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.