Professor Poongschtock’s piece published last week has spurred another senior expert into print on the issue of the reality of fire management in Australia. Apart from the choice of another crazy pseudonym, Dr Berris Fueller, is well worth a read before we lynch any more so-called greenies. Picture by Rick Stevens.
In south-eastern mainland Australia most vegetation communities have evolved in landscapes subject to periodic and often intense wildfire. For example, since European human settlement, major wildfires have been recorded in the State of Victoria on average roughly once every 7 years or so. In chronological sequence, these occurred in 1851 (“Black Thursday”), 1898 (“Red Tuesday”), 1905, 1906, 1912, 1914, 1919, 1926, 1932, 1939 (“Black Friday”), 1942, 1943, 1944, 1952, 1962, 1965, 1968, 1969, 1972, 1977, 1981, 1983 (“Ash Wednesday”), 1985, 1997, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2005-6 and, most recently 2009. Between 1926 and 1978, a total of 260 human lives were lost, including 71 deaths in the “Black Friday” fires of 1939 alone.
Of course, the figure for loss of human life was greater in 2009 but this figure is not critical to my letter here. While the ignition source of these earlier devastating fires varied, from lightning strikes, to escapee campfires, to escapee hazard reduction burns, to graziers burns, to deliberate arson, the most severe fire years have all been characterized by preceding periods of drought. In this regard the (relatively well documented) 2003 wildfire season is instructive.
In a typical Australian fire season there is usually a geographic and temporal progression of where and when fires occur: during late winter and early spring outbreaks occur in south-eastern Queensland and adjacent north-eastern New South Wales, driven by warm and dry westerly wind patterns; the fire season then moves south across the rest of New South Wales and Victoria; until late in summer, when the westerly wind system is replaced by relatively moist sub-tropical easterlies, driving the season west to Western Australia. The 2002-2003 fire season was typical of this pattern, culminating in the most widespread and significant wildfires in the Australian Alps since 1939. During 2002, the climate was heavily influenced by a persistent El Niño event, which in south-eastern mainland Australia usually leads to below-average rainfall and above-average temperatures. Rainfall statistics over this geographic region for the period leading up to the fires highlight a consistent pattern of below-average totals over a broad area. Most areas received rainfall amounts in the first decile, in plain terms equivalent to the lowest 10% of all historic records. The rainfall deficit was particularly acute for the three months prior to the fires. Similarly, over much of the same area, the maximum daytime temperatures for a three month period preceding the fires were well above average. In some parts, these higher than usual temperatures extended for many more months prior.
Not surprisingly, given the below-average rainfall combined with above-average temperatures, much of the bush in south-eastern mainland Australia was well primed for a severe fire season. All that was now required was an ignition source. That source was provided by nature, triggered by multiple lightning events from thunderstorms associated with a frontal system that moved through eastern Victoria on the evening of 7 January 2003. By the following morning the thunderstorm activity had cleared that State, but the south-eastern corner of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory received many lightning strikes which resulted in over 40 separate fires, some of which were not contained by the end of the day. The most notable of these fires, for later reasons, were in the Brindabella Ranges to the west of Canberra, the National Capital of Australia, and in Kosciuszko National Park further to the south. Similarly, in Victoria, the storm had set over 80 separate fires across the north-east of that State.
Over the next week or so after the lightning strikes had ignited the fires, the weather was shaped by a ridge of high pressure resulting in mostly stable conditions of low wind speeds and mild to warm temperatures – although in New South Wales there were days of more unstable weather, allowing the fires to expand. There, on 17 January 2003, weather conditions deteriorated significantly with daytime temperatures increasing together with wind speed under the influence of a broad frontal system. Under these conditions, fires in the Brindabella Ranges west of the Canberra broke containment lines. The following day was characterized by very low humidity, high temperature and strong winds, causing these uncontained fires to coalesce into a firestorm, which impacted heavily on the city itself: by the end of that day four people had lost their lives, over 500 homes had been destroyed and thousands of stock killed or severely injured. Further extreme fire days variously occurred across Victoria and south-eastern New South Wales on 21 January, 26 January and 30 January 2003, resulting in major fire runs. Indeed, some of the major smoke plumes created by the fires resulted in localized weather patterns, with lightning strikes recorded up to 6 miles ahead of the main fire front in some locations in eastern Victoria! These latter fires were not fully contained until early March 2003 and then declared safe a month later.
By the end of that long season a huge area of forest in south-eastern mainland Australia had been subject to fire of differing intensity. In eastern Victoria, over 2.5 million acres of National Park and other reserves, State forest and grazing land was variously burned. Post-fire analysis of fire severity across this area, based on satellite imagery of forest cover before and after the event, indicated that slightly more than half of the total area affected was severely to highly burnt (ie. crown of overstorey plants either removed or severely scorched) and slightly less than half moderately to only lightly burnt. The five most significantly impacted areas were all burnt on either of two extreme fire days, the 26 and 30 January 2003. Drier forests characterized by a mixed-species eucalypt overstorey comprised about three-quarters of the total area of affected forest, the remainder being stands dominated by the sensitive ash species (predominantly alpine ash) or snow gum. In terms of human assets, the fires had been equally severe, with over 12,000 head of stock lost, together with farming infrastructure such as houses, other buildings and fences. In New South Wales, the statistics on area of affected forest were comparable, with nearly 1.9 million acres burnt, nearly two-thirds of which were in Kosciuszko National Park alone. These affected areas were mostly burnt at severe to high intensity. Nevertheless, significant areas of either lightly burnt or unburnt areas remained within the fire perimeters.
Following the 2002-2003 fire season there was much public debate about the reasons why the fires had been so catastrophic. Separate inquires held by the Commonwealth Government and the Victorian Government, in particular, raised the time-old issue of the degree to which land management agencies had undertaken fuel or hazard reduction burning in the years preceding that fire season. While such burning is known to dampen the intensity of fire in the very short-term, doubts exist as to its long-term effectiveness in reducing the risk of intense wildfire. Questions also remain about whether or not it is logistically feasible to do enough fuel reduction over enough of the landscape to significantly lower the risk of such an event occurring. Even if possible, the effects of such a program on biodiversity are unknown but very likely detrimental.
Debate aside, it is clear from (European) past history in south-eastern mainland Australia that the fire events of 2002-2003 were not unique, in either their scale or intensity. In essence, large tracts of forest were primed to burn, on the back of a severe drought, just as they were in years past such as 1851, 1939 and 1983 (and again, unfortunately, in 2009). The forests now regenerating from the 2002-2003 event are once again demonstrating a unique survival capacity – one that it is difficult to reconcile against the long-lasting damage caused by the same fires to the very fabric of European human society.
History would tell us we are very poor learners and almost tone-deaf listeners. Present debates about too little or too much burning are pointless and have been repeated many times over – a broken record in effect. Not only do we need to create a new record when it comes to wildfires but we also need to listen to what history tells us. We also need to take a good old “Aussie Punt” from time to time since the rewards may far outweigh the risks. By doing both we can help rewrite or create a new history that will put us in a less polarised place than present.
Great article Berris!
I can only add the supporting comment that of all the natural phenomena we experience in Australia, fire is the one we have least come to terms with and have the most short term, selective memory of.
Placing homes with hobby farms near forest seems to be the issue … as does the drought itself, Berris?
Cause of drought might be … ?
I was in canberra during the fireball’s destructive sweep, and had spent plenty of time prior to then in the brindabella’s, the Pine Plantations, and the catchment areas.
I believe, on reflection- and i am in no way an expert in these matters, there was a major lack of collection of scrappy bits of debris and twigs from these “managed” forests. i see these Pine plantations as a great way to stop deforestation of natives and old growth forests, and the amount of fuel sitting around and left behind once the loggers had passed through, was criminal… It seems like a recipe for disaster.they chop down the trunks for toilet paper, tissues, and matchsticks, and leave the detritus of the limbs, branches and foliage for good.Bad land management in the forestry sector I’d say.
It’s sad that now there’s more devastation for australians, due to callous idiots, totally self-centred, and with no care for humanity.
I am sorry but Dr Fueller’s attempt at rewriting history is a miserable failure and has a number of examples of inconsistencies and contradictions.
Whilst it may seem significant areas of lightly burnt or unburnt areas were within the perimeter of severe 2002-03 wildfires, you cannot ignore the fact that larger areas were burnt under a crown fire which no longer provide habitat for the animals that survived the fire. Under a broadscale fuel reduction burn a mosaic of burnt and unburnt patches (without extensive severe crown scorth and widspread tree deaths) results in very few, if any animal deaths.
The claim that fuel reduction burning cannot be carried out to lower the risk of wildfires under extreme conditions is true (it is not designed to achieve this) but it does slow the spread of wildfire, reduces its intensity and reduces the damage caused. When fire weather conditions moderate, or are not so severe, fuel reduced areas provide opportuinties to stop fires or increase the chances of eventual successful suppression. This is not possible since the Feb 7 fires despite favourable weather conditions. See my use of WA statistics in my comment on Professor’s similar article.
You make the claim that there is a pattern in since European settlement regarding these fires following droughts. However, the critical point is that these fires are unique in pre-European times. We have allowed our forests to be “unkempt” and “dirty”. In a seminal paper presented to the Royal Society of Victoria in 1890 and published in 1896, Alfred Howitt was shocked at the explosion of biomass in the foothills of the Australian Alps 30 years after he first rode his horse through the area “…a forest of young trees of the same species, all of the same approximate age, which may probably be twelve years, growing so densely that it would not be easy to force a passage through on horseback…the ranges are in many parts quite overgrown with forests not more than 20 years old. The valleys of the Wellington and Macalister Rivers also afford most instructive examples of the manner in which the Eucalyptus forests have increased in the mountains of Gippsland since the country was settled”.
“…I might go on giving many more instances of this growth of the Eucalyptus within the last quarter of a century, but those I have given will serve to show how widespread this re-foresting of the country has been since the time when the white man appeared in Gippsland, and dispossesed the aboriginal occupiers, to whom we owe more than is generally surmised for having unintentionally prepared it, by their annual burnings, for our occupation.” Rather than sitting in ivory castles passing judgements on our ecology as it looks today, people need to understand the past, read the journals of people who observed the environment at the time of European settlement and not long after Aboriginal dispossession to really appreciate that the forests we see today are not the ones that flourished for millenia prior to 1788. Also read all the enquiries (especially Royal Commissions) that have occurred and are presided over by learned people whose job is to assess all the information provided by witnesses and submissions. REad what their conclusions are. You will find that they support fuel reduction burning as a program to fight against the destructive force of catastrophic wildfires.
The fact that Dr Fueller says the fires affected “sensitive ash species or (sic) snow gum” surely confirms that regular severe wildfires over extensive areas is not something the environmment likes.
G’day Robert, me again.
I won’t repeat the answer I gave you under the Prof’s article, but I’d like to make some comments on Aboriginal fire.
It is true that “scrubbing up” and invasion of open areas with trees was a common observation by Europeans following the dispossession of Aboriginal people. There is no evidence at all however that this occurred due to the cessation of traditional burning. Of all 139 of the references reproduced by authors in recent decades relating to observations of early settlers and scientists regarding fire in the Alps, only 5 were actually written about the Alps themselves, the others were borrowed from other areas (eg Governor Phillip, Captain Cook etc). 3 of the 5 describe a bushfire or its effects but make no connection with Aboriginal fire. The other 2 do say the fires were lit by Aboriginal people but make no claim to having seen it happen. In all of Howitt’s writings on the Aboriginal people of Gippsland and the Alps, he does not once record having watched an Aboriginal person set the bush on fire. The most famous of the 2 quotes is Townsend’s observation in 1846:
“The Blacks had visited the Snowy Mountains, a short time previously to us, for the purpose of getting ‘Bogongs’, a species of moth, about an inch long, of which they are particularly fond; to obtain them they light large fires, and the consequence was, the country throughout the whole survey was burnt…”
Note that what Townsend saw was burnt country, nothing more. He made no claim to have actually seen it being lit up but assumed it because this was the common perception. Later, Richard Helms described an eyewitness account of moth collection:
“With a burning or smouldering bush in the hand the rents in the rocks were entered as far as possible, when the heat and smoke would stifle the thickly congregated moths, that occupied nearly every crack, and make them tumble to the bottom of the cleft. Here an outstretched Kangaroo skin or a fine net made of Kurrajong fibre would receive most of the stupefied & half-singed insects, which were then roasted on hot ashes.”
Compare the eyewitness account to the assumed one. In the eyewitness account there is local, targetted fire which achieves its purpose effectively. Townsend’s version however was that Aboriginal people would travel from near and far to meet annually in steep mountain country. They would then light massive bushfires in the heat of summer to catch moths, and set up camp in the middle of them. In my opinion, the oldest culture on earth wouldn’t have survived very long this way.
The reality is that Townsend’s story could only have been the widespread belief that it was if a) the English migrants misunderstood what was happening because they didn’t understand fire (quite possible), b) the English migrants thought that the Aboriginal people were unintelligent (which we know they did), or c) that both were true (most likely). In any case, what we have is a myth. There is not a skeric of observational evidence that Aboriginal people set broadscale fire to the bush in the mountains. They did not burn the mountains to stop them being “unkempt” and “dirty” – these are concepts created by Europeans that wanted Oaks and primroses but got Gum trees and Bacon & Eggs. Aboriginal people never thought the bush was dirty or called the shrubs which they lived on “rubbish”.
So how did the bush scrub up? Let a Victorian grazier (Rogers) tell the story.
“My father came to Black Mountain in 1902. In those days John O’Rourke of Wulgulmerang and others used to tell of the open, clean-bottomed, park-like state of the forests of this tableland and adjacent areas, which they could well remember from earlier days.”
Did the Rogers and their neighbours lose the practice of frequent burning? Apparently not…
“The practice was to burn the country as often as possible, which would be every three or four years according to conditions. One went burning in the hottest & driest weather in January & February, so that the fire would be as fierce as possible, and thus make a clean burn. As a general practice, in the valleys we would light along the rivers and creeks so that the fire would roar up the steep slopes on either side, making a terrific inferno and sweeping all before it. The hotter the fire, the sweeter and better the feed for the cattle after the new growth came.”
So how well did frequent fire “clean up” the bush?
“It would seem that the long-followed practice of regularly burning the bush in the hot part of the year has resulted in a great increase of scrub in all timbered areas except the Box country [which he explained was not burnt].
Although dense regrowth was produced in all areas, the most pronounced effect was in the Peppermint forest:
“By 3 years, shrubbery had matured and ceased growth, grass coverage was smothered & reduced in bulk, and the Eucalypt scrub was about 7 or 8 feet high. At this stage the area was reburnt.”
Just to make the point clear, Rogers said that graziers entered country which was open and “park-like”, burnt it as often as they possibly could, and ended up with dense, impenetrable scrub. Compare the overall fuel hazard score and you will see that while there may have been less litter on the ground, there was a lot more fuel all up and the bush was a lot more flammable.
Was this isolated to Roger’s area? Fire scar and charcoal evidence across the Snowies (discussed by the Prof) shows that graziers burnt on average about 8 times more often than the Aboriginal people did.
The fact is, to our shame our society has perpetuated a completely groundless myth about Aboriginal burning in the Alps developed by people who had little understanding of fire or fire ecology and thought that the Aboriginal people were unintelligent. The oral traditions that have been retained describe instead a highly specific burning tradition which rather than burning whole ranges as we do today focused on burning individual stands of trees along travel routes or around camping areas. The weather prescriptions and lighting patterns, seasonal timing and considerations of various species’ populations were highly specific with many checks and balances.
Don’t get me wrong -there is observational evidence of broadscale Aboriginal burning in other parts of the country; but Aboriginal fire management for WA was not the same as it was for the Alps or Gippsland, and it would probably be smart if ours was not either.
Thanks Robert for your to-the-point reply. First things first, I was not attempting to rewrite history – any such attempt would, indeed, be a miserable one! The intent of my letter was to highlight that existing history tells us that we live in a flammable and unpredictable environment. Whether the environment is any more or any less flammable now, since we arrived, is subject to debate.
You use written history very selectively to paint a picture that in pre-European times forests were uniformly “open” and “clean” and suggest that they are now “unkempt” and “dirty”. Early travels to places such as South Gippsland by European explorers paint a very different picture to the one you try and paint. Lets consider the intrepid Paul Edmund de Strzelecki who tried his best to lose himself and small party in the wilds of South Gippsland. In their adventure they encountered innumerable steep hills and gullies, which were covered in an almost inpenetrable scrub – to the extent that they left their horses behind and travelled on by foot. The subseqent journey of 50 miles took 22 days …. hardly a “walk in the park” by any stretch of the imagination.
Of course, I choose the above example selectively to make my point. I guess when push comes to shove, there are plenty of contradictory examples out there if we choose to be objective.
And now to lessons about eucalypt biology. True, the great ash forests of Victoria are “fire sensitive” but they have been around a long time in the presence of wildfire and will continue to do so. Their recovery after the “devastating” 1939 wildfires demonstrates this. In the short term crown fires in these types of forests do result in significant loss of certain wildlife but, in the long haul, its pretty much inconsequential. I daresay that our approaches to timber harvesting in these same forests have longer-term detrimental effects and most biologists worth their salt would agree.
The “unkempt” and “dirty” forests you speak of don’t seem to be all that depauperate of wildlife so why should we pretend that we need to intervene to help “save them”? Many of the areas regenerating after the 2002-3 wildfires are thriving with wildlife – you only need to open your eyes and ears.
Don’t get me wrong Robert, I am with you in certain respects. The increased strategic use of prescribed burning has a place in finding the solution to the present impasse – the issue is whether it is a panacea in itself. Reading history objectively would suggest not.
Finally, I am not sure why you think that people questioning the merits of broadacre repeated burning live in an “ivory tower” – they might but then again they might not. Certainly, I don’t pretend to second guess your background so don’t pretend to second guess mine.
Hi Jane,
You have made a good point in relation to the placement of houses amongst forests and the possible consequences in terms of risk of loss. The research conducted in Western Australia under the moniker “Project Vesta” would indicate that in order to have had much of a chance of surviving the Victorian fires on February 7th, most houses would need (i) an ember free fuel zone about 200 metres wide around them and (ii) a person capable of dealing with the magnitude of the problem around them (easier said than done since if you have ever been in the face of high intensity fire it is pretty overwhelming). I guess the pending inquiries may help bring this out. The real question is can society ask the difficult questions that need to be asked, including the one about sensible town planning. As Robert has pointed out, anything is possible given the will and the resources, but society as a whole must make the call. Alternatively, individuals could take the risk individually when living in such an environment – but we are once again made to realise the tragedy of taking such a risk. I understand this sounds a tad callous but at the end of the day something must give if we are to tread a new path.
Needless to say this is just a simplistic view and there are many more factors at play. Arsonists, drought, extreme weather, luck and chance. Some of these factors are predictable in time and space, others not.
References to Aboriginal burning miss the point because we don’t know how they protected their eaveless McMansions, hydrocarbon derived furnishings, plasmas, fences, cars and ornamental gardens etc.
This might be relevant.
They were a bit smarter than us Allan. We try to stop fires. They had patches of country that they had burnt within the last few weeks – when a fire came, they’d go and stand in a burnt patch. You’re exactly right – establishing what the pre-European management was doesn’t automatically tell us what it should be now.
The real question is can society ask the difficult questions that need to be asked like what kind of landscape does it want to live in. Fire management practices in Australia have tended to the suppression of all fires with variable but generally small scale asset protection burning. This leads us to the landscape we find ourselves in today. If the current boom and bust cycle of major fires that convert the landscape to single fuel ages is the desired outcome then continue the current practices of suppression and small scal localised asset protection burns. If a more diverse out come in temporal and spatial terms is sought then a broader more holistic management of landscape is required over a continued length of time. Something that has not happened in Australian land management.
Bronson, you raise a valid point about fuel ages. Maintaining diversity in forest age also maintains structural and species diversity. To suggest as you did for the Prof’s article that it also maintains identical fuels is not supportable however. I do hear it said a lot, but it’s nothing more than a common misunderstanding which contradicts all of the evidence.
Both NSW & Vic have steadily expanding programs of ecological burning which aim to achieve landscape heterogeneity and to some degree safely replicate the necessary effects of bushfires that might have been – don’t be too quick to put the boot in there because they’re already doing it.
As for the effects of lightning – fire scars don’t differentiate between anthropogenic and natural fire. The frequency of fire scars & charcoal deposits which we’ve been discussing includes lightning fires; the reality is that many parts of the Alps had no fire for over a century. The Mountain Ash forests appear to have gone without fire in many areas for a few centuries.
Phil how can NSW be instituting ecological burns when they don’t know what they are managing. I was asked to write an ecological Fire Management Plan for Myall Lakes and I spent 2 years orgaising vegetation surveys as the NPWS had know idea what they were managing. This is repeated in a number of areas. Ecological burns as you descibe started in NSW in the 1960s but were not recognised as such and have declined from the 1980s to now.
Also I was still waiting on specific examples of where additional National Parks were back burned to save State forest timber assets as you claimed.
Good to see I’m not the only one in the blogosphere pointing out the misinformation of the mass media regarding the fires. Keep up the good work.
http://quolltracks.blogspot.com/search/label/bushfires