I have also thought that but I do not understand why more attention is not devoted to that what is happening is that the solar energy that was absorbed into the system for many millions of years and stored as what is now fossil fuels, has been largely used and that energy released within about 200 years, ultimately as heat. Thus it is not just the burning of fossil fuels but the unbalance due to millions of years of accumulated solar energy being released almost instantaneously. Why is that not talked about as a factor that impacts on warming? Philip —–Original Message—–From: birding-aus-bounces@lists.vicnet.net.au [mailto:birding-aus-bounces@lists.vicnet.net.au] On Behalf Of Roger Giller Sent: Thursday, 5 September 2013 1:58 PM To: ‘Frank O’Connor’; birding-aus@vicnet.net.au Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] the fire hazzard reduction program Frank, While agree with your other points I can not let the first one go unchallenged. Burning the bush is only one step in a relatively short term cycle. As it grows it sucks up carbon. When it is burnt, or dies and decays, the carbon goes back into the atmosphere it came from. If the bush is burnt every X number of years then on average nothing changes. (Note that I am only referring here to the effect on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, not the ecology, which sadly is the loser in all this) The problem with climate change is the burning of fossil fuels. They locked up the carbon millions of years ago. Life as we now know it has evolved to be happy with the concentration of carbon dioxide that remained in the atmosphere, until we started adding to it by accessing and burning the fossil fuels. Roger Giller. =============================== To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) to: birding-aus-request@vicnet.net.au http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Actually there is some evidence the large contiguous areas are more vulnerable to the effect of a landscape-scale fire than small patches which are isolated by cleared land. Even when they do burn the small lots tend not to be all lost. About 30% of Wathe Flora & Fauna Reserve was burnt in (I think) 2007. The following breeding season one of our monitoring sites that had escaped the fire had 8 active malleefowl mounds, as against 3 before the fire – seemingly because the birds were squashed into a smaller amount of habitat. It’s a reasonable assumption that this might not be sustainable, and that some birds will move away or be lost to the breeding population, but it’s also a good sign that a population will be there to re-colonise the burnt sections in 10-20 years’ time when the canopy and leaf litter recover. We have seen this happen already in Wandown FFR which was burnt in the early 90s. In contrast, if you have a fire scar that’s 50km wide and 30km north to south, as you do after the 2002 Big Desert fire, it might be generations before some species can re-colonise the centre of it. Centuries even, if they have low dispersal rates like Mallee emu-wrens. Sorry, bit of a hobby-horse of mine… —–Original Message—– Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 5:49 PM How about the important issue that pre 1788 there was vast areas of natural habitat types, e.g. mallee. Patch burning would impact small areas and most animals had plenty of suitable habitat to move to for a while and many successional stages could exist. Now natural habitat types are often isolated patches, segregated by farmland, timber harvesting, urbanisation, etc. Thus patch burning now has a totally different meaning from pre 1788, because a patch can be most of an isolated remnant. Philip [mailto:birding-aus-bounces@lists.vicnet.net.au] On Behalf Of John Leonard Sent: Friday, 6 September 2013 8:00 AM To: Birding-aus Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] the fire hazard reduction program I think the basic problem is that you had a large workforce of people on land managing it the whole time by mosaic burning. Since then the workforce on the land has dwindled to such an extent that such a burning regime is now impossible and all that can be achieved are very small scale conservation burns, when funding, and wisdom, is available, and cosmetic and destructive ‘hazard reduction burns’ which are haphazard. John Leonard =============================== To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) http://birding-aus.org =============================== =============================== To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) http://birding-aus.org ===============================
I agree. Did you watch Jennie Brockie’s “Insight” on cats (on SBS earlier this year)? One woman rescued feral cats, fed and treated their ailments, and then let them go. Many people are passionate about cats, more so than they appear to be about native wildlife. As for feral livestock eg pigs buffalo, horses etc – they were first released in the Top End when early white settlements failed. And when cattle stations were absorbed into Kakadu, the same thing happened (at least with horses). You might have heard of the “eco resort” established near Pine Creek, NT. The attraction wasn’t iconic avifauana such as Hooded Parrot, but feral horses. Millions of dollars were raised throughout Europe by a Swiss-owned charity (forget the name) to catch feral horses and truck them in, to live out their lives in Hooded Parrot and Gouldian Finch country. And as the place was labelled an “eco resort” tour authorities and operators fell for it! Denise On 6/9/13 9:49 PM, “Peter Madvig” < madvig@iprimus.com.au> wrote: =============================== To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Anyone interested should read the book ‘Our Feral Future’ by Tim Low. An interesting but depressing read. Cheers Andrew On 6/09/2013 8:19 PM, Peter Madvig wrote: — *********************************************************** Andrew Hobbs pardalote@iinet.net.au *********************************************************** =============================== To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Oh, if only they could be gotten rid of throughout Australia, together with goats…..perhaps they could be trained to eat cats?……..Ah, ferals, ferals
I bet your people would have a few ideas, if only they were allowed to pursue them…!!! Peter —– Original Message —– < foconnor@iinet.net.au>; “Birding Aus” < birding-aus@vicnet.net.au> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 8:56 PM =============================== To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) http://birding-aus.org ===============================
How could I! By using the past tense I refer to the job done on them by cane toads! The last pig I encountered I caught in a cast net in central Arnhem Land. The end result was the tastiest sweet and sour pork I’ve ever had. But knowing of the damage they do I’d be happy to forego such dishes to see wild pigs disappear forever. Denise On 6/9/13 8:04 PM, “Peter Madvig” < madvig@iprimus.com.au> wrote: =============================== To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Hi Denise……however, don’t forget that pigs were also introduced by us. Peter Madvig —– Original Message —– < birding-aus@vicnet.net.au> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 5:10 PM =============================== To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) http://birding-aus.org ===============================
You can see this in action when you visit Scotia, western NSW, where the bilbies make the ground look like a miniature nomans land with the debris falling into the small craters and then being covered later. There would also be much less rainfall run off compared to the packed ground outside the safety fence assisting plant growth. It will never return to pre 1788 so what can be done to minimise the adverse changes. Cheers Chris —– Original Message —– Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 12:45 PM =============================== To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Wild pigs did a fair job of turning the ground over – I recall Lambell’s Lagoon near Fogg Dam virtually bare of all ground cover. However, it seems they (the pigs) have been decimated by cane toads! Denise On 6/9/13 12:15 PM, “Frank O’Connor” < foconnor@iinet.net.au> wrote: =============================== To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Peter, that seems to be an issue up here. Also, I’m told the screams are loud when firefighters enter a property to tackle a fire, and need to cut a fence or use some of the property owner’s water supply. Denise On 6/9/13 10:45 AM, “Peter Shute” < pshute@nuw.org.au> wrote: =============================== To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) http://birding-aus.org ===============================
I would have thought that the reason we can’t maintain the same level of burning as pre 1788 is that these days so much more effort has to go into controlling them to avoid property damage. I assume that care was taken to choose the right weather conditions, and then the fires were just left to burn themselves out. Peter Shute =============================== To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) http://birding-aus.org ===============================
I think the basic problem is that pre 1788 you had a large workforce of people on land managing it the whole time by mosaic burning. Since then the workforce on the land has dwindled to such an extent that such a burning regime is now impossible and all that can be achieved are very small scale conservation burns, when funding, and wisdom, is available, and cosmetic and destructive ‘hazard reduction burns’ which are haphazard. John Leonard On 5 September 2013 16:46, Ross Macfarlane (TPG) < rmacfarl@tpg.com.au>wrote: — John Leonard Canberra Australia http://www.jleonard.net I want to be with the 9,999 other things. =============================== To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Frank, I can’t speak for what happens in the southwest but the publically available fire operations plans published by DEPI in Victoria do try to give consideration to the principle of creating breaks and mosaics and protecting high-value areas. See for example: http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/fire-and-other-emergencies/planned-burning-an-introduction/fire-operations-plans-approved http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/146641/MALLEE-map_final-2012.pdf Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 7:38 PM Ross McFarlane points out the common claim : There is a need for some prescribed burning, for ecological reasons as well as for public safety. They create a mosaic of vegetation classes that different species need – e.g. malleefowl feed on wattle seeds etc. in disturbed habitat, and the Triodia that Mallee emu-wrens live in senesces in long unburned habitat. And the firebreaks can protect some long-unburned “lifeboat” patches from landscape scale bushfires. The concept of mosiac or patchwork burns sounds nice. But in practice they blanket burn large areas of the south west and particularly the Kimberley, the latter year after year. Sure, some patches somehow survive, but in my experience I can’t believe that these patches are enough for the dependent species to survive. Even if they do hang on, their numbers are greatly reduced. I have no problems with firebreaks as a means of stopping fires, and especially to give access to fight fires, but apart from bulldozing / mowing them, I see no concept of creating a firebreak in the prescribed burning. When they have done a prescribed burn to protect habitat of threatened / endangered species, at least two I know of have got out of control and burnt the area meant to be protected. _________________________________________________________________ Frank O’Connor Birding WA http://birdingwa.iinet.net.au Phone : (08) 9386 5694 Email : foconnor@iinet.net.au ——————————————————————————– =============================== To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) http://birding-aus.org =============================== =============================== To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Prescribed burning is actually claimed to be a net positive for greenhouse emissions because small, low-intensity burns produce less emissions than hot, landscape-scale bushfires, and because they stimulate new growth that ties up carbon. Done right, this is probably a valid argument but that requires one to trust the Departments to do the burns right. Re the Bushfires Royal Commission recommendation for an annual burn target: this is still a live issue in Victoria. The target is a flat 5% of all public land every year (and wildfires do not get counted.) A burn every 20 years would drive malleefowl (for 1) to extinction if there is no long-unburned mallee to breed in. On the other hand, the annual target of nearly 400,000 hectares is still less than the Big Desert-Murray-Sunset complex fire in 2002, that nearly wiped out Mallee emu-wrens in South Australia. A 400,000 hectare burn in the wrong part of Murray Sunset and Hattah could wipe out the Victorian population and drive the whole species to extinction in a weekend. There is a need for some prescribed burning, for ecological reasons as well as for public safety. They create a mosaic of vegetation classes that different species need – e.g. malleefowl feed on wattle seeds etc. in disturbed habitat, and the Triodia that Mallee emu-wrens live in senesces in long unburned habitat. And the firebreaks can protect some long-unburned “lifeboat” patches from landscape scale bushfires. I think we need to argue the conservationists’ case and keep the bastards honest – not blindly trust any government department, but not fight to despair over every hectare “lost”. What we should demand is that decisions are backed up by science and data, not driven by political and financial imperatives, which is what worries us most about the Victorian approach. Ross Macfarlane —–Original Message—– Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 3:17 PM Cc: Roger Giller ; Birding-aus The amount of extra heat from the sun “trapped” by the CO2 from burning fossil fuels is far more significant than the amount of heat generated from combusting those fossil fuels because the CO2 has an atmospheric half life of is significantly longer compared with a dissipating unit of heat. The heat that we receive from the sun is much greater, and the fossil fuels help “trap” that heat for many years. I believe the estimates are 0.018 watts/square meter for heat generated by burning fossil fuels, while 2.1 watts/square meter for CO2. Jeremy On 5 September 2013 14:33, Philip Veerman < pveerman@pcug.org.au> wrote: =============================== To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) http://birding-aus.org =============================== =============================== To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) http://birding-aus.org ===============================
The amount of extra heat from the sun “trapped” by the CO2 from burning fossil fuels is far more significant than the amount of heat generated from combusting those fossil fuels because the CO2 has an atmospheric half life of is significantly longer compared with a dissipating unit of heat. The heat that we receive from the sun is much greater, and the fossil fuels help “trap” that heat for many years. I believe the estimates are 0.018 watts/square meter for heat generated by burning fossil fuels, while 2.1 watts/square meter for CO2. Jeremy On 5 September 2013 14:33, Philip Veerman < pveerman@pcug.org.au> wrote: =============================== To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) http://birding-aus.org ===============================