Thread: forestry practices

Interesting debate guys.

I went through Yellowstone National park 7 years ago now, it was then some 10-12 years after a big burn went through it. It started in spring and went out in autumn ( I am not exagerating here), the dead trees were still standing with little regrowth when we went through.

What happened in Canberra really was a natural consequence, yes humans had a part in it but not that much. WE have not had any real fires in most areas for a long time before the big blaze, we had a drought, very hot weather, a lot of wind and dry fuel. From previous records it would indicate that about every 50 years or so those conditions are going to exist. I am not sure that anything is really going to be able to be done about it in the long term. Complaints about smoke from control burns drop after a big fire, for about 1-2 years and then they climb dramatically. No government is going to spend millions every year on a 1 in 50 year event, no political capital in that, however there is plenty afterwards fixing it "so it never happens again".

As a kid we went through the Dandenongs, all we could see were these houses built by clearing just enough land to put the house in. Trees frequently touched the eaves of the houses, all we could think was my god what will happen if a fire goes through here. Of course it did and we got ash wednesday.

Nutrient cycling is interesting, australian soils are notoriusly poor. Tropical rainforests have pratically all the nutrients in the plants as everything else is washed away. More thought does need to go into this question.

To go back to the thread, there are always alternatives, the problem is that what is generally used is the cheapest and not the best option.

Dave,
I like your take on natural disasters. People get very upset, indignant really, when a wild animal eats a human that ventures into their habitat but take it as normal when they die in a traffic accident (humans dying that is). Around here we're trying to tread the middle ground, balancing the environment's needs with safety concerns. But just to illustrate my point about "environmentalist's" phobia about fires:
We recently arranged with Main Roads to conduct fairly large scale hazard reduction burning on their road reserve. The idea being that most fires seem to start along the roadsides where there is the most human contact, either from carelessly dropped cigarrette butts or deliberately lit fires. Burning out the strip of vegetation alongside the road has minimal impact on the environment and provides an effective fire break. Main Roads had their contractors run a dozer along side the fence line on their side to give us access and a line to burn back from.

When the warden went to check this line he found that one section had not been done. When he contacted Main Roads he found out that their environmental officer had stepped in and stopped that section of work as it was adjacent to an environmental reserve. This reserve was highly flammable country, sparse eucalypts, sheoaks and cyprus with grass trees and grass between. The warden spoke to the environmental officer and tried to explain that our work would actually safeguard the reserve but there was no change in their position. Eventually the brigade paid for a dozer to complete the line and we are attempting to get reimbursed. In Qld the warden can order a firebreak where ever he deems one is neccessary and this over rides any environmental legislation. In other states I believe that this is not the case. I think the best bet for highly flammable areas is to portion them up into smaller parcels with accessible tracks. This means that in the event of a fire an area can be sacrificed to save the others. Of course in really high temperature and wind and low humidity conditions it would still be difficult to deal with any outbreaks. Of course the tracks would still have an environmental impact, one of the major ones being motorbikes and 4wds.

Mick (who'd dearly love to have more rainforest around, partly for the greater availability of timber, but mostly because it looks and smells great and is the home to lots of wildlife )

A lot of interesting points have been raised here, and the debate will no doubt continue long after this thread does.

To preserve, conserve or manage? i feel is the question when dealing with the age old "logging vs greenie" debate.

Some areas need to be "preserved" simply for their intrinsic value eg. Kosciuszko pilot wilderness area, wollemi wilderness.

Some areas of high ecological value need to be "conserved" eg Ski areas of Kosciuszko, as areas like these due to there "value" have high tourist pressures.

And thirdly some areas need to be managed, eg Lane Cove National Park in sydney. In other words, in and around the suburbs. People constantly want to save the forests, but "gasp" at houses burning to the ground as if something evil has just happened. Comes back to the idea of natural disasters being a human issue.

Lastly on the idea of the bush being designed to burn. I feel that maybe it is closer towards the bush will tollerate burning, some ecological communities will tollerate more intense or more frequent burning (grasslands, dry sclerophyll), others not so intense or frequent (wet sclerophyll). Unfortunately for the ecological communities in the areas i describe as needing to be "managed" we are still learning what that best fire regime is, and we sadly don't have the time to wait till we do if we wish to keep fuel loads down, and thus reduce the threat of another "natural disaster"

A little of the original thread but i feel close to relevant enough

Very good points have been displayed in many posts, although one does occasionally detect the populist dogmatic idealogy creeping in here & there.
I have just a little bit of experience in both forest management and resource utilisation, and yes I do have vested interest in continuity of harvesting, I also have, as do my children a vested interest (lets call it living in a healthy environ)in not stuffing it up.
Several points I have for your consideration,
*How many seperate forests/ecologies are broadly termed "Dry sclerophyll" & why do most people assume they can all be treated the same?
*If all forest practices of the past where so damaging, incl burning off practices, why where our most intensely logged/managed areas considered the best and first choice for preservation?
*Some species DO actually have a limited/short life span, (not all Gymnosperms take decades to mature) and yes fire does kill them, however generally these are understory species that have evolved over millenia to propegate as a genus within this cycle and thrive by doing so.
*There was more forested area in NSW at the end of the 20th century than there was in the mid 20th century, and the decision when to burn or not was decided by those who knew their particular forest, not prescribed by a generalised city managed "code of practice".

If I could change one thing in these types of discussions it would be get people to know the local bush and forest areas intimately and talk to those who've spent their lives in it, before they profess to "know" whats best for it.

Please consider

Bruce C

Bruce,
this is why the Qld system of local brigades and wardens works so well (IMHO). The fire management at least, is decided by locals who live and work in the area and know it well. Although some know it all bureaucrat may draw up an environmental management plan the local fire warden can, if he deems it neccesary, order fire breaks. The local fire warden can also authorise hazard reduction burns and these permits override any local government by-laws or other government departments' rules or laws. In case of wildfire the first officer can order a fire break up to 20M wide to bare earth whereever neccesary.

Mick

I tend to agree Mick, many of the older forestry guys I know looked after the same forests for their whole working lives, a couple even after their Dads and Grandfathers in the same tracts. Obviously this engenders an affinity with the particular idiosyncrasies of the land that they were caretakers of, this is a feeling I have witnessed up close and personal during the great NPWS land grab up here a few years ago, some of these old guys felt like their souls were being ripped out and upon visiting some of the areas a few years later, I feel some of those fears may have had foundation.
I have also witnessed so called "rape & pillage" logging types risking life, limb and financial ruin to buy wildlife enough time to escape a crowning fire.

I have to agree local knowledge and experience is essential in any given situation in order to manage a landscape.

On the flip side however (this will probably open a can of worms ......but), every now and then an outside influence is healthy as sometimes individuals neglect to look beyond their own experiences. The reason i say this is i continually come up against the elder generation using the old " i have been doing.....for 40 years", unfortunately some of them fail to ever explore the idea that maybe what they have been doing for 40 years may not have been the best option.

not trying to start an argument just stiring the pot.....

I (and others) have been talking in general term, as with such a wide range of location on the board this seems most oppropriate, this means that the information will be generaly okay but specificaly lacking. For information on local areas talk to local experts.

One thing I may add, local knowledge of management practices can be influenced by history and aimed at a specific outcome. That is, an area that has been grazed for generations may be well managed localy, if what you want is grazing land. Locals MAY have a vested interest in one managed outcome or another.
What outside management can provide is a dispationate, big picture that goes beyond the boundaries of the locality. This allows for appreciation of the impact of local management on the wider goals.

I (pesonally) believe the best way is to set management goals centrally and actions to meet those goals locally. I understand that this can cause tention when locals disagree with the overall managment direction, or don't see why they should sacrifice for the good of the whole. (not in my backyard).

Dave,

I think that's what i was trying to say, well put.

Ask Gunns about best practice, soon they will turn into conservationists and use plantation timber that will grow with out the worry of native animals.

Dave,
in principle I agree with the central planning/local mangement idea but it too has problems. We were called out to a fire last year to land which the wet tropics authority has control over. WTA has halted the building of any more tracks or roads and won't permit grazing. It may once have been rainforest, but certainly wasn't well before the first white settlers came into the area. So the native landholders have very few options available to manage their land or its fire risk. We went out (even though it's not in our area, we don't recieve any levies from there and we don't get paid at all) and managed to save most of the dwellings by backburning. As there were very few tracks to use as control lines we just left the fire burning and it eventually went out a few days later. Because some learned desk jockey with a few environmental degrees has looked at maps and decided that the area doesn't need any more tracks damage to the environment was probably ten times greater than it might have been if we'd had somewhere to stop the fire. :mad:

Mick

Converting theory to implimentation can often expose poorly thought out ideas. However I have seen plans that say (in essence) that if it wants to burn, let it. Don't build access, due to the increased edge effect, and due to the increased penetration by rec bush bashers, and if it burns then so be it.

People look at a ravaged forest and say look at the damage, I ask what damage? Look at the native orchids that bloom for a few days and only after a fire, look at the opportunuty for new plants to get access to nutrients and sunlight.

In a 'natural' environment fire is not the enemy, human intervention is. Where humans have already intervened management becomes a matter of balancing impact to the envirnoment, while retaining the value the humans place on it. (as grazing, logging, dwellings, bush walking etc).

Dave,
I've got no problems with plans that say "leave it all alone, let nature take its course". Trouble in this case is that their plan is to leave it alone for the rainforest to regenerate, (it's currently sparse forest and grassland). From my observation it takes at least ten years of high fire risk conditions before there's enough rainforest to make fire improbable, 2o years to make it pretty much impossible. So now due to their great plan most of the area is back to square one. At this rate it will never regenerate, and granted it's mostly due to human intervention. You've got a community of mostly unemployed people living in a high fire risk area. School holidays roll around, there's nothing to do because the community as a whole is poor and there are no facilities. A campfire gets out of control, or (more often) a bored kid throws a match into the long grass and woosh! it's off! People charged with drawing up these plans need to take into account the nature of the vegetation, the fire risks posed by human contact etc etc etc. If they actually came out and looked at the area, and maybe talked to some locals they would be better equipped to draw up a management plan.

Mick

There is only one answer Mick.

You, me and a fridge full of beer. 6-10 later we would have solved the ills of the world, another 6-10 and we would be causing them

I've often wanted to go to paradise, just send me a ticket and I'm there

Oh and if we can get Silent there as well - then we could have a huge talk fest.