Fire is a normal part of nature, lightening is the match.
If we don't have controlled burns, nature will have uncontrolled burns.

<< This is not true for most countries with similar climates to Australia >>

Really, ozideas?

Fire is also a big factor in many somewhat similar vegetation types in North America, Europe and elsewhere.

Anyway, what does it matter what happens overseas?

In Australia it is very much the case that most environments if not subjected to prescribed fuel-reduction burning will burn sooner or later. In fact, the only vegetation types that don’t burn at all are full-on rainforest without sclerophyll emergents (such as eucalypts), vine thicket / softwood scrub / dry rainforest of low rainfall areas, again without sclerophyll species, mangroves, samphire flats and some permanent wetlands. The vast array of forest, woodland, arid scrubland, heathland, and grassland vegetation types that cover >99% of the continent all burn like blazes!!

If you wanted to promote Australian vegetation types that don’t burn in place of those that do, you would have to introduce entirely different ecosystems with a completely or very largely different suite of plant and animal species… and do it on a phenomenally massive scale.

Good on you Ludwig, you have explained the situation very well.

Aus is a unique environment, with many varied ecosystems established progressively over many tens of thousands, if not millions, of years of Earth (and Aus) history, and each of these ecosystems requires a specific approach to its preservation. To contemplate reconstructing our ecosystems to some other model simply goes against nature, would be a massive undertaking, as Ludwig has said, and would not only be futile, but would lead to the loss of everything that is unique in our environment - not only to us, but to the world.

In high-density urban areas, planning to minimise fire risk may include use of whatever fire-resistant non-invasive plant species you may desire, but in the bush all introduced plant species are a weed, a menace, and a threat to native flora and fauna and the ecosystem as a whole. It is hard enough to preserve 'nature' against the impacts of human encroachment and interference without the addition of invasive pest species. There have been enough mistakes already, with the introduction of Pink Lantana, Scottish Broom and Blackberries, etc, and rabbits, foxes and Cane Toads, plus various bird and insect species.

The purpose of wildfire mitigation is to reduce risk, to people, property and the environment - through clearing of fire-breaks and through fuel reduction. Where possible, slashing, mulching or even tilling may be utilised to reduce fuel load, but in the bush strategic burning is the only tool available, and it is used in appropriate conditions to reduce ground-cover fuel load - so that over-storey is preserved intact (as far as possible). The reality is however that in extreme weather conditions even the prior reduction of ground-cover fuel-load may not always be sufficient to prevent a forest fire enveloping the upper storey - producing a crown fire or firestorm. In the latter case only aerial bombardment, fire-break bulldozing, back-burning, and evacuation are feasible to effect containment of impacts. Crown fires and firestorms are exceedingly destructive and dangerous (to firefighters, evacuees, etc) - hence the need for mitigation, including hazard-reduction burning.

Yes Saltpetre, there certainly is a great need for fire mitigation, but we need to be careful that it doesn’t give us a false sense of security.

This can certainly happen in big eucalypt forest where firestorms can occur. Removal of fuel from the lower layers may help prevent a fire from starting, but if it does start, via lightning or whatever, when it is very hot, dry and windy, then it can whip through the canopy at great speed and intensity regardless of what is in the mid stratum or ground stratum..

Much of southeastern and southwestern Australia is precariously prone to firestorm events, and there is not a lot that can be done to absolutely prevent it by way of fuel-reduction controlled burning.

We just shouldn’t be building houses and the like in forested areas where the trees have volatile oils in their leaves!

Fire hazard reduction is much more reliable in most other vegetation types, where controlled burns burn all the vegetation and don’t leave the canopy unburnt or where the trees are well-spaced so that a crown fire can’t occur, or where the trees simply don’t have leaves full of volatile oils.

Ludwig,

I agree. Mitigation protocols are of course supposed to restrict the incidence of construction and human habitation in areas prone to high risk, but, human psyche being as it is, many are drawn to the romance of the bush, and want to live right in there. And Councils are not always able to prevent them - to protect people from themselves. I live in a rural setting, and wouldn't want to live anywhere else, so I can't blame anyone else for wanting the same, but I also have to take adequate precaution to minimise the associated risks. We are a fire and flood prone continent.

Regarding firefighting, I have noted from media coverage of Black Saturday that the Victorian CFA did not appear to be very well equipped - certainly not in comparison with the NSW RFS (our better provisions may be due to Bob Carr). WA Fire Services may also be somewhat lacking, though I'm not sure of this.

In view of the inevitability of bush fires it would be very helpful if all of the nation's rural fire services were equipped in a manner commensurate with the job. I hate seeing any firefighters placed at risk because of poor equipment and/or a shortage of good quality equipment. We may be well off in NSW in this regard, but to me it is an indictment of other State governments if they don't follow suit.

Construction in risk areas should of course be designed to suit - including as regards materials and design, communications and firefighting facilities, safety refuges, and evacuation routes. A wish and a prayer doesn't cut it.

Hello ozideas. I have been reliably informed that you are Valerie Yule.

I have enjoyed your articles on OLO and consider you to be one of the best article contributors on this forum. I passionately share your concerns about population growth, sustainability and all manner of environmental issues.

The current issue about fire management is perhaps the first time I have found a bit of disagreement with you. I would love to discuss it further, here on thus thread, if you wish.

Cheers.