Yes Woko, I know it was quite inaccurate. His theory was much simpler though, he thought animals would move to last year's eareas that wouldn't burn hot. He had a few more brilliant ideas, he wanted people having to get permits to plant Gumtrees, he said nobody should plant any natives, because they burn. At that point he mentioned "those Greenies" again, if we would do what "they" want the whole country would be covered in trees that burn.
The sad part about this is though, he's not the only one who has ideas like this
Yes, that's a very common attitude in Australia. As a nation we still hold dearly to our northern hemisphere origins & haven't bothered much to learn to live with the Australian environment. I fear we may never learn to do this as the natural Australian environment is being changed so much that before long there won't be a natural Australian environment for us to live with. For many of us this is already the case.
Birdie, I've just read a report on Scott Ludlam's senate speech. Thanks for recommending it. In my opinion it's a fine piece of oratory that has sadly been missing from our federal parliament for a mighty long time.
Birdie, I've just read a report on Scott Ludlam's senate speech. Thanks for recommending it. In my opinion it's a fine piece of oratory that has sadly been missing from our federal parliament for a mighty long time.
You are welcome Woko, I found it to be the best speech by a politician that I have ever heard, and I identified with each and every point he made. I sure hope he can gather together some people power behind him as his speech has gone viral and is finding a lot of support across the country. I fear it will fall on deaf ears in the senate though, and wil lprobably go right over the Prime Minister's head , like everything else that intelligent and thinking people have tried to point out to him
One issue with fire management is that people treat Australia as one big ecosystem, you can't generalise over the whole continent. There are some areas which have evolved with regular burning, many other areas havent evolved this way. Since the changes from European settlement is is very hard to be sure whether an area needs regular burning or not, we don't have that sort of knowledge about the environment, mainly people are just guessing whether regular burning is needed.
Another problem is, burning seems to happen with greater frequency around where people live. I guess this makes sense, as they do describe it as a 'hazard reduction burn', but I doubt that it mimicks the previous ecosystem... The fire services and NPWS would need waaay more resources to do that. Which isn't likely in the current circumstances.
I don’t know if you remember me talking about it? Might not have talked about it? Last November I successfully prevented DPI from burning all the way up to my fence. When the Dozers started to push over tree after tree to prevent them from falling over and burn my house down (as they told me), I prevented the Bulldozer from doing more damage .I stood in front of the Dozer with my camera, taking photos of what he was doing and not moving, asking him to call his boss to come out and talk to me. 3 hours later he turned up. After long discussions they left this part of the forest. I suspect they will be back soon? I will again stand my ground fighting .
Lachlan , the burning around where people live happens because they are demanding government to do it. Not only gives it a false sense of security it is also not achieving anything in "my opinion". Have a look at the houses that burn down, many of them don't have much vegetation around them and others that do are still standing. In my opinion what burns your house is what is close to it, like junk leaning onto you house. Embers will fall behind it, on your roof, into your gutters and if you don't see it and don't stop small fires, they will set your house on fire in no time.
The highland cattle graziers are pushing this agenda as being better for this park than burning ...... just thought I would throw it in here.... sorry Lachlan as it has nothing to do with rats, but it seems to have taken a a different tangent anyway
I don't have any scientific basis for my beliefs, but I think that it is awful. Livestock causes huge amounts of damage to native ecosystems, and alpine ecosystems are among the most fragile of the lot.
There are a huge range of fringe practises that occurr in national park country wide. From an environmental point of view, most are either neutral or unjustifiable. Whilst locking up our national parks, as some propose isn't a solution, there needs to be more careful controls on many of these practises... Egs, Horse riding, livestock grazing, 4WDing, hunting, duck shooting, resort deveolpment, logging, mining, bushwalking etc... Some of these are pretty harmless, but can do lots of damage in the right circumstances (bushwalking), but others shouldn't happen in national parks (most of them).
Good on you Araminta! Burning can (possibly) be justified, but not bulldozing trees!
Burning probably does decrease the fuel load of the forest, but that's only going to be any use in a small fire. But keeping junk away from your house should make burning redundant, as it and a firefighting system should be capable of protecting a house. A big fire (as I understand) can happily burn through a forest with minimal understory, using the canopy and tree trunks as fuel.
It is easy to make houses that are bushfire resistant, but a little more expensive that a standard house. The building industry likes to build a standard wood framed house, and they don't want to change that because consumers aren't happy when asked to pay a bit more. We should have introduced better standards 50 years ago, we wouldn't have this knee jerk response when streets of innapropriate houses go up in flames.
Unfortunately part of the problem is wanting to live too near to native bush. A small buffer zone of fire resistant exotics would help protect houses, then there would be less pressure to burn and clear the native bush.
And isn't that one of Australia's great contradictions, Greg! Folk who want to live near the bush & then when they live there they can't wait to get rid of it! If that's not narcissistic, self-absorbed, selfish behaviour then I don't know what is. Why on Earth should the bush bear the cost of people wanting to live in or near it? It's totally crazy human behaviour which is already coming back to bite us in the bum big time in the forms of soil erosion, reduced water quality & climate change.
And good on your for staring down the bulldozer, Araminta. And, yes, they'll be back. But never forget that the price of fresh air, bird sounds and a healthy environment is eternal vigilance.
Some good points being made on this thread. Re Greg's comments on construction, yes I agree. The more fire-prone an area is, the more combustible the house design/material. That's the way we are.
Getting back on topic regarding pests, I see in the Saturday edition of the Daily Telegraph page 21 mention of rabbits and how they are getting out of control in NSW.
Feral rabbits cause $600 million damage to the environment each year. In northern Sydney it has been announced that a planned release of the calicivirus is about to happen.
Rabbits are quite common in the northern suburbs and northern beaches area of Sydney from Ryde to Whale Beach and all points in between. Many of these rabbits are unwanted/escaped pets of various colours and breeds that have been dumped in suburban parks and bushland and not the feral grey rabbit we all know.
The dumped pets link up with the ferals and well, we know the rest...breed like rabbits!
It was interesting to note that keeping pet rabbits is illegal in Queensland too with concerns about Queenslanders going across the southern border into NSW and buying pet rabbits from pet shops and taking them back into QLD.
However, it's not only rabbits. Anyone who lives in Port Kembla (Wollongong) or around the Chullora/Enfield railway yards area of Sydney will know that there is a huge population of hares in existance. They are very large hares too, ones with the black ear tips.
Further evidence that it's quite inappropriate for animals to be kept in cages in Australia. Good on Queensland for having the sense to ban pet rabbits.
If my memory serves me right you were never allowed to have them in WA either when I lived there.
I just checked actually and it appears to have been changed during my time there.... becasue of lobbying from the pet rabbit industry etc. Found this while I was searching about it ....
Calici virus was not that successful here in Tassie, released during warmer months, some initial excitement, but the virus failed during the colder winter months. For a while, it looked like the rabbits at Hobart airport were growing bigger than ever before. Seems to be still about to some extent, but has not a hope of total eradication. Perhaps in the warmer climes, might have more luck!
I thought that one of the major issues with calicivirus was that it isn't very effective in wetter areas? I guess that would limit its use in Tasmania...
You might be right Lachlan, both cold and wet in our winter months. The other big one from years ago was "Myxomatosis" which appeared to be a very cruel disease. Occasionally still see rabbits, which appear to be suffering from "Myxo". We still have plenty of rabbits, so I guess that was also another fail.
Myxo certainly exists, only the virus has evolved to become less deadly over the past 50 years. It still kills some rabbits, but far shy of when it was introduced. Virulence is never good for a virus, as the hosts die before passing on the disease to many other potential hosts. As viruses reproduce so quickly, a trait like that can be eliminated from the population easily... Sure, virulence isdesired by us, but not the virus. Myxo was a success though; even just prior to the introduction of Calicivirus, rabbit numbers hadn't returned to their previous levels.
Yes Woko, I know it was quite inaccurate.
His theory was much simpler though, he thought animals would move to last year's eareas that wouldn't burn hot. He had a few more brilliant ideas, he wanted people having to get permits to plant Gumtrees, he said nobody should plant any natives, because they burn. At that point he mentioned "those Greenies" again, if we would do what "they" want the whole country would be covered in trees that burn.
The sad part about this is though, he's not the only one who has ideas like this
M-L
Yes, that's a very common attitude in Australia. As a nation we still hold dearly to our northern hemisphere origins & haven't bothered much to learn to live with the Australian environment. I fear we may never learn to do this as the natural Australian environment is being changed so much that before long there won't be a natural Australian environment for us to live with. For many of us this is already the case.
Birdie, I've just read a report on Scott Ludlam's senate speech. Thanks for recommending it. In my opinion it's a fine piece of oratory that has sadly been missing from our federal parliament for a mighty long time.
You are welcome Woko, I found it to be the best speech by a politician that I have ever heard, and I identified with each and every point he made. I sure hope he can gather together some people power behind him as his speech has gone viral and is finding a lot of support across the country. I fear it will fall on deaf ears in the senate though, and wil lprobably go right over the Prime Minister's head , like everything else that intelligent and thinking people have tried to point out to him
Sunshine Coast Queensland
Wooooo! Two pages!
So, if I plant a pine tree in a bushfire prone area, it won't burn because it is exotic?
Where's the logic in that?
One issue with fire management is that people treat Australia as one big ecosystem, you can't generalise over the whole continent. There are some areas which have evolved with regular burning, many other areas havent evolved this way. Since the changes from European settlement is is very hard to be sure whether an area needs regular burning or not, we don't have that sort of knowledge about the environment, mainly people are just guessing whether regular burning is needed.
Another problem is, burning seems to happen with greater frequency around where people live. I guess this makes sense, as they do describe it as a 'hazard reduction burn', but I doubt that it mimicks the previous ecosystem... The fire services and NPWS would need waaay more resources to do that. Which isn't likely in the current circumstances.
I don’t know if you remember me talking about it? Might not have talked about it? Last November I successfully prevented DPI from burning all the way up to my fence. When the Dozers started to push over tree after tree to prevent them from falling over and burn my house down (as they told me), I prevented the Bulldozer from doing more damage .I stood in front of the Dozer with my camera, taking photos of what he was doing and not moving, asking him to call his boss to come out and talk to me. 3 hours later he turned up. After long discussions they left this part of the forest. I suspect they will be back soon? I will again stand my ground fighting .
Lachlan , the burning around where people live happens because they are demanding government to do it. Not only gives it a false sense of security it is also not achieving anything in "my opinion". Have a look at the houses that burn down, many of them don't have much vegetation around them and others that do are still standing. In my opinion what burns your house is what is close to it, like junk leaning onto you house. Embers will fall behind it, on your roof, into your gutters and if you don't see it and don't stop small fires, they will set your house on fire in no time.
M-L
The highland cattle graziers are pushing this agenda as being better for this park than burning ...... just thought I would throw it in here.... sorry Lachlan as it has nothing to do with rats, but it seems to have taken a a different tangent anyway
Any thoughts on this then? .....
http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/news/government-gives-nod-to-cattle-return-to-alpine-national-park/story-fnkf0qeh-1226846550609
Sunshine Coast Queensland
Thanks for the article Birdie!
I don't have any scientific basis for my beliefs, but I think that it is awful. Livestock causes huge amounts of damage to native ecosystems, and alpine ecosystems are among the most fragile of the lot.
There are a huge range of fringe practises that occurr in national park country wide. From an environmental point of view, most are either neutral or unjustifiable. Whilst locking up our national parks, as some propose isn't a solution, there needs to be more careful controls on many of these practises... Egs, Horse riding, livestock grazing, 4WDing, hunting, duck shooting, resort deveolpment, logging, mining, bushwalking etc... Some of these are pretty harmless, but can do lots of damage in the right circumstances (bushwalking), but others shouldn't happen in national parks (most of them).
Good on you Araminta!
Burning can (possibly) be justified, but not bulldozing trees!
Burning probably does decrease the fuel load of the forest, but that's only going to be any use in a small fire. But keeping junk away from your house should make burning redundant, as it and a firefighting system should be capable of protecting a house. A big fire (as I understand) can happily burn through a forest with minimal understory, using the canopy and tree trunks as fuel.
It is easy to make houses that are bushfire resistant, but a little more expensive that a standard house. The building industry likes to build a standard wood framed house, and they don't want to change that because consumers aren't happy when asked to pay a bit more. We should have introduced better standards 50 years ago, we wouldn't have this knee jerk response when streets of innapropriate houses go up in flames.
Unfortunately part of the problem is wanting to live too near to native bush. A small buffer zone of fire resistant exotics would help protect houses, then there would be less pressure to burn and clear the native bush.
And isn't that one of Australia's great contradictions, Greg! Folk who want to live near the bush & then when they live there they can't wait to get rid of it! If that's not narcissistic, self-absorbed, selfish behaviour then I don't know what is. Why on Earth should the bush bear the cost of people wanting to live in or near it? It's totally crazy human behaviour which is already coming back to bite us in the bum big time in the forms of soil erosion, reduced water quality & climate change.
And good on your for staring down the bulldozer, Araminta. And, yes, they'll be back. But never forget that the price of fresh air, bird sounds and a healthy environment is eternal vigilance.
Some good points being made on this thread. Re Greg's comments on construction, yes I agree. The more fire-prone an area is, the more combustible the house design/material. That's the way we are.
Getting back on topic regarding pests, I see in the Saturday edition of the Daily Telegraph page 21 mention of rabbits and how they are getting out of control in NSW.
Feral rabbits cause $600 million damage to the environment each year. In northern Sydney it has been announced that a planned release of the calicivirus is about to happen.
Rabbits are quite common in the northern suburbs and northern beaches area of Sydney from Ryde to Whale Beach and all points in between. Many of these rabbits are unwanted/escaped pets of various colours and breeds that have been dumped in suburban parks and bushland and not the feral grey rabbit we all know.
The dumped pets link up with the ferals and well, we know the rest...breed like rabbits!
It was interesting to note that keeping pet rabbits is illegal in Queensland too with concerns about Queenslanders going across the southern border into NSW and buying pet rabbits from pet shops and taking them back into QLD.
However, it's not only rabbits. Anyone who lives in Port Kembla (Wollongong) or around the Chullora/Enfield railway yards area of Sydney will know that there is a huge population of hares in existance. They are very large hares too, ones with the black ear tips.
Further evidence that it's quite inappropriate for animals to be kept in cages in Australia. Good on Queensland for having the sense to ban pet rabbits.
If my memory serves me right you were never allowed to have them in WA either when I lived there.
I just checked actually and it appears to have been changed during my time there.... becasue of lobbying from the pet rabbit industry etc. Found this while I was searching about it ....
http://members.iinet.net.au/~rabbit/flyw.htm
Sunshine Coast Queensland
Calici virus was not that successful here in Tassie, released during warmer months, some initial excitement, but the virus failed during the colder winter months. For a while, it looked like the rabbits at Hobart airport were growing bigger than ever before. Seems to be still about to some extent, but has not a hope of total eradication. Perhaps in the warmer climes, might have more luck!
Dale Huonville, Tasmania
I thought that one of the major issues with calicivirus was that it isn't very effective in wetter areas? I guess that would limit its use in Tasmania...
You might be right Lachlan, both cold and wet in our winter months. The other big one from years ago was "Myxomatosis" which appeared to be a very cruel disease. Occasionally still see rabbits, which appear to be suffering from "Myxo". We still have plenty of rabbits, so I guess that was also another fail.
Dale Huonville, Tasmania
Myxo certainly exists, only the virus has evolved to become less deadly over the past 50 years. It still kills some rabbits, but far shy of when it was introduced. Virulence is never good for a virus, as the hosts die before passing on the disease to many other potential hosts. As viruses reproduce so quickly, a trait like that can be eliminated from the population easily... Sure, virulence isdesired by us, but not the virus. Myxo was a success though; even just prior to the introduction of Calicivirus, rabbit numbers hadn't returned to their previous levels.
Pages