The following article was initially posted by Tigerquoll 20090408 on CanDoBetter.net:

.

© Photo EEG 2009

.

Radiocarbon-testing has confirmed that a giant rare old-growth Eucalyptus regnans located in its natural forest habitat on East Gippsland’s Brown Mountain has been chainsawed by VicForests, despite it being scientifically confirmed to be at least 500 years old.

No regard has been made for the existence value of a Victorian 500 year old natural asset, nor the habitat requirements for the typical arboreal animals and forest owls dependent on this old growth habitat tree or its associative forest dependent habitat. Under State-

sanction, ignorant VicForest butchers have plundered, ransacked and run.

© Photo EEG 2009

.

Manager, Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment, Orbost, Steve DeVoogd, has been formally advised that this chainsawing of rare old growth forest is an offence committed under the section 46(1) of the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004. The action is also a breach of Code of Forest Practices (CFP).  VicForests Chairman, Warren Hodgson, Board members Monica Gould, Jim Houghton, Fiona McNabb, Bob Smith, Susan Walpole, and Chief Executive Officer David Pollard should all be sacked forthwith. VicForests token ‘vision’ ‘purpose’ and ‘values’ which profess motherhood notions of ‘sustainable’, ‘environmentally responsible’ and ‘ethical’ are but ‘Mugabean’. This 500 year old tree epitomises the reality of Brumby’s ‘Sustainability Charter for State forests.

Botanist Steve Mueck has worked for the Victorian Department of Natural Resources and Environment and is now a consultant in the private sector. He says radiocarbon dating of eucalypts is unusual and the result in this case is significant.

“Current forest managements practices are looking at harvesting on rotation times in the vicinity of 80 to 120 years with the perception that that’s a particularly long period of time,” he said.

“Now it is, I suppose, in the context of a human lifetime, but it is a very, very short period of time in comparison to the age in which many of the components that live in these forests can in fact get to in a natural system.”

Back in the 1860s timber workers and naturalists emerged from the forests with stories of massive trees towering to immense heights and as wide as houses.

Government botanist Ferdinand von Mueller recounted the existence of a tree as high as the Egyptian Pyramids at 480 ft (144m) and another fallen tree in the Dandenong Ranges over 400 ft (120m). A giant was sighted in the Otways with a girth of 64 ft (19m).

VicForests senseless decapitation of one of the last Victorian giants is a harbinger of extinction to Victoria’s old growth forests.

It’s like grabbing an old ANZAC from a ‘march past’ and slitting his throat.

© Photo EEG 2009

.

 

---

.

Comments:

.

‘Victorian Labor’s “sustainable” principles are thin and shallow’

by Vivienne 20090410:

.

In 2006 the Labor Party pledged to “protect remaining significant stands of old growth forest currently available for timber harvesting by including them in the National Parks and reserves system”.

This promise was blatantly broken.

The trees on of Brown Mountain have not burned for 200 years despite repeated fire threats. The resistance of these old forests to bushfire is evident. This area is also the home of several highly endangered native species.

Clear felling of old growth forests has continued despite their critical role in storing carbon and providing water for the depleted Snowy River catchment.

The Victorian government states that 90% of our forests are preserved.  However, only 16% of Victoria is protected, and over 80 percent of what is logged in East Gippsland ends up as mere woodchips!

Clearing 10% of our forests is plainly too much considering that Victoria remains the most cleared and damaged State of Australia.

Our Brumby government is guilty of serious eco-destruction and policy violation, and any claims of “sustainable” principles are demonstrated to be thin and shallow.

.

– end of article –

Originally posted February 23rd, 2009 by Tigerquoll on CanDoBetter.net

.

In Victoria in 1992, some bureaucrat got the idea of changing the name (and focus) of the Department of Conservation and Environment to a Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, then in 1996 to a Department of Natural Resources and Environment, then in 2003 a split to (1) a Victorian Department of Primary Industries and (2) a Department of Sustainability and Environment.

[Source: http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/asaw/biogs/A002037b.htm – Note: this link has subsequently been altered by the University of Melbourne to protect its petty government funding and disclosing its forestry bias]

.

Currently this government department is known by an obscure acronym: ‘DSE‘.  But those out in the ‘tree face’ genuinely caring for old growth forests of Victoria, discard this acronym to mean either…’Don’t Support Environment‘ or simply the ‘Department of Sparks and Embers‘.  The reason in empirical.  The DSE has a reputation for Forestry Logging bias – facilitating old growth logging, habitat deforestation and related bush arson.

Meanwhile, across the border in NSW, in 2007, the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) was changed to the Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) so as to make it look like the NSW Labor Government publicly cared about climate change by delegating a name change.

.

While pandering to ‘climate change’ populism, the fundamental concept of ‘conservation’ has been dismissed by government.

.

All the DEC business cards and logos were changed to DECC at what impact on climate change?  At what cost this extra ‘C‘?  The cost has been to remove the Conservation imperative!

Rather than forming a dedicated research and response organisation to focus on climate change, the conservation was dropped from the existing department. Cynically, including ‘climate change’ as a name of one of its departments, government must feel cosy sending a message it is addressing climate change. For a while the department was headed up by The NSW Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water – a bucket of outdoor type activities that sounded good together.

Across the border in South Australia, they have the Department for the Environment and Heritage (DEH), which sounds borrowed from the federal Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (another collective bucket). It is hard to see how with so many diverse portfolios, a minister can dedicate any leadership to making genuine improvements to what’s left of Australia’s intact natural environment and its desperate need for conservation.

With all the money spent on names changing, the tens of thousands could have gone into on-ground conservation activities like fox control programmes.

Eastern side of Wilson’s Promontory (coastal Victoria)  near where
the fire started. Photo: John Woudstra

.

I have been monitoring the Jan-Feb 2009 Victorian bushfires from NSW and have turned my attention to the bushfire management in a natural area – Wilsons Promontory.

I note satellite observations of the fire with concern showing the lighting ignition on the east coast started 9th February, but had almost extinguished itself by the 13th. Then a wind change drove it out of control. A week later it has burnt out 22,000 hectares (almost 50% of our precious 50,000ha Prom)!

While the Country Fire Authority (CFA) has paid special attention to non-imminent bushfire risks to rather distant private property. The CFA says “the fire does not currently pose a threat to the Yanakie community.” Backburning the Prom is given as the only bushfire response strategy. So do we interpret this as a noncommittal response by the CFA for the Prom – that is since no human lives or private property are at threat, the CFA’s bushfire response is to just ‘monitor’ the fire and put out the spot fires threatening private property to the north?

The CFA reports read as though CFA policy for active and damaging bushfires in important conservation areas is to wait for rain, but otherwise ‘let it burn’.

And yet the Bureau of Meteorology forecasts hot and windy conditions for tomorrow Monday, 23 Feb 2009.

Wilsons Promontory where thousands of hecteres have been burnt.
Photo: John Woudstra

.

I interpret this bushfire management by Victoria’s CFA as one that respects only human life and property, but does not rate the natural asset values of fauna and flora habitat of the Prom with any respect. It seems at best an opportunity for de-facto hazard reduction that it would normally not get permission to do, and at worst an inconvenient distraction for CFA crews.

If this is the prevailing attitude of rural firefighting then clearly the CFA has no interest in natural assets, and no mandate to protect them from fire in the same passionate way it does private property? There seems no difference in approach or skill set by the CFA to that that would be exercised by urban fire brigades.

So why do we have a Country Fire Authority?   Because professional fire brigades are expensive.

Whereas luring local volunteers is cheap for government, so long as the propaganda is correctly instilled – ‘locals protecting local assets…’

Government has a bet each way.  If the local volunteers put out the fire and save lives and property, they are heros and the organisation is justified.  If the local volunteers fail and people die, governments defend the local volunteers for doing their best and reject criticism of fire fighting as criticism of local volunteers, and pleads the unAustralian line.

With this premeditated social strategy, successive governments have got off scott free when people die in bushfires.  Government bushfire fighting strategy is this to have a bet each way and when catastrophe eventuates to hide behind the ‘Volunteer Firefighter Facade…

Such has become the politics of negligent government.  For decades hiding behind the ‘Volunteer Firefighter Facade  has proven effective in persuading a gullible media, so the policy and practice perpetuates in absence of an independent public watchdog.

Public class action for damages is long overdue.

On this basis, it is overdue for the CFA to be incorporated within the urban fire brigade structure. While this initial structural change won’t save Victoria’s vast tracts of wildlife habitat in the short term, it will sure will remove the false premise to the community that the CFA respects and defends natural wildlife habitats.

What does Victorian Government’s Department of Sustainability and Environment have to say for itself? It is charged with the Promontory’s protection.

See also: “Crews unable to slow Wilsons Promontory blaze” on ABC online on 17 Feb 09, “Huge blaze threatens the very heart of the Prom” in the Age of 19 Feb 09.

Tawny Frogmouths,  Glebe (Sydney inner suburb)

Photo: ©2010 Edwina Pickles, Sydney Morning Herald, 20101222.

.

It is pleasing to learn that the City of Sydney council is funding $100,000 into its first serious biodiversity survey of inner Sydney, which is expected to take three months.

The aim is to support biodiversity information for an “urban ecology strategic action plan to conserve indigenous plant and animal species and identify ways to improve their habitats.”

The council has engaged the Australian Museum (located in the Sydney CDB) and specifically ecologists Henry Cook and Glenn Muir to identify all the native animals and  plants living in inner Sydney.   According to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald today, Sydney has long lost most of its native fauna to 220 years of urban development and habitat destruction.

Amazingly, Native Green and Golden Bell Frogs and Grey-Headed flying foxes still exist in one or two isolated locations but are endangered.  Brush-tailed possums, Ring-tailed possums and native water rats are amongst the more adaptable to human incursion, albeit often persecuted.

The ecologists expect to find about 60 indigenous bird species and several reptile and frog species and the survey results are due in mid-2011.

[Source: ‘Old-time residents cast eyes over a changing city‘, by journalist Kelsey Munro, 20101222, Sydney Morning Herald]

by Editor 20101010.

Rogue leaf

Believe it or not

I hung on all winter

outfacing wind and snow

.

Now that spring

comes and the birds sing

I am letting go.

-by Northern Irish poet Derek Mahon

---

.

Across Prehistoric Britain’s wild dense temperate forests, its moors and boglands – wildlife once teamed.

Agrarian Man, followed by the excesses of Industrial Man, wiped out much of this wildlife and decimated its natural habitat – reducing the landscape to paddocks within a network of pastoral hedgerows and leaving a few tokenistic islands of natural reserves to the ruling classes .

But now it seems that even the hedgerows across the British Isles are at risk from Corporate Man’s insatiable quench for land and profit.

Government leaders could rule to defend the remnants of the British Isles’ natural heritage, yet choose not to.

---

Hedgerows and a hedgerow tree (oak). County Amagh, Northern Ireland.

[Photo and those below taken by the editor 20100916, free on Public Domain – click to enlarge.]

.

---

What is a Hedgerow?

“A hedgerow is a line of closely spaced shrubs and tree species, planted and trained in such a way as to form a barrier or to mark the boundary of a field and used to separate a road from adjoining fields or one field from another.

A hedgerow may consist of a single species or several, typically mixed at random. In most newly planted British hedgerows, at least 60 percent of the shrubs are hawthorn, blackthorn, and (in the southwest) hazel, alone or in combination. The first two are particularly effective barriers to livestock. Other shrubs and trees used include holly, beech, oak, ash, and willow; the last three can become very tall.

Across the British Isles many hedgerows include fully grown trees (‘hedgerow trees’), typically those mentioned above. There are thought to be around 1.8 million hedgerow trees in Britain (counting only those whose canopies do not touch others) with perhaps 98% of these being in England and Wales. Hedgerow trees are both an important part of the English landscape and are valuable habitats for wildlife.  Many hedgerow trees are veteran trees and therefore of great wildlife interest.

The most common species are oak and ash, though in the past elm would also have been common. Around 20 million elm trees, most of them hedgerow trees, were felled or died through Dutch elm disease in the late 1960s. Many other species are used, notably including beech and various nut and fruit trees.  The age structure of British hedgerow trees is old because the number of new trees is not sufficient to replace the number of trees that are lost through age or disease.”

[Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedge_(barrier)]

“Hedgerows serve as important wildlife corridors, especially in the United Kingdom where they link the country’s fractured ancient woodland. They also serve as a habitat for birds and other animals. As the land within a few metres of hedges is difficult to plough, sow, or spray with herbicides, the land around hedges also typically includes high plant biodiversity. Hedges also serve to stabilise the soil and on slopes help prevent soil creep and leaching of minerals and plant nutrients. Removal thus weakens the soil and leads to erosion. “

[Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedgerow_removal]

---

What is Hedgerow Removal?

“Hedgerow removal is part of the transition of arable land from low-intensity to high-intensity farming. The removal of hedgerows gives larger fields making the sowing and harvesting of crops easier, faster and cheaper, and giving a larger area to grow the crops, increasing yield and profits.

In the United Kingdom hedgerow removal has been occurring since World War I as technology made intensive farming possible, and the increasing population demanded more food from the land. The trend has slowed down somewhat since the 1980s when cheap food imports reduced the demand on British farmland, and as the European Union Common Agricultural Policy made environmental projects financially viable. Under reforms to national and EU agricultural policies the environmental impact of farming features more highly and in many places hedgerow conservation and replanting is taking place.

In England and Wales agricultural hedgerow removal is controlled by the Hedgerows Regulations 1997, administered by the local authority.” – 7.—(1) A person who intentionally or recklessly removes, or causes or permits another person to remove, a hedgerow in contravention of regulation 5(1) or (9) is guilty of an offence.’

[Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedgerow_removal]

---

Hedgerow Removal is a serious threat to the biodiversity of wildlife across the British Isles

The hedgerow, “a ubiquitous staple of the British countryside, is actually a species under threat and between 1940 and 1990, the common hedgerow underwent a dramatic decline; predominantly due to human influence. More worryingly, the cornucopia of British wildlife that used to thrive in these hedgerows is suffering from the decrease in natural habitat. A combination of increased urbanisation, a rise in the intensity of farming and therefore field size, overgrazing by livestock and improper maintenance have all had a detrimental effect on our hedgerows.

Another key human factor is the collective ignorance of the 1997 Hedgerow Regulations that demand the application for a removal notice for any hedgerow exceeding thirty years of age. There are hedgerows in the UK that date back from before the Enclosure Acts period – 1720 – 1840 and it is a dreadful thought that this precious rural heritage is potentially being destroyed.”

[Source: Josh Ellison of Floral & Hardy]

“Between 1984 and 1993 185,000km of hedgerow in England and Wales was lost.

This decline was not simply important in a British context but also in a European context. This is because hedged landscapes are found in relatively few areas: parts of northern France; northern Italy; the Austrian Alps and the Republic are Ireland.”

[Source:  Naturenet website – ‘Hedgerow Protection in England and Wales’ by Alina Congreve. ^http://www.naturenet.net/articles/congreve/index.html]

.

---

[The following article by Emily Dugan appeared in the British Sunday newspaper, The Independent, on Sunday 29th August 2010.

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/are-we-losing-the-fight-to-save-our-hedgerows-2064800.html]

Are we losing the fight to save our hedgerows?

“A decade after the first legal moves to protect them, they are still under attack – and now they could fall victim to spending cuts

They are the living seams that have typified the British countryside for centuries. But now hedgerows are disappearing fast, and a report published tomorrow will say we are not doing enough to protect them.

Research from the Campaign to Protect Rural England has found that though hedgerows enjoy more protection than ever before, in England their overall length fell by 26,000 kilometres between 1998 and 2007. The study, England’s Hedgerows: Don’t Cut Them Out!, calls for current legislation to be strengthened.

As well as having a nostalgic place in the aesthetics of the countryside, hedgerows are a vital part of the ecosystem. Research by Hedgelink, a network of British hedge conservation groups, shows that without them some 130 species – from the hedgehog and the dormouse to stag beetles and the cuckoo – would be under threat.

Although “important” hedgerows are protected by law, the majority can be taken down if a landowner wishes, which has resulted in many being dug up to create larger fields that are easier to harvest. For the past 20 years, the Government has provided financial help to landowners to restore and manage hedgerows. But most have still been left unmanaged, sometimes growing into larger trees offering fewer benefits to wildlife because they are less dense at ground level.

The CPRE study focused on England, but the picture nationwide is similarly grim.

Nigel Adams, vice-chairman of the National Hedgelaying Society, said: “The hedgerow is the unsung hero of our countryside. It’s often overlooked, but visitors to England say it’s what makes it so special. The majority are not used for their original purpose [as an animal barrier], but people recognise their importance in terms of wildlife and history.”

Since 1998, the number of legally protected hedgerows has risen by 18 per cent. Currently, 42 per cent of the UK’s hedgerows are protected, but the CPRE fears that the narrow criteria required to register a stretch of hedge as “important” will mean many more are lost.

To qualify for legal protection, a hedge must be at least 20 metres long, 30 years old and meet strict criteria on heritage and numbers of animals and plants relying on it. Some hedges were easy to register, such as Judith’s Head in Cambridgeshire, which is Britain’s oldest, having stood for more than 900 years. But for non-celebrity hedges, the future is dicey. More than two-thirds of local authorities surveyed by CPRE said that the current Hedgerow Regulations needed to be simplified to make them more effective.

Emma Marrington, author of the report, said: “The length of hedgerows in the country is declining, which is worrying. They’re a part of our heritage, but they also offer huge benefits to wildlife and the environment in general. It’s over a decade since the introduction of the Hedgerows Regulations, and the time is ripe for the Government to make improvements that give local authorities the power they need to better protect the great diversity of England’s hedgerows.”

The CPRE is concerned that hedgerow protection programmes could be at risk when the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) makes spending cuts in the autumn. “The Defra spending cuts could affect the money for schemes like this,” Ms Marrington said. “I can see how hedgerows could be overlooked; they’re taken for granted as being a part of the English countryside, and people don’t realise how much they’re at risk.”

If hedgerows in Britain decline further, so too will those species that depend on them. Jim Jones of the People’s Trust for Endangered Species is running a study of the impact of disappearing hedgerows on dormice, a species whose population has declined by 40 per cent in 20 years. “Dormice have disappeared from seven counties where they existed in the 1800s, at the same time as hedgerows have declined,” he said. “Hedgerow corridors are crucial because they allow them to forage and move around.”

Species in peril: An ecosystem teeming with life

Mammals

Dormice, harvest mice, hedgehogs, six species of bat, and polecats are all at risk as hedgerows decline. They rely on the covered corridors that allow them to move around.

Plants

The copse bindweed and the Plymouth pear are among the plants that flourish in hedgerows.

Fungi and lichens

From the sandy stilt puffball to the weather earthstar fungus, many fungi do particularly well in hedgerows. Lichens such as the orange-fruited elm lichen and the beard lichen are also at risk.

Invertebrates

Stag beetles, brown-banded carder bees and large garden bumblebees are among those at risk. More than 20 of Britain’s lowland butterfly species breed in hedgerows, including the brown hairstreak and the white-letter hairstreak butterfly.

Reptiles and amphibians

Hedgerows connecting with ponds are vital for great crested newts to move through the countryside. The common toad, grass snake, slow worm and common lizard are also at risk.

Birds

Many woodland birds rely on taller hedges for breeding. The turtle dove, grey partridge, cuckoo, lesser spotted woodpecker, song thrush, red-backed shrike and yellowhammer are all in danger.”

---

Further Reading:

.

[1]  Naturenet website ‘Hedgerow Protection in England and Wales’ by Alina Congreve. ^http://www.naturenet.net/articles/congreve/index.html] [2]  Hedgelink website homepage – ‘the first place to look for information on the UK’s native hedges, hedgerow conservation and hedge management.’ http://hedgelink.org.uk/

[3]  Hedgelink website – ‘Hedgerow Biodiversity Action Plan‘    http://www.hedgelink.org.uk/index.php?id=29

[4]  Hedgelink website – ‘Hedgerow management’ http://www.hedgelink.org.uk/index.php?id=30

[5]   Hedgerowmobile website – ‘Hedgerows, Hedges and Verges of Britain and Ireland,  exploring the legal and environmental aspects of British and Irish hedgerow and verge ecology, ecotones as well as management strategies.’ http://hedgerowmobile.com/

[6]   UK Legislation.gov.uk – ‘the official home of enacted revised UK legislation.‘  http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/1160/contents/made

[7]  University of Reading (England) – ‘Environmental Challenges in Farm Management [ECIFM] – changes in habitat’ http://www.ecifm.reading.ac.uk/habitat.htm

[8]  Epping Forest District Council (England) – ‘Prosecution for the Unauthorised Removal of Hedgerows’ (8th September 2010),   http://www.eppingforestdc.gov.uk/news/2010/prosecution_unauthorised_removal_hedgerows.asp

[9]  Norfolk Biodiversity Partnership (England) – ‘Habitat Action Plans – Hedgerows’ http://www.norfolkbiodiversity.org/actionplans/habitat/hedgerows.asp

[10]  South Straffordshire Council (England) – ‘Hedgerows (Field and Countryside)’ http://www.sstaffs.gov.uk/your_services/architectural__landscape_serv/hedgerows_field_and_countrysi.aspx

[11]  The Sunday Times (UK) – article by Richard Girling July 12, 2009:  ‘Britain’s wildlife: Work on the wild side’ – to save our wildlife we must get our priorities right. How far should we meddle with the animal kingdom?’ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6685127.ece

[12] The Telegraph (UK)  –  article by Charlie Brooks 16^th July 2009:  ‘Bird-brains who undermine our farmers‘ – when it comes to conservation, landowners can be trusted to make the right decisions.  ‘The European Union Habitats Directive has claimed that some 90 per cent of the UK’s threatened habitats are “in poor shape and therefore not supporting the range of wildlife they should do.”   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/5843663/Bird-brains-who-undermine-our-farmers.html

[13]  Countryside Jobs Service (North Yorkshire, England) – Countryside Jobs Service in association with The Tree Council For National Tree Week launched its Hedge Tree Campaign on 23 November 2009. http://www.countryside-jobs.com/Focus/Previous/Nov09.htm

[14] Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedgerow_removal

.

– end of article –

by Editor 20100512.

---

 

Yesterday, The NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) within its Parks and Wildlife Group set fire to over 2500 hectares of remote wilderness in the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.

This deliberate burning was carried out in the name of ‘hazard reduction’ – in order to reduce the available ‘fuel’ (native vegetation) for potential future wildfires or bush arson.

Under the orders of the Blue Mountains regional manager, Geoff Luscombe, this deliberate burning was started around Massif Ridge some 12 kilometres south of the town of Woodford in wild inaccessible forested area of the World Heritage Area.

Aerial incendiary from a helicopter was used to ignite the forest vegetation floor and incinerate all ground cover and vegetation habitat across a large contiguous area, crossing over creeks and gullies.  Fanned by a light southwesterly, the fire incinerated all native ground cover up to the tree canopy  for a distance of 5 km into the Blue Labyrinth up to The Oaks Fire Trail.

Luscombe told the media that:

“this late warm weather has created a window of opportunity for us to get this important burn done and we’re taking full advantage.  “The 2507-hectare burn will be conducted south of the Woodford-Oaks fire trail, and as a result the trail will be closed to mountain bikers and bushwalkers for the duration of the burn – approximately four to five days….“This burn is aimed at reducing fuel loads to help protect properties and assets in the region.” [1]

Luscombe ignores the massive natural asset in the region is indeed the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area he is setting fire to.  The scale of the forested area affected equates to a 5km x 5km area, or 25km² – an area about 1/3 the size of Lake Burragorang. Yet, the official Rural Fire Service website typically and misleadingly shows the burn area size as ‘zero’ hectares.[2]

Incident Name	Alert Level	Location	Council Area	Status	Type	Size (Ha)	Agency	Last Updated
Massif Ridge Hazard Reduction	Advice	Massif Ridge Hazard Reduction	Blue Mountains	Under Control	Other	0	Dept Environment & Conservation

The scale of the combined burns was also evident from the blanket of smoke smothering the entire Sydney basin and Cumberland Plain yesterday.  This is shown in the following photo from the Sydney Morning Herald.

---

 

Smoke Haze over Sydney

© Photo by Sydney Morning Herald

 

Broadscale Burning Policy

The purpose of bush fire-fighting is to put out bushfires and in the case of wildfires to limit their spread and impact.

However, DECCW’s bush burning policy is advocating exactly the opposite. This year up until 19^th April 2010, DECCW boasts that it has performed 193 prescribed burns across NSW ‘treating’ more than 56,000 hectares.  Last year it manage 168 prescribed burns ‘treating’ a similar 59,202 hectares.  It claims this represents one of the biggest ever deliberate burning programs in National Parks’ history.[3] This equates to an area of national parks being burned every year approximating ¼ the area of the Australian Capital Territory; and this is on top of wildfire and bush arson.

Every year DECCW contracts helicopters and indiscriminately tosses out incendiary devices over wilderness forests. Thousands of hectares are burnt in a free-for-all and thousands of native animals are roasted.  Thank crikey these State-sanctioned arsonists aren’t given access to napalm.

DECCW labels its deliberate burning of native vegetation with euphemisms like ‘hazard reduction’, ‘controlled burning’, ‘prescribed burning’, ‘cool burning’ and even ‘ecological burning’.  It claims burning vast areas of vegetation somehow ‘assists’ biodiversity, justified on the simplistic premise some species of flora are fire tolerant and grow back.  DECCW claims that its burning is essential to manage biodiversity to maintain the reproductive viability of a species or a community of species.  DECCW’s ‘eco-logic’ is that since the bush grows back after fire it must be a good impact and therefore good for biodiversity.

DECCW terms areas of national parks targeted for such broadscale burns as ‘Strategic Fire Advantage Zones’ or SFAZs.  DECCW justifies charcoaling a massive contiguous landscape as ‘assisting’ biodiversity.

Bollocks!

Luscombe himself has admitted that given the few reliable days a year it is considered safe to burn, DECCW engages in broadscale burning simply a matter of operational convenience.

Mosaic burning is too labour intensive and the typically inaccessible gullied terrain and thick forested vegetation of many national parks makes mosaic burning impracticable and too costly.  Be clear; it is all about operational efficiency, not ecological biodiversity.

Last March, DECCW set fire to 2,200 hectares of native habitat in the Blue Mountains in remote wilderness in Kanangra-Boyd National Park near Jenolan Caves.[4] In April 2008, DECCW dropped aerial incendiaries in remote wilderness just to the north along the Krungle Bungle Range.

Like the Rural Fire Service, DECCW is denied serious public resources to detect and suppress wildfires, so it demonises and burns the bush, so destroying the natural asset it is charged to protect and conserve.

DECCW has descended into ecological bastardry, imposing a regime of arson fundamentalism upon nature.  This is an unprincipled ‘bush-phobic’ culture.

Broadscale burning is sterilised ecosystems and driving species extinction

The Sydney Morning Herald reported ‘a rogue breeze drove smoke from hazard reduction burning in the Blue Mountains down to street level.’[5] It is more the rogue management of the National Parks Service that misguidedly thinks burning vast swathes of bush at once is good for biodiversity.  This demonstrates the wanton disregard for native fauna and flora habitat and disrespect for Aboriginal cultural heritage.

Large contiguous areas of tens of thousands of hectares severely compromising flora and fauna conservation, potentially causing permanent ecological change and loss of species.  In the process, DECCW is destroying natural and cultural heritage values of National Parks, causing long-term ecological damage and driving native species extinction.

Collectively, the forested area of the Blue Labyrinth now will lay sterilised of the naturally rich biodiversity of flora and fauna.  When the rains come the exposed tops soil will wash away.  Watercourses will choke with sediment. The thin fragile soils will change and so change the ability of the soil to replace the complex floristic structure.  Only plants that are fire tolerant will recover. Only plants that are hardy to poor soils will recover.  There will be less floristic diversity, not more.

Ground-dwelling mammals will have had their burrows, dens, nests, shelters burned and destroyed by the fires.  Food sources for spotted-tailed quolls, rufous betongs and wombats will have gone.  The undergrowth will have gone leaving a bare open charred landscape.  Such a disturbed open landscape benefits feral pedators like cats and foxes and wild dogs.  Complex and dense ground vegetation reduces the impacts of predators.  But the post-fire regrowth takes many months and creates a simple shrub and herb layer.  This allows maximum freedom of movement for cats and foxes, and provides minimum concealment for their prey.[6]

Territorial mammals and raptors do not simply relocate.  They remain in their territory and have to compete with these feral predators.  Many die.  As top order predators like quolls and owls die, this alters the food chain and contributes to local extinctions.

Such broadscale deliberate burning of forest habitat is a threatening process driving Australia’s mammalian extinctions.

Australia has the worst record of mammalian extinctions of any country on Earth, with nearly 50% of its native mammals becoming extinct in the past 200 years.[7]

Australian native fire tolerant fauna (‘pyrophytes’) like most Eucalyptus, Acacia, Proteaceae, Xanthorrhoeaceae and many native ferns and grasses recover quickly after bush fire.  However not all species of Eucalypt are fire tolerant (or ‘pyrophobes’) as commonly assumed.  Eucalyptus parvula, Eucalyptus saxatilis and Eucalyptus tetrapleura are not fire tolerant.  Also, some species of Acacia are not fire tolerant such as Acacia georgensis and Acacia chrysoticha.

Flora diversity varies with soils, aspect, topography and other factors.   The Blue Labyrinth is characterised by a labyrinth of ridges and gullies, hence its name.  Flora along riparian zones is generally wetter and not as well adapted to fire as ridgeline flora. Yet DECCW’s one-size-fits-all blanket broadscale burning of 2500 hectares up hill and own dale completely disregards the complex biodiversity variations between the gullies and ridgelines.  What its blanket burning yesterday has done to the Blue Labyrinth, however, is indeed to have encouraged a consistent simpler form of regrowth vegetation – that is, less biodiversity.

Obviously no animal species is fire tolerant.  The Blue Mountains provides habitat to many native mammals including Yellow-bellied Gliders, Koalas, Feathertail Gliders, Eastern Pygmy-possums, Brush-tailed Rock-wallabies, Spotted-tailed Quolls and Antechinus.  What happens to these mammals when caught in burn-offs?  Where are the native zoological surveys before and after reports for each of these burns?

Native mammals and raptor birds are territorial and do not relocate and typically perish. Broadscale unnatural fire regimes produce unnaturally high biomass, but not true biodiversity.

DECCW’s policy has bad biased biodiversity and fire ecology science to support its simplistic economic approach to bushfire management.  DECCW has lost its way as a custodian of protected areas. It is now charged with priorities for exploitative tourism.

Land clearing and frequent broadscale bushfire continue to put many unique species of Australian wildlife at risk. Over the last two hundred years many species of plants and animals have become extinct.  DECCW as trusted custodian of NSW’s natural wild areas and in increasing its frequent broadscale burning is possible the greatest contributor to species extinctions across NSW.

Broadscale Burning Justifications Lack Scientific Merit

The DECCW is charged with custodial responsibility for environmental conservation and protection of the national parks and reserves under its control.  DECCW is the lead agency responsible for environmental management of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area (GBMWHA).  The GBMWHA Strategic Plan provides management principles and a framework for the integrated management, protection, interpretation and monitoring of the heritage values.

Two key strategic objectives for DECCW management of the GBMWHA is to ‘identify, protect, conserve… the World Heritage values of the GBMWHA’ and to reduce the potential for major impacts to adversely affect the integrity of the GBMWHA.  Where there is doubt about the potential impacts of an action on World Heritage values

the ‘precautionary principle’ shall be applied.  Under the ‘precautionary principle’:

“where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation”.[8]

Aerial incendiary to indiscriminately burn 2500 hectares of remote wilderness is clearly an impact causing serious and likely irreversible damage to important faunal habitat.  Such bush fore management practice on a large congruous scale clearly lacks scientific certainty.

In a CSIRO Journal of Wildlife Research, Michael Clarke, associate professor in the Department of Zoology at La Trobe University says it is reasonable for land management agencies to try to limit the negative effects of large fires and to be sure they do not lead to irreversible damage to native wildlife and habitat.

Much hazard reduction is performed to create a false sense of security rather than to reduce fire risks, and the effect on wildlife is virtually unknown. The sooner we acknowledge this the sooner we can get on with the job of working out whether there is anything we can do to manage fires better. We need to know whether hazard reduction can be done without sending our wildlife down a path of firestick extinctions.[9]

Clarke has called for the massive burn-offs to be scrutinised much more closely.

“In this age of global warming, governments and the public need to be engaged in a more sophisticated discussion about the complexities of coping with fire in Australian landscapes.”

He wants ecological data about burns collected as routinely as rainfall data is gathered by the agricultural industry. Without it, hazard reduction burning is flying scientifically blind and poses a dangerous threat to wildlife.

“To attempt to operate without proper data on the effect of bushfires should be as unthinkable as a farmer planting a crop without reference to the rain gauge.”

In the coming decades, native plants and animals will face enough problems – most significantly from human-induced climate chaos – without having to dodge armies of public servants armed with lighters. Guesswork and winter smoke are not enough to protect our towns and assets now, and the risk of bushfires increases with the rise in carbon dioxide.[10]

The incinerating of 2500 hectares of remote bushland in the Blue Labyrinth yesterday was not to protect the houses and properties of Woodford some kilometres away.

Such broadscale deliberate lighting of thousands of congruous hectares of native forest habitat is not protecting houses. This is not clearing dead vegetation around properties.  It was fuelled by an unquestioned vandalistic compulsion to burn any bushland that has not been burnt, simply for that reason and that reason alone. The bushfire management call it strategic.  But it is a cultural bush-phobia – a fear and lack of respect for the natural landscape. It harks to early Australian colonial mindset that feared the bush to the extent that one had to tame it else invite wildfire Armageddon.

Contempt for Aboriginal Archaeology in the Blue Labyrinth

The Blue Labyrinth is a rugged natural region of forested hills and gullies a few kilometres south of the central Blue Mountains village of Woodford.  It is an area of ancient Aboriginal culture. There are caves in the area displaying Aboriginal rock art dating back tens of thousands of years.

In February 2006, DECCW’s Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) collated an official record of indigenous archaeological sites across the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. It listed some 850 discrete archaeological sites and 973 features in the GBMWHA, representative of past indigenous activities that remain in the landscape and are essentially the “Aboriginal archaeological record”.

An Assessment of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Values of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area by the Blue Mountains World Heritage Institute (BMWHI) in 2007 highlights the important Aboriginal cultural heritage values of the area.  Recent discovery and documentation of numerous Aboriginal archaeological sites and features in the Blue Labyrinth include shelters, shelter walls, rock platforms marked with imagery and grooves.  These have largely been preserved because of the rugged and inaccessible terrain. The GBMWA remains highly significant for the many Aboriginal communities associated with it and there is a renewed and re-invigorated interest in the Area’s cultural heritage.”[11]

In December 2006, leading world rock art expert Dr. Jean Clottes to dozens of sites across the GBMWHA and the central coast. Clottes was recently appointed to UNESCO to advise the institution on the creation of a World Heritage Rock Art List.

The main eagle depiction at Eagle’s Reach,

acknowledged as extremely rare by the Aboriginal community

© Photo by Paul S.C. Taçon

He was so impressed with the GBMWHA rock art sites, and associated contemporary Gundungurra, Darug, Wiradjuri and Darkinjing stories that he considers the Area to have world Heritage significance. Indeed, it was the living connections to the sites and larger landscapes that most impressed him.[12] Rock Art at Bora Cave in the Blue Labyrinth is an example of important cultural connections of the local Gundungurra and Darug to the area.

Life-size eagle engraving, Gallery Rock

© Photo by Tristram Miller

Through the Mapping Country research in the Blue Labyrinth area of the Blue Mountains National Park, hundreds of Aboriginal cultural places were recorded.  The BMHWI highlighted in its 2007 report the risk of damage by natural environmental processes and exposure to modern human activities.  Particularly highlighted was the risk posed by an increase in the frequency and intensity of wildfires and… and efforts to control fires can damage or destroy rock art sites. By locating and mapping sites they can be catered to as part of fire management strategies.[13]

Yet, it would appear from anecdotal evidence that DECCW failed to contact the traditional Aboriginal owners of this land to inform them of the planned burning.  It is likely with such indiscriminate broadscale burning that some of the cultural sites may have been irreparable damaged.

What happened to Attic Cave, Dadder Cave and the Aboriginal archaeology between the Massif and The Blue Labyrinth? Was it burnt out and destroyed by DECCW’s needless incineration?

What happened to the wildlife and wildlife habitat?  DECCW these days is more a patsy of NSW Labor right wing economic rationalism focusing on tourism revenues, than it is on its core ecological wildlife conservation raison d’etre .

---

References:

[1] ‘Smokin’: Sydney cloaked by burn-off’, by Paul Tatnell, Sydney Morning Herald, 11^th May 2010, http://www.smh.com.au/environment/smokin-sydney-cloaked-by-burnoff-20100511-usg7.html

[2] NSW Rural Fire Service, http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/dsp_content.cfm?cat_id=683

[3] DECCW, Nature Conservation > Fire > Managing fire in NSW national parks > Preparation and hazard reduction, http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/fire/prepandhazreduction.htm

[4] ‘Hazard Reduction – DECC playing with matches in Kanangra-Boyd NP’, 13^th March 2009, http://candobetter.org/node/1142

[5] ‘The big smoke finally enjoys a little light relief’, by Ben Cubby, Environment Editor, Sydney Morning Herald, 12^th May 2010, page 1, http://www.smh.com.au/environment/the-big-smoke-finally-enjoys-a-little-light-relief-20100511-uuum.html

[6] Chris Johnson, ‘Australia’s Mammal Extinctions: A 50,000 year history’, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, p.226

[7] Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/BHAN-53777B

[8] United Nations, General Assembly, ‘Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June 1992, Annex I: ‘Rio Declaration’, http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm

[9] ‘The dangers of fighting fire with fire’, by James Woodford, 8^th September 2008,in Sydney Morning Herald, http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/the-dangers-of-fighting-fire-with-fire/2008/09/07/1220725850216.html

[10] ‘The dangers of fighting fire with fire’, by James Woodford, 8^th September 2008,in Sydney Morning Herald, http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/the-dangers-of-fighting-fire-with-fire/2008/09/07/1220725850216.html

[11] Blue Mountains World Heritage Institute, 2007, ‘Assessment of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Values of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area’, p.10, http://www.bmwhi.org.au/docs/Assessment%20of%20Aboriginal%20Cultural%20Heritage%20Values.pdf

[12] Blue Mountains World Heritage Institute, 2007, ‘Assessment of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Values of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area’, p.10, http://www.bmwhi.org.au/docs/Assessment%20of%20Aboriginal%20Cultural%20Heritage%20Values.pdf p.26

[13] Blue Mountains World Heritage Institute, 2007, ‘Assessment of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Values of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area’, p.10, http://www.bmwhi.org.au/docs/Assessment%20of%20Aboriginal%20Cultural%20Heritage%20Values.pdf p.36

---

^© The Habitat Advocate    Public Domain