4 ms·

I was under the impression that prescribed burning (including the return of indigenous burn practices) enjoyed majority support in Australia? (Save the few NIMB

I was under the impression that prescribed burning (including the return of indigenous burn practices) enjoyed majority support in Australia? (Save the few NIMBYs complaining about the smoke)

mastazi 5y ago
It's more popular than elsewhere. In Italy where I grew up, it gets very little support. I now live in Sydney and in the past 10 years I became used to periodically having smoke from planned burning. I can't imagine something like that would go down well back in Italy. I was wondering if there are climatic/ecological differences that make controlled burning more effective / less disruptive for the ecosystem in some places compared to others.
- oh_sigh 5y ago
  Ironic considering the number of farmers that do controlled burns on their farms in Italy.
  - mastazi 5y ago
    Yes that's true about Italian farmers! I grew up on a farm and we had controlled burnings every now and then. But when speaking of forests/unmanaged land/natural parks, there seems to be a much different sensitivity. At least among people that I know[0], there is a widespread belief that when a forest burns it will never recover to its original state, or it will do it only after an exceedingly long time[1]. The same belief doesn't apply to agricultural land[2]. [0] Obviously this is just based on my direct experience, maybe in different parts of Italy or in different social circles it would be different. [1] Again, I think this is more true in some environments than others - for example I seem to remember reading that, for tropical rainforests, the recovery time is very long. I don't know much about this topic though. [2] Even though it's probably the case that agricultural controlled burning affects aspects such as soil biology, beneficial species, pests, etc.
prawn 5y ago
I've heard of issues with smoke tainting grapes (prescribed burns to prevent major fires in a wine region) but I got the impression that each side negotiated timing rather than it being serious opposition. The alternative being full-scale fire causes a lot more damage.
strken 5y ago
I only have tangential knowledge of it, but there's a lot of controversy around how planned burns are implemented. Do you do it later in the year closer to summer when the risk is higher, or do you do it early and let fuel build up plus cover less ground? Should you be bulldozing the trees off the side of the road and completely clearing it instead of doing controlled burns along the edge? Does it do anything to drive along a road setting the brush on fire because it's easy to get to, if you don't burn the massive forest that's going to send embers straight into your town? What do you do when there's a rare orchid patch or a tiny endangered marsupial right in the area you want to set on fire? What if there's a commercial pine or bluegum plantation that you aren't allowed to set on fire? Which models do you use for choosing where to burn? Do you listen to the researchers from the university three hours' drive away, the indigenous elders who live an hour away but have traditional knowledge, or the old farmer who lives right next door who tells you where the fire went on Black Saturday but probably has a bit of tunnel vision from his experience? When so many fires are deliberately lit, should you put more effort into finding the arsonists instead of controlled burns? Is the RFS stealing funding from the CFA somehow? Should you arrange a reciprocal deal where you send water bombers to California during the Australian winter and spring if it means they're not at home to stop "controlled" burns that get away? Why are all these idiots building houses with redgums so close you can reach out the window and touch them, and how do you do a controlled burn in a lightly populated area with risky houses like that?
- h0l0cube 5y ago
  That's a fascinating insight into the manifold issues confronting fire management. Thank you for that. > Why are all these idiots building houses with redgums so close you can reach out the window and touch them, and how do you do a controlled burn in a lightly populated area with risky houses like that? Seems like this should be enforced at a government level.. either the house owner takes responsibility for poor fire preparation (i.e, they might lose their house, have increased insurance premiums), or the government fines people for endangering their neighbours.
SilverRed 5y ago
Everyone likes the idea of managing this stuff properly until it means their house gets burned by falling embers. There is the problem that firefighers are unable to manage everything in a safe and not disruptive way. Even when done safe as possible there will still be a wave of complaints when controlled burns cover someones property in ash or burns holes in their garden shade.

I was under the impression that prescribed burning (including the return of indigenous burn practices) enjoyed majority support in Australia? (Save the few NIMBYs complaining about the smoke)

mastazi 5y ago

It's more popular than elsewhere. In Italy where I grew up, it gets very little support. I now live in Sydney and in the past 10 years I became used to periodically having smoke from planned burning. I can't imagine something like that would go down well back in Italy. I was wondering if there are climatic/ecological differences that make controlled burning more effective / less disruptive for the ecosystem in some places compared to others.

oh_sigh 5y ago
Ironic considering the number of farmers that do controlled burns on their farms in Italy.
- mastazi 5y ago
  Yes that's true about Italian farmers! I grew up on a farm and we had controlled burnings every now and then. But when speaking of forests/unmanaged land/natural parks, there seems to be a much different sensitivity. At least among people that I know[0], there is a widespread belief that when a forest burns it will never recover to its original state, or it will do it only after an exceedingly long time[1]. The same belief doesn't apply to agricultural land[2]. [0] Obviously this is just based on my direct experience, maybe in different parts of Italy or in different social circles it would be different. [1] Again, I think this is more true in some environments than others - for example I seem to remember reading that, for tropical rainforests, the recovery time is very long. I don't know much about this topic though. [2] Even though it's probably the case that agricultural controlled burning affects aspects such as soil biology, beneficial species, pests, etc.

prawn 5y ago

I've heard of issues with smoke tainting grapes (prescribed burns to prevent major fires in a wine region) but I got the impression that each side negotiated timing rather than it being serious opposition. The alternative being full-scale fire causes a lot more damage.

strken 5y ago

I only have tangential knowledge of it, but there's a lot of controversy around how planned burns are implemented. Do you do it later in the year closer to summer when the risk is higher, or do you do it early and let fuel build up plus cover less ground? Should you be bulldozing the trees off the side of the road and completely clearing it instead of doing controlled burns along the edge? Does it do anything to drive along a road setting the brush on fire because it's easy to get to, if you don't burn the massive forest that's going to send embers straight into your town? What do you do when there's a rare orchid patch or a tiny endangered marsupial right in the area you want to set on fire? What if there's a commercial pine or bluegum plantation that you aren't allowed to set on fire? Which models do you use for choosing where to burn? Do you listen to the researchers from the university three hours' drive away, the indigenous elders who live an hour away but have traditional knowledge, or the old farmer who lives right next door who tells you where the fire went on Black Saturday but probably has a bit of tunnel vision from his experience? When so many fires are deliberately lit, should you put more effort into finding the arsonists instead of controlled burns? Is the RFS stealing funding from the CFA somehow? Should you arrange a reciprocal deal where you send water bombers to California during the Australian winter and spring if it means they're not at home to stop "controlled" burns that get away? Why are all these idiots building houses with redgums so close you can reach out the window and touch them, and how do you do a controlled burn in a lightly populated area with risky houses like that?

h0l0cube 5y ago
That's a fascinating insight into the manifold issues confronting fire management. Thank you for that. > Why are all these idiots building houses with redgums so close you can reach out the window and touch them, and how do you do a controlled burn in a lightly populated area with risky houses like that? Seems like this should be enforced at a government level.. either the house owner takes responsibility for poor fire preparation (i.e, they might lose their house, have increased insurance premiums), or the government fines people for endangering their neighbours.

SilverRed 5y ago

Everyone likes the idea of managing this stuff properly until it means their house gets burned by falling embers. There is the problem that firefighers are unable to manage everything in a safe and not disruptive way. Even when done safe as possible there will still be a wave of complaints when controlled burns cover someones property in ash or burns holes in their garden shade.