I have been reading Crikey‘s stories on control burns with a lot of interest.
On Sunday the 1st of March I went to State forest near Muchison Road in the Flowerdale area in Victoria. This forest area was incinerated by the Kilmore fire on the 7th of February. I took photos of a 30 hectare area that was controlled burned on 10th of April 2008.
This recent fuel reduction burn made no difference what so ever. In fact all the control burns that were done in 2008 and then run over by the 7th of February 2009 fire will show the same thing, but I have not been able to get to the other areas as access is still restricted.
The stories published in The Australian by David Packham and others are going to be shown as nothing more than a nasty public relations campaign in the medium to long term. I recently had an opinion piece published in the Geelong Advertiser that dealt with the rubbish being said about the Otways fire suppression strategies.
The logic for the Otways applies to the areas burnt in the 7 February fires.
I have attached a map of where the control burn was conducted on 10 April 2008. (click to enlarge)
The photos below show the coppice that grew back after the April 2008 control burn. The 7 February fire still raced though this area. Houses were destroyed nearby.
The below photo shows a track that was the boundary between the area that was fuel reduction burnt (left) and an area that was not fuel control burnt (right). You can see the coppice on the trees to the left. (click to enlarge)
Fuel reduction burns do have their place but on “Black Saturday” they made no difference to the outcome. To state that conservation minded people somehow contributed to the fires on Saturday the 7th of February is outrageous given the facts that are going to be exposed now the smoke is clearing.
Sorry – a few carefully selected photos and your personal opinion will not convince me- and I suspect many others.
No-one in their right mind will say that controlled burning would have stopped the event, but you can bet that the outcomes would have been much different given proper management of fuel reduction.
To say that fuel reduction “made no difference” is an unsustainable piece of unsupportable propaganda no better than that which you criticise.
i reckon we should do a controlled burn every month – that will solve the problem!
As a daily bushwalker, I’ve observed since Black Saturday just one small area around Healesville where a control burn last Autumn made a real difference. Everywhere else where I’ve walked and driven since – around Healesville, Dixons Creek, Toolangi, Strath Creek, Flowerdale and Glenburn – the ferocity of the fires has reduced forests to ash and charcoal matchsticks, regardless of the very sparse undergrowth beforehand. Yellowbox trees seem to have generated particularly ferocious fire in those areas with sparse, tinderbox dry undergrowth.
The colour white appears to have reflected intense radiant heat and subsequent immolation. Hence many timber fence posts painted white remained unaffected in burnt out paddocks – even white netting protected grapevines whilst unetted vines beside them burned.
Simon, the flaw in your article is this:
Even if you’re right, it is a well-accepted fact that NOTHING can stop fires of the intensity seen on Black Saturday. No amount of fuel reduction will do it. In Duffy ACT and in Sydney 2001 I saw well-mown green lawns sustaining fire. That is an extremely rare event which unfortunately humans can’t do much about.
However, hazard/fuel reduction burns will greatly reduce the intensity of the vast majority of fires. While Black Saturday was horrific, there were hundreds of other bushfires along the eastern seaboard this summer. Hundreds.
To suggest that fuel reduction is pointless, because it didn’t stop one once-in-a-generation fire, is a ridiculous assertion. 1000 fire trucks wouldn’t/didn’t stop it either, but we’re not going to argue that we shouldn’t have fire trucks, are we?
Fuel reduction is proven to stop or reduce intensity of most wildfires in most situations. Using an exception to prove the rule is too amateurish for this topic.
I think this just strengthens the argument for more regular fuel reduction burns?