The Forum > Article Comments > Unnecessarily alarmist headlines about forestry poorly reflect the science > Comments
Unnecessarily alarmist headlines about forestry poorly reflect the science : Comments
By Mark Poynter, published 18/5/2010'Forest logging creates fire traps': is this evidence-based or unwarranted scare-mongering?
- Pages:
-
- 1
-
- All
- Pages:
-
- 1
-
- All
Lindenmayer et al is trying to take us back to the Lane-Poole era. He and very many other European trained foresters believed that keeping an unbroken forest canopy would make the undergrowth too wet for fire to take hold. We know, from his testimony to Judge Stretton, that he really believed this to be a fact.
Deciduous forests are unlike Australian dry schlerophyl forests in that there is insufficient precipitation to make the leaves, twigs and bark decompose. Forest refuse will remain for many years as a highly volatile inflammable fuel.
Removal is either in the cool season when fire can be controlled or in a summer feral fire.
If Lane-Poole was correct, there would be no need for Melbourne Water to maintain a highly trained and mobile fire fighting force.
It is most unfortunate that good forestry practices are on the way out. As the old time foresters pass on, there seem to be few who will keep a record of the old, successful times when all that was needed to extinguish a fire was a wet sack or a rake how and a knapsack sprayer.
Nothing compares with the hyperboly of the green adoring media.