nearly every fuel reduction burn that takes place gets out of control (burns beyond the area stipulated in the burn plan), likely due to poor management, and bulldozers are then used without hesitation to contain the fire. From these reports it seems that bulldozing has impacted countless areas of significant vegetation and faunal habitat, depleted or eliminated threatened flora and created areas for weed invasion.
So what can we do? Although government agencies are unlikely to be swayed from the 5% target due to community pressure, it is critical that further guidelines are put in place to prevent inappropriate burning. This should include a more systematic approach to how, where and most importantly how often fuel reduction burning is conducted per region and provisions for providing long-unburnt refuges across the landscape. Government agencies must also begin enforcing measures to prevent such serious impacts to the bush during burning operations, such as guidelines and restrictions for the creation of firebreaks and protection of natural values such as old-growth trees and threatened species. Unless further controls are included within the 5% target, over the coming years we are likely to see great losses and modifications to our already struggling natural systems.
From IFFA.org.au
Prescribed burning in the newspapers
January heatwave 'killed more than Black Saturday fires' The Australian 6/4/2009 - The headline speaks for itself...
DSE suggests doubling Vic fuel reduction The Age 17/2/10 - How it unfolded
State fails to meet fire goal The Age 23/1/12 - In which DSE burns our deserts and 150%-odd of the remote east and north-east forests and achieved only 16 per cent of its target in the densely populated central region, which includes 54 towns and suburbs assessed by the Country Fire Authority as facing extreme risk this summer. The timber industry is pleased
Fuel reduction target 'mystery' The Age 18/2/12
What you can do:
Write to Victorian Premier Ted Baillieu: ted.baillieu@parliament.vic.gov.au and Victorian Environment Minister Ryan Smith: ryan.smith@parliament.vic.gov.au and tell them your concerns
You may also wish to apply some heat to your local state member
Discuss these issues with your friends to raise awareness. The whole situation is sired by self-interest out of ignorance.
Write to Victorian Premier Ted Baillieu: ted.baillieu@parliament.vic.gov.au and Victorian Environment Minister Ryan Smith: ryan.smith@parliament.vic.gov.au and tell them your concerns
You may also wish to apply some heat to your local state member
Discuss these issues with your friends to raise awareness. The whole situation is sired by self-interest out of ignorance.
Salvage logging after wildfire
Salvage logging in the Central Highlands - Click for more pics
Read the abstract or download the David Lindenmeyer/Keely Ough report salvage logging in the montane ash eucalypt forests of the central highlands of vic and its potential impacts on biodiversity
