Bundarrah Days

ON February 11, 2007, an article headed Face The Burning Question co-written by Dick Williams, Ross Bradstock and Bruce Esplin appeared in The Age.

It's been reviewed many times but I want to revisit it in the light of the tragic events of Black Saturday. My comments in bold.

THE large fires burning in eastern Victoria, thankfully, have been contained at last. Many believe that these fires are unnatural, disasters for the environment, and they wouldn't have happened if national parks hadn't been locked up and cattlemen kicked out of the high country. Are these views a sober appreciation of the facts? What do history and science tell us about bushfires?

Thankfully? Why thankfully when they are trying to make a case that these fires are natural and necessary?

In fact, while large areas of national park were affected, the bulk of the 2006-07 fires started in and burned through other types of land such as state forests. History shows that occasional large fires in south-eastern Australia are the norm. More than a million hectares were burnt in 2003, 1939, and 1851.

State Forest is now managed by Parks Victoria...so what's the difference? They say occasional large fires are the norm. Does occasionally mean three times in six years? You see, they had go back 152 years to find three fires that totalled 3 million hectares. Writing in March 2006 I only have to go back six years. Are these "occasional large fires " now regular or even frequent? If so, with what effect on our environment?

Large fires occur in south-eastern Australia because forests are flammable, the terrain is rugged, and most importantly because ignition, severe fire weather and intense drought conditions occasionally coincide.

Since when is the co-incidence of ignition, "severe fire weather" and intense drought more important than fuel? In 2009 we'd had drought for longer than in 2003 and 2006/07 and far more "severe fire weather" yet this year fire burnt about one third of the area burnt in each of the two previous fires? What does this tell us?

Are ecosystems destroyed by large fires? No, they are burnt and they regenerate. And they do not burn with uniform high intensity; some patches are roasted, others are lightly scorched.

Eco-systems are changed comprehensively by what has become known as "feral fire." This is a form of fire that is alien to the environment it burns in. It favours the regeneration of fire prone species.

And they do not burn with uniform high intensity; some patches are roasted, others are lightly scorched.

This is rather different from their claims about alpine grazing. In 2006 Williams et al claimed there was no difference between bushfire occurrence and severity on grazed and ungrazed land in the Bogong High Plains.

The regeneration capacity of local ecosystems is enormous. The Australian flora and fauna, from the Alps to the desert, have mechanisms that allow them to cope with, and even prosper, after large fires, provided they are not too frequent. Plants re-sprout and re-seed. Animals migrate, switch diet, and continue reproducing.

This is plainly wrong - a re-write of Australian fire ecology. Large fires on the scale of Black Saturday in dry schlerophyll forests did not occur pre-settlement. We know from historical records and Aboriginal tradition that indigenous Australians practiced regular burning across the landscape. Reports suggest that Williams himself is at present objecting to Aboriginal burning practices in northern Australia.Dry schlerophyll forest in Victoria was burnt regularly in low scale cool burns and the flora and fauna is adapted to that. Large fires were "occasional" and mainly limited to forests of Mountain Ash which burns on average one or twice a century for regeneration. These fires are "hot" due to the fact that they are occasional providing time for the build-up of massive fuel burdens. They did not spread from the mountain ash environment, however, due to the fact that the surrounding dry forests were burnt regularly in cool burns which were not hot enough to ignite the moister conditions in the wet forests. Of course it's a different story today.

This capacity has been hardened over millions of years of evolution on a flammable continent. However, the ability of Australian ecosystems to cope with occasional major fires has been compromised by clearing, ferals, fragmentation, logging and grazing.

Patent nonsense. No thinking person believes that fire in forests is affected by land that has been cleared of forest. As for forest industry, what happens after a forest is logged is the preserve of government agencies which are influenced by people like Williams, Bradstock and Esplin. If they become fire prone and suffer a loss of biodiversity that is the fault of those charged with supervising their recovery from disturbance.

We now have a major new challenge - climate change. Research, here and overseas, suggests that major fires will happen more often because of this. With this prospect in mind, we must do everything we can to protect people, property and the environment.

We already know what a lot of nonsense that is. Major fires will happen more frequently because forests carry heavy fuel burdens so obviously the threat from warmer conditions (if they arrive) will be dependent on how we manage our forests. If we manage them as William, Bradstock and Esplin advocate no one will be able to live near them safely, irrespective of climate change.

But can we eliminate these sorts of fires? Science indicates this is highly unlikely, so we need to know how to lower the risks large fires pose to the things that we value - people, property, and the natural environment. Research and experience shows this is a complicated business. It involves informed compromise and trade-offs, and the adaptation of solutions to suit local circumstances.

Don't you love it? Science indicates it is unlikely that we can eliminate major fires. What science? Their science? It seems that science is a very inexact science when it comes to fire. There's a whole body of bushfire science that is opposed to the ideas of Williams, Bradstock and Esplin. In fact, we can safely say the majority of "the science" is opposed to them. Their assertion here depends greatly on what they call "major fire" and they will change what they say constitutes major fire whenever it suits them.

Fires respond to many influences: weather, terrain, fuel and human behaviour. Our options for managing these influences are limited. We can't change the weather, at least in the short-term, but we can alter the behaviour of people and some fuels.

The first of these is fuel. Remember the equation - fire equals available fuel. We can control fuel so that the effect of the weather is more or less under control. Unfortunately, we can't control the behaviour of arsonists so we have to treat them as yet another ignition factor. And, it seems we can't control the behaviour of people like William, Bradstock and Esplin either so we have to take their lobbying into account as well.

Lowering risk may involve more cleverly targeted and increased fuel reduction burning in some forest areas - as recommended in the Victorian bushfire inquiry and Council of Australian Governments' inquiry. However, in other areas, such as alpine landscapes, frequent prescribed burning is not justified because of increased risk of environmental damage. Reducing risk may also require changes to the way we suppress fires, and how we equip the community to cope before, during and after major events.

Mountain Cattlemen have never advocated prescribed burning in alpine landscapes and the implication to be drawn from that comment is entirely wrong. Nor did we ever burn the alpine landscape. As I stated in my submission to the Senate Committee Enquiry into National Parks the real threat to the alpine landscape is wildfire emerging from the surrounding dry schlerophyll forests.

Some fuel treatments, such as grazing the high country, are simply ineffective. Grazing did not "reduce blazing" during the 2003 fires, or in 1939. After fire, stock eat the "green pick", and this hinders the natural regeneration of flora and fauna after the fires.

More lies. Grazing is effective at reducing blazing. But the simple truth is this - less grazing has a a lesser effect and it is this fact that rendered William's study on this issue pointless and dishonest. As I have said before this ploy is like batting Bradman at number 9 and complaining that he didn't hit a century. You can't say something doesn't work if you're not truly doing it. In addition, after the 2003 fires stock were not left to continue grazing alpine areas and so did not hinder any regeneration.

One thing is certain: playing histrionic blame games is pointless. It discourages us from gaining the understanding needed to solve a highly complex and poorly understood problem. Getting fire management right, rather, needs hard thought and informed choices about when and where to act.

Warning people of the outcome of the policies of these people is said by them to be the "playing of histrionic blame games." Let me remind you that this article originally appeared on 11 February 2007, almost two years to the day before Black Saturday. If warnings had been heeded then 210 Victorians may still be alive today. Nero fiddled while Rome burned and two years ago we had Williams, Esplin and Bradstock telling us that we needed to get fire management right. We had two more years of their management and what happened? Have another look at the video below!

Ordinary Aussies in extraordinary circumstances. Let's hope Bradstock, Williams, Garrett, Ingamels and a few other leading green bastards have a good look at the disaster their policies created. And they think fuel reduction burning is a threatening process. In fact, the most threatening process faced by the Australian environment today is green thought itself.

Ross Bradstock , well known enemy of Mountain Cattlemen, makes the same claims against fuel reduction burning that he made against alpine grazing athough, to give him his due, he thinks that Black Saturday could have been prevented by the wholesale removal of forest and it's replacement with concrete.

To him it was a disaster that nothing short of radically unprecedented and impossible action could have prevented. Or, that's what he says publicly. What he says in private is likely to be a whole lot different.

Brackstock who is yet another dime a dozen professor of cattle dung and knows next to nothing about bushfire in practice is also a stranger to the truth. They may have met on the odd occasion but they're certainly not on friendly terms.

He says that fuel reduction measures can only mitigate the risk posed by fires to people but cannot eliminate it. We can't eliminate disease either but we cure some and mitigate others through the practice of medicine.

Here's what he said about Black Saturday.

"The scientists are saying the heat and wind were off the scale and several areas that had been burnt recently burned on the day."

That's a huge great misrepresentation. When a wildfire such as Black Saturday passes over a recently burned area it is going to set alight any available fuel. You don't need to be a Professor at Aunty Jack's Uni to work that out. What is debatable is the intensity of the fire. If the fuel burden is lower than the surrounding area there will be less firel and that's indisputable. Of course, when there is a surrounding wildfire it will be somewhat hotter than a fire limited to burning on recently burnt ground simply because the heat generated by a fire consuming massive amounts of fuel will make it so.

I shouldn't have to explain this but Bradstock should be made to explain why he feels the need to hide the truth and mislead people.

The fact that the heat and wind were "off the scale" on Black Saturday seems to have made little difference to most of Victoria. The 1.5 million ha burned in 2003 didn't catch fire again despite the "off the scale" factors. The 1.1 million hectares burnt in 2006-07 didn't catch fire again either despite the "off the scale" factors. But what is really telling is this. Both 2003 and 2006-07 burnt just as powerfully and for much longer than the Black Saturday fires in weather conditions that were benign by comparison.

Blind Freddie is no Wollongong Professor but even he can read the signs and they don't point in Bradstock's direction.

All he has proven is that too little fuel reduction burning is of little use in mitigating wildfire fed by massive fuel loads. He played the same game with alpine grazing. He and his mate Dick Williams set out to prove that alpine grazing does not reduce fire risk on the high plains by studying an area which scarcely carried any cattle. Their conclusion about cattle was the same as their conclusion about fuel reduction burning.

They say neither works because there is still fire where they are practiced. The truth is otherwise. It says that if there were sufficient cattle and sufficient fuel reduction burns there would be far less wildfire.

This green ploy is so obvious it's laughable. Reduce both FRB and grazing to a level where they can't achieve much and then they say they don't work. It's like batting Bradman at number 9 and complaining that he didn't hit a century.