Friends of Grampians Gariwerd

Visit to the burns of 2006 and the proposed zone 3 burns 2008 with DSE Horsham fire staff and local PV staff November 13 .

Dot Hoffmann

This question emerged during the November outing. FOGG’S invitation to Parks Vic of DE&S to inform us about their plans for fuel reduction burns for the 2007/08 spring autumn, saw about twelve people walking through recently burned areas. .
One area we saw was a wildfire burnt last summer, another a scheduled fuel reduction just four weeks prior to our visit. There are a number of things I heard about fuel reduction fires that were vague notions and still are. But I heard many things that did give me a better understanding what complexities are involved. I offer you here a short summary. I assume that I am not the only person who has been wondering why there is so much criticism and conflict in the area of fuel reduction burning.

The Timing To plan and execute the best possible burn is complex and difficult. Choosing the greatest likelihood of the desired climate, and optimal fuel conditions are only two of the factors which determine plans.. Deciding between autumn or spring burns, rather than a providing a clear cut best time, only allows a choice between which negative outcomes will be more likely be avoided.
Rain, wind and heat cause many cancellations. They cause burns to go out of control. They cause burns to be ineffective and a waste of financial resources.

The Percentage of fuel burnt by the Fire.
The decisions to burn an area in the least damaging season to the wildlife, with the right climate and fuel conditions have their scientific basis in Meteorology and Botany and Zoology. The desired outcome is to use this opportunity to burn the chosen area at differing percentages of fuel reduction. . What is 50% is difficult to define. When we asked why 30% was an insufficient fuel reduction, it was explained in cost effectiveness terms as well as biological terms. I cannot claim that I understood either explanation. My tax payer monitor tells me that to engage scientists, management as well as fire makers and controllers, employ much equipment and take the risks of a burn then, “ it is better to do it well.” My nature lover heart says “as little damage as possible please”, but then I hear that certain cones and seeds will not explode and therefore germinate unless a certain heat is caused on the ground, so a 30% fuel reduction burn may cause the loss of species. As I said this is a ignoramus saying I learned a little.

Conclusion
Learning sitting among the trees was a great treat. Lunch afterwards made me realize how much more impact the information had than lectures. Perhaps FOGGS could play a role in promoting dialogue between the various factions for and against fuel reduction burning.