Plastic bags, climate change, renewable energy,

Dales Cannon

lightbrain about 4pm
Staff member
The Rangers where we camp like to block burn because it gives them more chance of controlling a bigger fire but it doesn't always work, they are often limited by climate and cant burn and a really big fire jumps a long way. Across rivers if there is enough wind and energy.
 
Last edited:

beeb

Dr. Beebenson, PhD HA, ST, Offset (hons)
Yep that why our forests are full of flammable eucalypts. Thousands of year of natural and man made fire..
Yep, used to be alright when we had regular rainfall and surrounding forests to support revegetation and biodiversity, and of course that rainfall would also mean the forest was a lot less likely to burn in the first place, and even if it did - not so out of control/intensely/as far...
 

Haakon

Keeps on digging
Yep, used to be alright when we had regular rainfall and surrounding forests to support revegetation and biodiversity, and of course that rainfall would also mean the forest was a lot less likely to burn in the first place, and even if it did - not so out of control/intensely/as far...
With more mature trees with less scrappy undergrowth.
 

Freediver

I can go full Karen
Yep that why our forests are full of flammable eucalypts. Thousands of year of natural and man made fire..
It's way more complex than most people realise, in our forests there has been a battle going on for thousands of years between rainforest and wet sclerophyll. As a forest goes longer and longer between fire or man made interruptions the eucalypts get bigger and bigger and further apart. Rainforest species then start to grow under the canopy, this is what a lot of the old growth looks like. Forest like this is quite resistant to burning because of an almost continually damp understory and when it does burn in a drought it gets replaced by eucalypts which mostly regenerate after a fire. If the fire wasn't very intense we get mixed age eucalypts because the old ones are still standing. If the fire was intense we get a eucalypt forest of the same age (look at the remaining regrowth from the 39 fires at the black spur)

If the eucalypts are able to finish there life cycle and fall down after 500 years or so the rainforest which doesn't burn takes over.

Of course we came along and fucked the natural cycle, for over a hundred years now we've been maintaining most of our forest for the benefit of loggers which means more flammable eucalypts and bugger all left of the forest types that don't burn easily.
 

mark22

Likes Dirt
No, the main reason for the amount of fuel reduction burning that is done is propaganda. The conservatives have everybody hoodwinked into believing the answer to bushfires, rather than listening to the scientists is fuel reduction burns and that it's got nothing to do with climate change or years of mismanagement by the logging industry.

Of course there is a time and place for fuel reduction but current methods are not based on current science.
Ummm not sure you can blame all this on conservatives and logging.
It's been a long time since logging has been done in our national parks.

When and where would you consider it benificial to conduct fuel reduction burning (serious question)?
 

Kerplunk

Likes Bikes and Dirt
It's way more complex than most people realise, in our forests there has been a battle going on for thousands of years between rainforest and wet sclerophyll. As a forest goes longer and longer between fire or man made interruptions the eucalypts get bigger and bigger and further apart. Rainforest species then start to grow under the canopy, this is what a lot of the old growth looks like. Forest like this is quite resistant to burning because of an almost continually damp understory and when it does burn in a drought it gets replaced by eucalypts which mostly regenerate after a fire. If the fire wasn't very intense we get mixed age eucalypts because the old ones are still standing. If the fire was intense we get a eucalypt forest of the same age (look at the remaining regrowth from the 39 fires at the black spur)

If the eucalypts are able to finish there life cycle and fall down after 500 years or so the rainforest which doesn't burn takes over.

Of course we came along and fucked the natural cycle, for over a hundred years now we've been maintaining most of our forest for the benefit of loggers which means more flammable eucalypts and bugger all left of the forest types that don't burn easily.
Yep agree, only add to the last para.. Man made load reduction burning has been happening for 1000’s of years.. The forest’s didn’t lose diversity in the last 200 years. It has been a vicious cycle of natural
fire - flammable species thriving - man made burning on repeat.. And now that is all supercharged by us fking it with logging, clearing and climate change..
 

Freediver

I can go full Karen
Ummm not sure you can blame all this on conservatives and logging.
It's been a long time since logging has been done in our national parks.

When and where would you consider it benificial to conduct fuel reduction burning (serious question)?
It has been a long time since logging in most national parks but that's a long time by human terms, not in relation to trees that live for 500 years plus or a cycle that occurs over hundreds of years, if not thousands. Some of our newer NP and NP extensions have been logged very recently. Vicforests in particular have a nasty habit of logging the heart out of anything they think might get preserved while they have a chance.

Fuel reduction burns can be beneficial around towns and infrastructure as a way of reducing the heat generated and embers from shaggy bark which without doubt makes the asset more defendable but it also needs to be acknowledged that continual burning will change the forest type making it more flammable.
 

mark22

Likes Dirt
It has been a long time since logging in most national parks but that's a long time by human terms, not in relation to trees that live for 500 years plus or a cycle that occurs over hundreds of years, if not thousands. Some of our newer NP and NP extensions have been logged very recently. Vicforests in particular have a nasty habit of logging the heart out of anything they think might get preserved while they have a chance.

Fuel reduction burns can be beneficial around towns and infrastructure as a way of reducing the heat generated and embers from shaggy bark which without doubt makes the asset more defendable but it also needs to be acknowledged that continual burning will change the forest type making it more flammable.
Ok I'm really not familiar with this 500 year thing, do we have any 500yo untouched forests on the mainland in SE Australia to base this on?
 
Last edited:

Haakon

Keeps on digging
Ok I'm really not familiar with this 500 year thing, do we have any 500yo forests on the mainland in SE Australia to base this on?
Yes, there are some left in Victoria. But climate change and no biodiversity buffer around them will kill them off if the loggers don’t get there first.
 

Elbo

pesky scooter kids git off ma lawn
Ok I'm really not familiar with this 500 year thing, do we have any 500yo forests on the mainland in SE Australia to base this on?
I think there are some areas in Gippsland that tick the box here.
 

Haakon

Keeps on digging
As opposed to where I grew up around Castlemaine where it was all clear felled during the gold rush to feed steam engines in Melbourne. All pretty scrappy bush now and a long way from the big open forest that used to be there.
 

silentbutdeadly

has some good things to say
When and where would you consider it benificial to conduct fuel reduction burning (serious question)?
It works very well in modified and partly (or even non) functional vegetated landscapes. Mostly human managed landscapes. Which in Australia is most of them... unfortunately. Of course, the outcomes are often not entirely positive for remnant ecological systems. But then they're largely fucked anyway for other reasons...
 

Freediver

I can go full Karen
Ok I'm really not familiar with this 500 year thing, do we have any 500yo untouched forests on the mainland in SE Australia to base this on?
Yes, in Gippsland but there isn't much left. I've seen them take trees so big out of it that they can only put a few metres of one log on the back of a truck because the diameter is so big that it would weigh too much if it was the whole length of the truck.
 

mark22

Likes Dirt
Yes, in Gippsland but there isn't much left. I've seen them take trees so big out of it that they can only put a few metres of one log on the back of a truck because the diameter is so big that it would weigh too much if it was the whole length of the truck.
Okydokey where exactly. You haven't really answered my question, so this partly logged area has never burnt?
Ummm not relevant, a tree that once was.
 

Freediver

I can go full Karen
Errinundra plateu probably has the best examples but there is still quite a bit in the Ellery Valley, Along the Goolengook and little Goolengook rivers there are some good examples and Dingo creek out past Goongarah. There is also a couple of patches out near Kinglake and down in the Otways but I've not been to them These spots are clearfelled when you know who gets a chance, none of this partly logged you talk of, it's all or nothing.

I didn't say they have never burnt but that these spots are seriously less flammable. Fires go through them but because of the moisture, shade, wind protection and height of the trunks these spots don't lose everything, very few trees are killed. As fires go through old growth it's more of a bush smoulder than bush fire.
This is a good and pretty quick read. https://vnpa.org.au/old-growth-forests-imperilled-in-victoria/
 
Last edited:
Top