The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Take the eucalypt out of incendiary debate > Comments

Take the eucalypt out of incendiary debate : Comments

By Robert Darby and Nick Brown, published 14/1/2010

Is the highly flammable eucalypt the right tree for rural dwellings, the urban fringes and semi-settled areas?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
The concept is very simple and eminently sensible. Thanks for this article Robert and Nick.

But of course the practicalities are not so simple. Replacing towering eucalypts with oaks or wattles or other fire-retardant species around houses that are built into or next to native forest or between towns and forests would be problematic and expensive in most cases.

Thus, I guess it would only be a suitable answer to the problem in a small percentage of situations.
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 14 January 2010 8:50:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good lateral thinking.
This has been suggested before however, it has severe problems often creating bigger harder to solve issues.
Not to mention that there are some factual errors and omissions in the article.

Sadly the impact, practicality, desirability aren't fully understood or glossed over by the authors.The idea needs a lot more work to be a credible offering.
Posted by examinator, Thursday, 14 January 2010 9:23:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Belts of fire-retardant trees, preferably natives, around houses and urban areas, yes - and along country roads as well. How many lines would that have saved in Victoria last February ?

Such tree species could be interplanted in commercial forest projects, silky oaks for example (their timber is at least as valuable as pine): such protective belts around pine or eucalyptus plantations might take up only a tenth of the total area, without reducing eventual income substantially.

If ever major forestry projects are initiated in the north (near Indigenous communities for example), in response to the increased rainfall due to AGW (or at least a shift in the el Nino-la Nina patterns), it would make sense to plant those belts of fire-retardant trees first, then fill-in with inflammable species if this is decided to be the best option.
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 14 January 2010 9:38:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We can also ask the question. Should communities have been allowed in the midst of Eucalypt forests which provide habitat for indigenous species but are not reasonable places to build houses?
Posted by david f, Thursday, 14 January 2010 10:11:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This information is particularly useful for people living in a bushland setting. Joan Webster has written on the topic in her useful books, including The Complete Bushfire Safety Book where a very useful list of fire-resistant species covers several pages. I am interested to see this analysis applied to the Canberra 2003 fires, and wonder if there has been any detailed research.

The wholesale clearing of vegetation which is often the response to bushfires doesn't usually include follow-up plantings, favouring a bare-earth approach. Yet in a climate change aware world, we need to at least maintain carbon-absorbing vegetation and preferably increase it. More work on native and introduced species which resist fire and post-fire studies can assist people rebuilding houses and reestablishing landscapes in burnt-out areas. Appropriately planted trees reduce temperatures inside homes and beautify landscapes. They only become a problem in a bushfire and if planting different species - even within an otherwise bushland setting - reduces risk there should be more awareness raising on the topic. Fruit trees are a useful alternative to elms and oaks, faster growing, and its hard to go past the blackwood, the local evergreen.
Posted by debj, Thursday, 14 January 2010 10:25:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article seem to me to contain the germ of an excellent idea - however it is doomed to remain ineffectual rhetoric because of misplaced jingoistic emotions re the iconic gum trees. We have imposed a European agriculture and social value system on a continent not appropriate to that imposition. We are, in most shires, not even permitted to trim or lop dangerous native trees, much less replace them in any systemic manner.
The bush fires will continue, as will the ever on-going land degradation.
Posted by GYM-FISH, Thursday, 14 January 2010 10:47:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great article. I love gum trees, but would never want them near my house. Years ago we saw a eucalypt in the middle of a ploughed paddock explode when a blown ember ignited the volatile oils around it.

We have friends in the 'native' suburbs of Canberra (Cook/Aranda) and the flammability of their area compared to the more 'exotic' suburbs is alarming. Highly flammable trees, leaf litter and eucalypt mulch is a disaster waiting to happen. Incidentally, established exotic gardens and lawns are remarkably drought hardy. My father complies with stringent watering restrictions and has a lovely old fireproof garden and a vegie patch.
Posted by Candide, Thursday, 14 January 2010 12:43:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How about not living in dangerous areas in the first place?

It is true that the 600 or so different eucalypts are highly flammable; it is also true that we saw avenues of unscathed London Plane trees after the horrific Victorian bush fires last year. Anybody who actually plants eucalypts in their garden are very unwise; not only are eucalypts a fire risk, many of them also drop their boughs without warning, and most of them fill gutters with leaves.

But these trees are a major part of the Australian bush. They are Australia.

The author knows his trees and, ideally, for people who must live in the bush, the planting of non-natives would be helpful. But, what about the water and soil oaks etc need?

Australia has the most nutrient-lacking soils in the world. Plane trees, oaks, all the deciduous trees planted because they remind us of England, are planted only in certain areas where conditions are more or less suitable. Most of Australia does not have the right conditions, nor does it have the water. In South Australia, the driest state, the exotics grow very well in the Adelaide Hills, whereas on the plains, where most of us live, they are spindly and disappointing – if they survive more than one season. But, the Adelaide Hills, looking like ye Olde England most of the time, is the biggest bushfire death trap in the state. The mania for higher populations has pushed ‘civilisation’ to the edge of inaccessible, pure eucalypt forest, which, carrying on as it has for thousands of years bushfires and all, will not be deterred by gardeners planting English trees in Sterling, where many of the ‘beautiful people’ live.

Australia was never meant to be inhabited by civilised, urban man. It’s too late for us to return to our roots, so the only thing we can do is cut population so that we don’t have to spread to the fringes of cities and beyond into the bush which is nice to visit, but not to live in.
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 14 January 2010 1:21:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The recent spate of fires in Victoria were unusual in that, from 1944 to 1981 there were no comparable fires. For nearly forty years with cool burning in autumn and (to a lesser extent) spring, the fuel load was not so heavy. Interestingly, fire fighting in that period was carried out with a wet sack, rake/hoes and knapsack sprays. Why the change since 1981?
Minister for Conservation Rod MacKenzie instructed his Chief Fire Commissioner Athol Hodgson to stop broad acre cool burning. It would only be tolerated for the timber industry and assett protection.
Records show that manpower under the National Parks Act in Victoria started to decline in 1983. One outdoor worker to 3,600 ha. By 2005 there was one outdoor worker to 8,100 ha.
While finances had risen, the 114 Admin staff of 1981 had risen to 625 in 2005.
Victoria has paid dearly for this financial attitude at the expense of the environment. Around my locality (Gippsland) there are many square kms where, even after three years there are few signs of regrowth. Native flora and fauna habitat has been burned so deep in the ground that wind and rain have eroded the remains of habitat making it impossible for re conolisation to occur.
Erosion has submerged aquatic systems.
Although I can see the sense of fireproof plants around communities that have been established in fire prone areas, I forecast that, by 2020 the State of Victoria will have had so many huge fires that its fauna population will be very close to gone.
Pioneers came to a country that was considered admirable for grazing sheep and cattle. They saw the result of regular cool burns but stopped it. Forests grew unchecked and became explosive.
In 1981 we encouraged the fires that since the Caledonia fires of 1998 have caused a huge change in our bio diversity.
The message is clear. Eucalypt forests are not the same as deciduous forests. It is time that green NGO's understood this and encouraged the preservation of our flora and fauna by using cool fire as an essential tool.
Posted by phoenix94, Thursday, 14 January 2010 4:21:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What we could do immediately is discourage the planting of species like eucalyptus in built-up and urban areas. Surprisingly, some councils still persist in supplying such trees as part of their free or subsidised tree program for rate payers.

It is not just the fire risk, these trees are known as 'widow-makers' because even an apparently healthy young tree can drop heavy limbs at any time. The planting of Eucalyptus and other large dangerous species in populated areas destroys house foundations, roofing (sticks and leaves), powerlines and shades the gardens of neighbours.

There is a State primary school near us where a large gum tree overhangs a demountable (read as permanent) school room, while gum trees line (and drop sticks on) play areas. To think that they chainsawed shady, safe American trees to introduce gums which provide no shade and could injure students.
Posted by Cornflower, Thursday, 14 January 2010 5:47:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The ideas in this article are not new, but it is good to be reminded occasionally about what home owners can do to reduce the risk of fire.

Much experience in fire fighting has taught me a lot.

Firstly combustionable material has to be removed from near the house. Large trees should go as they are a danger of falling and damaging the house. Pine trees of any sort are a no,no. Australian Casuarina species are also very flamable. Some shrubs are also very flamable. State forestry can advise on species flamability.

Secondly it is better to have a green grassy area close to the home.

Eucalpts are OK as long as there is distance between them. If planting, use the smooth barked species that do not have hanging 'candle bark'.

I live in a high risk area and will stay and defend. But we have made extensive preparations, such as clearing most, but not all, trees up to 60 metres, green surounding area, sprinkler sytem on roof and under verandah, gravity fed water system, sprinklers on yard fence and a pony which keeps the outer area well mown. We also have our own small tanker.

One cannot say all eucalypts are highly flamable as some are more so than others and the density of the trees is another factor. One should also be aware that some species can drop limbs and are best avoided.

The State fire authorities have plenty of material about how to make your house safer from fire
Posted by Banjo, Thursday, 14 January 2010 7:51:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
debj,
You are quite correct. The books of Joan Webster are excellant, written in plain english and contains list of fire resistant trees.

I recomend 'The Complete Australian Bushfire Book' by Joan Webster.

It was written after the Ash Wednesday dissaster and is pure common sense. Should be in every rural dwellers bookcase.
Posted by Banjo, Friday, 15 January 2010 9:15:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great idea,
I like the Kurrajong as one Australian Eucalypt replacement tree .
It is attractive, not too tall, can be pruned to shape and it was used as a source of fibre , water , food and it's gum as a fixative; plus it doesn't fall over and lives for 100's of years .

Much more promotion of "wet " leaf Australian Species is needed.

Unfortunately ,Victoria is due for more Bushfire disasters if the perception of Bruce Esplin ,the Commissioner for Emergency Services is accepted as ok for the future.

Commenting on the radio ABC a few weeks ago ,his "feel good "message was that the bush was recovering well in the worst of the bushfire areas of SE Victoria.

That is NOT what I wanted to hear . It bodes more pain, suffering and destruction in the future for those people struggling to regain their lives and homes.

Now is the time to thin out those walls of paper and oils that surround us and replace them with greater areas of easier to burn and manage finer native grasses ,while it is easier to work in the bush - in 5 years time the difficulties and the fire risk could well be 50% higher.

Our Emergency Services Heads must be Responsible !
Posted by kartiya jim, Monday, 18 January 2010 1:37:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How feasible would it be for the CFA to sponsor the CSIRO to carry out a bit of genetic engineering and produce and patent gum trees that were fire-resistant. The CFA could then sell them and boost its fundraising.
Posted by Polly Flinders, Wednesday, 20 January 2010 1:03:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy