Readers may be interested in the way Mr Barry Traill of the NSW Conservation Council attempted, in 2000, to blame the woodland thickenning phenomena on forestry activities, despite the fact that much of the thickenning is found on non-forestry tenures and locations where the original vegetation was very sparsely treed. He said;

"Forestry practices in the woodlands have been particularly destructive because they have resulted in the systematic conversion of large areas of ‘mixed’ forests of eucalypts and native cypress into monocultures of dense regrowth cypress (Traill 1999). Other threatening processes which continue to affect woodland diversity and condition on public and private tenures include mineral exploration and exploitation, grazing, inappropriate fire regimes, weed invasions, feral animals, altered hydrological regimes and the affects of fragmentation (Robinson & Traill 1996, Traill & Duncan 2000)."
http://www.racac.nsw.gov.au/pdf/preliminary%20fauna%20BBS.pdf

This also provides hard evidence that Mr Traill recognised the existence of the regrowth problem and it's impact on habitat values at least as far back as the year 2000. Yet, Mr Traill is also on record for responding to recent publicity on this issue with the claim that regrowth was not present and did not constitute an ecological problem.

Mr Traill has blatantly tried to put most blame on forestry activities while covering his butt by mentioning a number of other activities that contribute to regrowth thickenning.

He should be particularly condemned for listing "inappropriate fire regimes" while failing to point out that the "inappropriate" part of the fire regimes is the Green/EPA policy of excluding fire, avoiding hazzard reduction burning, and negligent responses to hot summer wildfires.

The "appropriate" fire regimes are those normally practiced on forestry tenures, including cool burns to reduce fuel loads and actually showing up when a summer wildfire is destroying habitat on a scale and intensity never experienced through land clearing.

Presumable, Mr Traill will be at the beach this summer break while farmers and foresters risk their lives to protect both habitats and community from Green/EPA negligence

The CFA in Victoria were shocked in the recent bushfires when places previously burnt in 2002/03 fires burnt again, how often would you have fuel reduction burns? yearly, bi yearly or tri yearly.
If you go to the mountains you would see how ridculous this fuel reduction nonsense is.
The heaviest fuel load is in steep wet gullies, if you wanted to burn these out by the time they were dry enough to burn, the surrounds would be tinder dry, and as these areas are inaccesable and dangerous it would be impossible to control.
One of the problems with fuel reductions are that that they promote growth, and you can't burn all the bush, decisions on where to burn are subjective, and as a lot of fires are arson these ratbags will soon find somewhere else to burn.
I am not against "cool burns" I just think they are overrated, and used as a weapon by rabid right wing ratbags with an idealogical axe to grind.
Alan Hunter

Alan Hunter obviously doesn't live anywhere near a forest. The point about hazard reduction burns is that you conduct them in the places that are most likely to burn with high intensity. That is why steep south facing slopes can be left. They are usually in the shadow of hot northerly winds.

The reason the current fires have returned to the same areas that burned in 2003 is that 2003 was not a mild hazard reduction burn. It was a habitat destroying, stand replacing conflagration in mid-summer. And this means that the scale of the regeneration is commensurate to the scale of the original damage.

In this case the regeneration has involved a lot of epicormic growth (numerous sprouts from the tree trunks) and mass germination of young seedlings which connected the understorey fuel to the canopy fuel. And this mass of young growth is exactly what should have been thinned out with a cool winter burn in 2004 or 2005.

This oversupply of leaf area produced excessive competition for soil moisture which, in turn, produced a dryer forest, sooner, between each rainfall event. So when the big dry kicked in this time, the forest was not only dryer than it would have been in similar conditions prior to 2003, but it was also far more combustible.

When will these urban ignoroids get it through their heads that there are no hard and fast prescriptions in forest management. An extreme fire produces extreme regeneration which, if not fixed by proper management, will only create a continuous cycle of more extreme fire events.

The only "rabid ideology" at play in our forests is rabid green ignorance and a breathtaking capacity for simplistic analysis avoiding the consequences of their negligence.

"Surprisingly, despite the “doom and gloom” text, the reporting rate of the majority of woodland-grassland birds had actually remained unchanged or increased over the 20- year period (for all woodland-grassland species: 48 per cent increased, 38 per cent did not change, and 13 per cent decreased). However the results were very different for grassland-dependent and ground-feeding woodland-grassland birds. These species showed much higher rates of decline over the 20-year period than the species that feed in the canopy layer."
That's a really interesting finding. It does support the landholder contention that the problem is not disapearing trees, but rather disapearing grassland.

I was out in the sticks about half way between Cobar and Ivanhoe in July after the area had a couple of months of reasonable rain. The whole place was alive with feral goats which had presumably migrated from the drier country to the north. My hosts had rounded up around 1500 of these animals in the previous week without making any serious inroads into the number. The majority of them seemed to be eating grass which at that time was growing profusely. This applied also to the flocks of goats I passed on the 150 km drive back into Cobar. Incidentally, there was also an abundance of Grey kangaroos, definitely not a threatened species.

I am no botanist, but on a previous visit at Easter, flying very low across the country mustering goats, I was amazed at the diversity of tree species.

Yes Jennifer. The full report is available on the web at "The State of Australia's Birds 2005: Woodland birds" http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/publications/birds-05/index.html#download. No real explanation is given of the surprising finding of stable or increasing woodland bird populations, other than the possible influence of wetter climatic conditions in 1998-2001 than in 1977-80

Gillian, a good article.

As you say, massive ecological change was initiated very early on over large areas of NSW and Qld, caused by overgrazing, suppression of fire, and later rabbits. The balance between grass and woody species changed greatly.

But given that these changes became obvious in some areas before 1900, it is rather odd that the same causal factors were allowed to continue to prevail. The only one that was really dealt with was rabbits, but not until a long time later (in the 1950s).

One of the main ways of dealing with the loss of pasture due to thickening and encroachment was to clear large areas. So to a large extent the problem of thickening was side-stepped and allowed to continue, instead of being dealt with by implementing the necessary improvements in fire and grazing regimes. (I’m talking here from a Queensland perspective).

Massive areas were cleared far beyond the point of a reasonable balance between pasture/crop and natural areas. Vast tracts were essentially entirely cleared except for road verges and stock routes. Remaining bush areas were isolated.

Obviously this had to stop before there was nothing at all left in the wider regions. Unfortunately but unavoidably, those who cleared early got away with it and those who left to it too late got caught up with the increased restrictions. The new restrictions had to apply equally across the board.

continued

But, I agree that there could be merit in striving to work out a new balance for farmers and ecosystems on the Cobar Peneplain and similar regions.

But it would presumably have to go hand in hand with increased efforts to deal with the thickening issue head-on. Cleared areas would stifle the movement of fauna out of bushland areas that are burnt, and increased burning will have to be a large of the plan. Whole patches of bush between cleared areas would presumably be burnt, with the cleared areas acting as fire breaks. So the extent of clearing would have to be sufficient to allow viability for farmers but not too great as to effectively isolate patches of bushland.

There may be merit in simply allowing a new ecological balance to be reached by not burning, rather than maintaining an anthropogenic ecosystem through fire management. I guess this would depend on just what ecological changes might be deemed to be occurring or have occurred and how they would affect certain species. It could also depend on economic factors such as the maintenance of pasture in the woodland areas or the prevention of thickened areas that provide hiding spots for cattle during mustering.

Also for the best balance, reasonably wide corridors and maybe whole large blocks in some places that are now cleared country would be allowed to return to woodland.

It is difficult. But that’s what we get when we play around with ecological factors and primary resources on a large scale before we know what we are really dealing with, as we have done in a multitude of ways on this continent over the large two centuries.

Both governments and the greens have dug their own hole on this issue by opting for maximum control with only selective exemptions. They have defined "clearing" as the topping, lopping or otherwise destroying of a single tree and then scratch their stupid heads in surprise that they have managed to seriously disrupt just about every ecologically beneficial activity as well.

I was about to outline a far more workable and effective solution to the whole range of vegetation and ecosystem health issues but then deleted it. Quite frankly, the current system, and more importantly, the clowns who have hitched their careers to draconian measures, the confiscation of property and the trashing of individual rights, not only need to fail but also need to be seen to have failed. And dismally.

Like the "Sorcerers Apprentice", these people have set in train a cycle of injustice, incompetence, negligence and, most damaging of all, landowner indifference that will exaggerate every climatic impact over the next few decades. But it will no longer be possible to blame and demonise the farmers for the resulting ecological disaster because the government has already made it very clear that they are in control.

Neither greens nor government have listened to the people who have most exposure to the situation, prefering, instead, to show us how clever and manipulative they can be in imposing their will on the community. So be it.

It is time we let this bilge water find its own ecological level.

Come on then Perseus, we all wait with baited breath to read your “far more workable and effective solution to the whole range of vegetation and ecosystem health issues”.

In fact, I find it very hard to believe that you really have any such thing until you put it up here for discussion.

You say; “… these people have set in train a cycle of injustice, incompetence, negligence and, most damaging of all, landowner indifference…”

Well, for goodness sake, if it is really that bad, then there is hardly going to be overwhelming landholder indifference, is there?

From a Queensland perspective, the vegetation management laws are a bit unfair to those who hadn’t cleared very much land or who just happened to have ‘endangered’ vegetation instead of ‘not of concern’ vegetation, or happened to have erodible soils or a preponderance of sloping land compared to ‘safe to clear’ flat country with well-drained soils, and so on.

But the big test was the degree of acceptance by landholders and environmentally-minded people alike.

So all-told, it has been pretty good….and of course no matter how bad some people think it might be, they’ve got to admit that it is a thousand times better than the terrible rates of clearing that preceded it, and all the problems with regrowth, weed-invasion and soil-loss, and ecological destruction, that resulted from it.

Your great fault, which is evident in just about every post you write on this forum, is that you think the absolute worst of everyone with whom you disagree. You know full well that the issues here are complex and any solution is going to fall well short of being fully fair and ideal.

“The clowns…not only need to fail but also need to be seen to have failed. And dismally.”

I could interpret this as; ‘you need the clowns to be seen to fail!’ in order for your arguments to prevail!

But the system is not being seen to fail, is it. Sure, some problems have come to light and need reworking. But overall, the land and vegetation management regulations aren’t too bad.

How surprising. Ludwig, who owns no land and who owns no trees and who is not personally responsible for any habitat or streams, thinks the vegetation management legislation "isn't too bad".

The landowner indifference I was refering to, Ludwig, was the entirely new, and government initiated indifference to adverse impacts on trees on their farms. It may take a while to sink in yet, but farmers are getting used to the idea that, "if Beattie thinks he owns my forest then he can come and put the fire out".

You see, it is quite easy to safeguard the essential infrastructure while letting nature run its course on the rest of the place. And it real easy to just head off to the beach on a high fire risk day, the greens and the bureaucrats do it all the time.

But I am sure your bureaucratic mates are thinking up excuses already. Must be global warming, eh?

Well obviously Pers, me ol’ mate, you have no idea of what I own or am responsible for!

And as for the “far more workable and effective solution to the whole range of vegetation and ecosystem health issues”….vee are still vaiting!

And when the whole suite of civil and property rights are restored, and the vegetation management laws that strip those rights are repealed, and when the Qld government and all the departmental minions can clearly demonstrate both the capacity and intent to apply measures that actually fit the circumstances on the ground, I will share my intellectual capital.

I am not holding my breath. One does not build partnerships with shonks and spivs.

Now Perseus, you have never held back on offering a great deal of detail, including copious figures, when it comes to your other beloved subject; water tanks. So why is it different for land and vegetation management? Because you don’t have any answers.

Let’s face the truth….if you had a far more workable and effective solution, you would have no hesitation in putting it forward.

You say; when civil and property rights are restored and vegetation management laws that strip those rights are repealed, then you will contribute something meaningful to the debate!

How silly!

It would be disastrous if the vegetation management laws were just abolished or if property rights were ‘restored’ so far as to give landowners anything like the free reign they had up until recently with regard to tree-clearing and other management issues.

You can argue for a better balance. But to argue for a complete reversal is just ridiculous.

I am very interested to hear ideas that might help us achieve a better and fairer balance between productivity and quality of life on the land, and environmental integrity. But alas, you don’t seem have a brass razoo to offer.

Ludwig, you may be keen to hear of any option that could put an acceptable spin on a fundamentally flawed model because your motivation is not on best ecological outcomes but, rather, to merely maintain control.

I have no interest in prolonging the suffering of landholders under a corrupt regime that holds individuals and their rights in contempt. And as long as you and your kind think those rights are "silly" then you are dead right, I have no solutions and none will be forthcomming.

You have made your bed, now lay in it.

And such a comfortable bed it is Pers. I sleep so much better than I did prior to the introduction of tree-clearing regulations in September 2000, knowing that the balance between productivity/quality of life and environment is a hundred times better than it was back then.

Perseus why do you insist on destroying your credibility?

First it was;

“I was about to outline a far more workable and effective solution to the whole range of vegetation and ecosystem health issues…”

…which has shown to be a total furphy (I won’t use the word ‘lie’).

Then it was a demonstration of a complete lack of understanding of the concept of balance by calling for the laws to be abolished (“repealed”), and for open slather to prevail.

And now you assert that my motives are cock-eyed, when you know full well that they are sustainability-oriented, for both farmers and native wildlife.

Crikey, you’ve done this sort of assertion-of-things-that-you-know-aren’t-true about others many times on this forum. I’ve taken you up on a couple of them and pursued them until it was obvious to all that you had just invented crap (read ‘defamation’). This could only have been highly embarrassing for you…. and yet you keep on doing it!!

Not only do you insist on destroying your credibility, you do it so often, and so blatantly!

First part
Solutions is what is needed, not vitriol if only for the latter is so boring to read. Now doubt there are people here well trained in debate of the political kind, get a life.

I have seen the country around the area of the debate, spent three years there and talked to many lessee's, for it is mostly Western Land leases, the responsible owner of the land. Lease holders have rarely been there for two generations and bought leases of some of the most degraded land that could be found anywhere in the world. It must rate as the toughest land in Australia to live and make a living.

The above is the view of someone who has lived in most parts of Australia and been doing it for seventy four years. That said, if bird species are threatened it is not a habitat problem, it's feral cats, ground birds and grass nesting birds being the most vulnerable along with all the lizards, not just the small species but also the monitors when juveniles. It didn't happen overnight but started two hundred years ago when the overgrazing began and native grasses were lost, depleted. The get rich and piss off mentality of the big land holders of yesteryear, in their ignorance, were responsible as was the NSW govt's of the time.

Laying blame is not a solution to regeneration. The solution is possible now when wool is not the valued commodity it once was, To say the land is maginal is the understatement of the century, You don't need to have any qualification to farm this land, just money, Some of the lessee make valiant efforts to regenerate, it may be pathetic but they try. "Woody weed" I understand, being a first attempt by nature to regenerate, I think should be left to do just that, making it perhaps a fire hazard and a harbor for the most destructive animal on this continent, the feral cat.
fluff4

part two
What to do? Examples to follow would be areas that have cost money and energy, mostly voluntary, as in the denuded conservation areas of South Australia, Tinpot, Chowilla and Banrock, and the custom house
Chowilla is of particular interest, after a great deal of experiment, success in restoring land. After years of sheep degradation, sheep were held for customs evaluation success is evident. Simple contour ripping and reduction of sheep numbers enabled this remarkable change. Expertise is available thru the Uni. South Australia.
fluff