Prescribed burns have some costs in terms of respiratory distress, jumping roads, threatening homes and imposing an unnatural fire frequency. For example swamp gums/mountain ash are said to need 3 fires in 200 years, not every 10 years or whatever. Tourists must be dismayed to drive through acrid smoke when they had hoped to enjoy the countryside.

Despite recurring extreme conditions we now have aerial water bombers. Known arsonists could be fitted with ankle bracelets. If that cost is tolerable we could reduce prescribed burns and see how it compares.

Disagree. I believe this is a brain washed from birth belief.

If we need to use fire at all it is to back burn to control a fire. Other than that, fuel reduction is best down by herbivores and intense cell grazing.

Goats behind temporary electric fences the best option. Maybe camels given what they eat and their soft feet.

Intensive cell grazing does three things, the first is the fuel reduction that is not curbed by weather conditions, the season or wind force. In a year-round control practice.

The second is the very short-term hoofs break up compacted soil and allow more rainfall penetration. Moreover, unlike fire they allow non fire tolerant flora and fauna to survive.

The third, they add organic fertiliser to the to the area of fuel reduction practice. And the area under control, can be, very precise and more exact.

Many indigenous folks have come to the same conclusion and regard fire management as elder humbug. Mosaic burning was never about forest management but served solely as an adjunct to hunting.
Alan B.

Taswegian, the article "Exceedances of national air quality standards for particulate matter in Western Australia: sources and health ‐related impacts" by Nicolas Borchers Arriagada, Andrew J Palmer, David MJS Bowman and Fay H Johnston Med J Aust 2020; 213 (6): 280-281. Published online: 20 April 2020 shows that the death rate from smoke emitted by a bushfire is almost double the death rate from prescribed burns. Similarly, the hospitalisation rate is again almost double the rate of hospitalisations caused by prescribed burns. Further, the number of people attending emergency departments because of prescribed burns was 87% higher than attendances on wildfire days.
Thus, the impacts on human health from bushfires far exceeds the impacts from prescribed burns.

Dear Bernie Masters,

You write: "Published online: 20 April 2020 shows that the death rate from smoke emitted by a bushfire is almost double the death rate from prescribed burns. Similarly, the hospitalisation rate is again almost double the rate of hospitalisations caused by prescribed burns. Further, the number of people attending emergency departments because of prescribed burns was 87% higher than attendances on wildfire days.
Thus, the impacts on human health from bushfires far exceeds the impacts from prescribed burns."

This would appear to be both contradictory and not supported by the paper you have cited.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.5694/mja2.50547#:~:text=We%20estimated%20that%2041%20(95,2.5%20concentration%20(Box%201).

Would you like another crack at it?

Taswegian

Yes there are costs associated with living in a fire-adapted environment. You have outlined some, but as the article says the costs associated with unplanned and uncontrolled catastrophic mid-summer bushfires, including the ecological costs, are far greater than those incurred by controlled burns planned and conducted in cooler autumn/spring conditions that limit their intensity.

Also, contrary to your belief, wet mountain ash forests are not subject to controlled cool season burns because they are rarely dry enough to burn except during the occassional drought year in mid-summer. When they do dry out, they have such a fuel load that they burn at an extremely high intensity that is not controllable. Mountain ash forests occupy only a very small proportion of Australia's forests and woodlands.

Alan B

Yes, grazing can be a form of fuel reduction on a very small scale. But after the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires, the Royal Commission recommended that 385,000 hectares of Victoria's public forests be fuel reduced each year. I imagine this would required thousands of goats and they would need to be carted up into very remote country right across the state. There are no fences, so how would they be controlled so that they can intensively graze an area, be rounded-up and transported to a new area? I suspect6 I am not the only one who sees how impractical an idea this is given the huge scale of fuel reduction that is required.

You are right that indigenous burning was mostly about hunting, but the greater source of fire would have been from lightning strikes. It is undeniable that together these agencies would have burnt large areas each year, and that this became the natural state to which the landscape and its vegetation became adapted. Fuel reduction burning is an attempt to mimic this natural state as far as possible, while at the same time cognisant of the need for control given that there is now permanent human assetts and infrastructure in the landscape that needs protection from fire.

Mark, while I agree with most of your piece, I don't know about the accuracy of "The historical record also suggests that prior to European settlement, most fire in the landscape was of low intensity (similar to prescribed burning) because the frequency of ignitions from indigenous cultural activity and due to lightning, coupled with a lack of any control other than rain, meant that all but the wettest parts of the forested landscape, were being so regularly burned as to be maintained in a low fuel state."
I think that the area involved in Eastern Victoria for example would have far exceeded the ability of the local aboriginal cultural burns to be very effective because it wouldn't only have been confined to Mountain Ash forests.

Alan. How many million goats would you need. Get real mate.
David

Since colonisation the Bush & literally all vegetation has changed extensively. Also, there was no need to control fires or floods as there were no properties to lose. The indigenous didn't "manage" fires, they lit them albeit with some thought & that was it. Whatever wildlife was roasted or cooked was consumed on the spot & that was it. Lightning caused & still does cause Bush fires.
People who choose to live among the Gum trees do so in full knowledge of getting burnt to the ground when fires rage. Keeping trees away from homes drastically reduces the risk of losing a home.
I fail to see why the rest should have to cough up forever increasing insurance premiums because some people want to build within the Bush. Insurance companies are as much to blame for property loss as the people themselves. On large properties there should be escape corridors for live stock to open areas.
Anyone with an urban address should butt out of such matters as they as has been proven beyond doubt, cause more problems than their involvement is worth.
Plan is all I can say !

VK3AUU

I agree with you that it is hard to envisage indigenous burning being as extensive as described, and that is why the quote that you took from the article included lightning as the other, arguably greater, source of fire.

From my experience working in East Gippsland forests there was inevitably at least one thunderstorm event which ignited multiple fires each summer. The numbers of fires could vary from two or three up to dozens, especially after dry thunderstorms. Just imagine this happening in pre-European times when there was no capacity or effort to extinguish them. They could in dry summers burn for months until the next substantial rain. Lots of fires scattered throughout the landscape burning for months could cover a huge area, and if this happened every five to ten years, the bush would be perpetually kept in a low fuel state.

It is disappointing that the public narrative that has evolved around pre-European indigenous burning generally excludes any acknowledgement that lightning was also a major source of fire -- probably the major source in many forested regions of southern Australia.

OK Mark. Have you been involved with David Packham and others from CSIRO a few years back?
David

Intensive cell grazing can be managed behind temporary electric fences, erected in half a day or less.

There's at least one pastoral company that hires herds of goats to councils that need to reduce fuel loads at times when it's impossible to burn. And their temporary fences erected in just a couple of hours. I saw them in action and was very impressed by their efficiency.

Burns restricted by the season, time of year or weather conditions. Not grazing!

From what I hear, the trucked anywhere goat hire was/is a nice profit earner. And a few indigenous businessmen have followed their example with their own herds.

Grazing is not as disastrous on non-fire tolerant species. When grazing was allowed on high mountain country there were far fewer disastrous forest fires.

Yes, there was some erosion on water crossings that probably could have been managed with a modicum of stonework, even so, a reasonable trade off.

Ditto selective logging, where logging roads doubled as fire breaks and forestry workers, dozens more eyes/resident fire fighters on the job 24/7!

Finally, one can graze for more many beasts on intensive cell grazing than on country managed by burning. and it better regenerates the country.
Alan B.

VK3AUU

Yes, I know David Packham and Phil Cheney who did fire research for CSIRO, but I was a field forester rather than a researcher.

Alan B

Again, I don't disagree that intensive cell grazing can have value as a fuel reduction tool in relatively easily accessible flat country generally in close proximity to pastoral lands. But, there are millions of hectares of steep - variable topography, barely accessible native forests where it would be logistically impossible to run and control goats on any significant scale.

Yes, formerly mountain cattle grazing had a fuel reduction benefit, but that was on flat, partly-treeless, high plains alpine country ... and it is now mostly banned on public lands. Also, those areas only comprised a very minor proportion of the millions of hectares of dense eucalypt forests which need regular fuel reduction.

Mark, your comments in reply to Alan are noted. However, perhaps instead of doing controlled burns around vulnerable settlements, intensive grazing of goats might well be a viable cost effective solution worth considering.

David

VA3AUU

Small goat herds have been used in the past to control weeds such as blackberry and gorse in Victorian timber plantations, so their use for fuel reduction grazing adjacent to towns makes sense. However, it would be very small scale, and certainly in Victoria, would be limited to privately owned lands, as it would not be permitted in most public lands, certainly in Victoria.

You are right that there is a need for alternatives to controlled burning adjacent to towns and properties due to the inherent property risks and societal changes such as increased threat of litigation. This has been recognised already, and mechanised fuel reduction is now commonplace in such places with heavy fuels physically removed and mulched, and lighter elevated fuels knocked down. This is more acceptable on public lands than herds of potentially feral animals, such as goats.

I've seen mountain goats scale/climb almost sheer cliffs. I don't believe there is not any Australian high country they could not manage.

Steep country is not country you want to burn. It gets out of control far too easily. Goats are the best, go anywhere, any time, option. Especially our unmanaged forest reserves and national parks.
Alan B.

Introducing new problems might solve a problem & goats will bring on Dingoes & then they'll be a problem etc etc.. Just let the forests burn early in the season & all will be good. Cold burns are the only way. How much more proof do some people need ?