Re: Australian Fires

Misifus wrote:

Shy Picker wrote:

On Feb 9, 1:40 pm, Alan D. <SPAMNOTa...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

David

The fires are one of those "I told you so" political things that is
going to get really ugly once the smoke has cleared a bit, both
physically and metaphorically. The debate is whether a lot of that
country should have regular controlled burning to prevent the build up
of dry underbrush. I don't know the details of the debate, so I won't
guess, but the bush fire control experts say that controlled burning
should have been implemented long ago.
Tony D

That's the same debate that's going on here in the US where the big
forest fires happen. I think the do controlled burns in some areas.
David

Heh, heh, or some not-so-controlled burns like near Los Alamos, Nm. Or near our
place where the fire they set sort of "went walkabout" over the ridge before
they rounded it up and sent it packing home again. "Controlled burns" is the
latest toy in the USFS kit for the last decade or so with, in my opinion, mixed results.

Alan D.


That's the problem with controlled burns, eh. If somebody loses life
or home to a fire, they will get no solace out of knowing the fire was
started for their safety.

David



Around here, fire breaks are pretty big. We still do controlled burns, though, and they really are pretty well controlled. The Feds just declared us a drought area. I reckon it helps the farmers. Won't help us if we don't get some water to drink though.


That was the problem with Yellowstone in 1988. For so many years they had fought to "protect" the beautiful park that it was way overdue for a fire and there was no way to prevent it in the end.

-Raf


Yes, many of our "greenies" out here are opposed to controlled burning on the grounds that it destroys native animal habitat and a lot of flora and fauna.

Not as much as fire like these destroy.

Not to mention the human cost.

In South Australia we have always depended to a great extent on water pumped from the lower reaches of the Murray River. For many years now large companies have been growing cotton and rice in totally unsuitable areas, and pumping water from the upper reaches of the Murray for irrigation. The volumes involved are staggering, and because of the irrigation methods much of the water is lost to evaporation.

The result, of course, is that South Australia now has a major water problem, and that it is going to get worse unless the Federal Government bans the cotton and rice plantations. This won't happen of course because the big companies involved have too much clout, and too many friends in Parliament.

MJRB
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Australian Fires
    ... I don't know the details of the debate, ... I think the do controlled burns in some areas. ... place where the fire they set sort of "went walkabout" over the ridge before ... they rounded it up and sent it packing home again. ...
    (rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic)
  • Re: Australian Fires
    ... I don't know the details of the debate, ... but the bush fire control experts say that controlled burning ... I think the do controlled burns in some areas. ... place where the fire they set sort of "went walkabout" over the ridge before ...
    (rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic)
  • Re: Australian Fires
    ... I don't know the details of the debate, ... but the bush fire control experts say that controlled burning ... I think the do controlled burns in some areas. ... place where the fire they set sort of "went walkabout" over the ridge before ...
    (rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic)
  • WATER TATTOOS
    ... Earth Water Fire Tattoos Chinese Wind ...
    (rec.birds)