“A photo from out ‘there’….
This one from an area known as Morney on the way to Birdsville.”
View image.
Emailed from Peter Jones, Barcaldine.
Thanks Peter.
By jennifer
“A photo from out ‘there’….
This one from an area known as Morney on the way to Birdsville.”
View image.
Emailed from Peter Jones, Barcaldine.
Thanks Peter.
By jennifer
The 170-year tradition of grazing cattle in Victoria’s high country is over according to the Victorian Shadow Minister for Agriculture Philip Davis. In a press release last Friday he said, “In one fell swoop, the Bracks Government this afternoon successfully displaced generations of mountain cattlemen and their families, simultaneously erasing an essential part of Australia’s heritage.”
The day before, on Thursday 16th June, I received the following poem from Duane L Langley.
It was dark and cool in the vast of night when God decided now to strike
From within the dense and massive clouds he threw his multiple lightening pike
It hit the ground with blinding speed and sought the tinder bush
The searing heat completed it’s feat and the flames headed North with a push
The stockman astride his well worn saddle saw this display of might
The sparks they flew from his horse’s shoe as he pounded down through the night
He knew at once that he must ride hard to his mates at camp below
At the camp he reined in hard and fast, with “fire!” being his only bellow
The stockmen knew what they had to do as they climbed their mountain steeds
They raced as a group on back to the coop where the cattle had had their last feed
Two thousand head were soon being led to a two mile wide burnt scree
For it was hear that the land had been burnt as a plan for needs be the animals can flee
With the smoke and the sparks filling the air from the South the cattle were again on the move
For the flames were high on the ever glowing sky, but the cattlemen were now in a groove
They cracked their whips with lightening speed and drove their charges to flee
By mornings light by way of their flight they were all in the lea of the scree
For here the grass was green and lush and fire was stopped in it’s tracks
The cattle were safe and horses relieved as the mountain men alighted their backs
All around wildlife roamed, safe from the wild red steer
Thanks to man and his managing hand, the fire was no longer a fear
2003 came another lightening spree, but the cattlemen were no where to be found
The wildlife headed again to the scree where safety and sanctuary abound
But a sign here stood from a greenie hood that lambasted the Mountain man caste
Wilderness area is now proclaimed for this spot so damaged in the past
As the animals read with a feeling of dread, the sign from modern man
They mourned the day that had passed their way, of the man with the management plan
They hunkered down, too tired to hop, knowing that all was lost
Their last thoughts as they burnt to death, where’s the Mountain man, oh! what cost
By jennifer
I dislike editing comments from contributors to this site. I have done so recently to try and remove at least some of the personal attack – from more than one contributor. The trouble is that it is a slippery slope – both ways. You don’t edit and a wad of comment ends up being ‘nasty’. You do edit and you ‘destroy’ the point that was being made amongst the name calling?
And then this morning I was emailed the link to Prof Bob Carter’s speech to the Melbourne Rotary Club last week in which, perhaps tired of being called a ‘climate skeptic’, he has labelled belief in human-induced climate change ‘Hansenism’.
When is name calling OK? Can it be a useful short-hand?
Anyway, perhaps this is just the excuse I need to stimulate discussion about how to ‘moderate’ this site. What should the rules be?
When I edited a post some weeks ago the angry ‘commenter’ emailed me asking for ‘the rules’. I lamely replied something along the lines that “I edit out the personal attacks when they don’t progress the argument”.
Your suggestions?
Perhaps you know of a site with some ‘good rules’ we could borrow?
By jennifer
New Zealand has signed up to a contingent liability of $9 billion to $14 billion at present values through its commitment to the Kyoto protocol, according to what has become know as the Castalia Report. While the report was published last September it is still being quoted, and is still being emailed about.
The Executive Summary concludes:
The Government’s financial statements are required to comply with generally accepted accounting practice, including disclosure of contingent liabilities. It follows that the Government’s accounts should disclose its commitment to the Kyoto Protocol as a contingent liability. It is a possible obligation that arises from ratifying the Protocol, and it becomes a liability if and when the Protocol comes into force. Accounting standards require the disclosure of each class of contingent liability at the balance date, with a brief description
of its nature and an estimate of its financial effect.We have estimated the financial effect. This involves two steps: estimate of excess emissions and forecast of the prices of emission units. Clearly, there is considerable uncertainty about
the likely outcomes. We therefore consider a range of possibilities. In general, we err on the conservative side, that is on the side of least cost to the Crown.Depending on the assumptions, a conservatively estimated present value of the contingent liability for the first four Commitment Periods ranges from $9 billion to $14 billion. This is the amount that needs to be disclosed in the Crown accounts. We have not attempted to forecast beyond 2027, since by then new technologies may emerge. On current technologies, with the addition of each subsequent period, the liability would increase further. Hence again, we have deliberately erred on the conservative side.
Still in NZ, but on the subject of British PM Tony Blair trying to get President George Bush to move forward on cutting C02 emissions, the following is from a piece in yesterday’s New Zealand Herald.
WWF’s (Jennifer) Morgan said there was still a chance to get a strong deal to cut carbon dioxide emissions but that if it didn’t materialise then Blair and the rest of the G8 should go ahead without the US – the world’s biggest greenhouse gas polluter.
“If you can’t get something with Bush in it, then you shouldn’t reduce it to the lowest common denominator. You should move forward in other ways,” she said.
“There is a very heated debate going on right now about leaving Bush out in the cold.”
I am not sure about the choice of words from the WWF campaigner – so the earth is going to heat up because the US won’t cooperate, but their President is going to be left out in the cold?
By jennifer
The following essay is from, and by, David Ward of Western Australia. Thanks David.
Before Europeans arrived, Noongar people managed our south-west dry forests and woodlands very well without fire trucks, water bombers, helicopters, television journalists, concerned politicians, the Conservation Council, hundreds of firefighters, or the Salvation Army to give them all breakfast. They did this by burning frequently, in most places as often as it would carry a mild, creeping fire.
Even where there were no Noongars, most of the bush would have burnt frequently by unimpeded lightning fires, trickling on for months. Such large lightning fires continued up to the 1920s, before there were any Bushfire Brigades. They could travel a hundred kilometres before autumn rain doused them. Most of the landscape would have burnt as often as it could carry a fire. Fire suppression and exclusion are unnatural, new fangled notions.
Frequent fire made the bush safe, and promoted grass for yonka (kangaroo), and a host of bush tucker plants. It produced byoo, the red fruit of the djiridji, or zamia. Frequent light smoke germinated seeds, and provoked flowering of kangaroo paws and balga grasstrees.
Kangaroo paws and byoo are increasingly rare, under a muddle headed advocacy which claims that we should exclude fire from large bush areas for long periods. This phoney idea makes the bush very dangerous, as we have recently seen. Fire cannot be excluded indefinitely, and the longer it has been absent, the fiercer, and more damaging it will be.
Ecomythologists claim that, left alone, the litter will all rot down to enrich the soil. The truth, as any Perth Hills resident will testify, is that there is some decay in winter, but the summer blizzard of dead leaves, bark, and capsules is far greater, so litter builds up. After twenty years or so, there is a mulching effect, and build up ceases. However, by then most wildflowers are smothered and straggly, and most of the nutrient is locked up in dead matter. Frequent, mild fire releases the nutrients, sweetens the soil, and prunes the plants. Gardeners will appreciate that.
In the 1840s, the early West Australian botanist James Drummond wrote “When I was a sojourner in England, I never remember to have seen Australian plants in a good state after the second or third years and that, I think, is in a great degree owing to their not being cut down close to the ground when they begin to get ragged; how for the pruning knife and a mixture of wood ashes in the soil would answer as a substitute to the triennial or quaternal burnings they undergo in their native land, I am unable to say, some of our plants never flower in perfection but the season after the ground is burned over…”
There are many historical references to frequent, widespread burning by south-west Noongars. In 1837 Lt. Henry Bunbury mentioned “…the periodical extensive bush fires which, by destroying every two to three years the dead leaves, plants, sticks, fallen timber etc. prevent most effectually the accumulation of any decayed vegetable deposit… being the last month of summer… the Natives have burnt with fire much of the country… ”
In 1975 Mr. Frank Thompson was interviewed about his memories of fire near the south coast, before the First World War. He said “You see, the Natives …they used to burn the country every three or four years… when it was burnt the grass grew and it was nice and fresh and the possums had something to live on and the kangaroos had something to live on and the wallabies and the tamars and boodie rat …It didn’t burn very fast because it was only grass and a few leaves here and there and it would burn ahead and… sometimes there?d be a little isolated patch of other stuff that wasn’t good enough to burn the time before, but as it burnt along perhaps there might be some wallabies or tamars ?those animals didn’t run away from fire, they’d run up to it and you’d see them hopping along the edge of the fire until they saw a place where the fire wasn’t burning very fierce...”
It is hard to imagine wallabies hopping along the flame front of the recent Karagullen fire, looking for a way through. Long fire exclusion is causing fires of unprecedented ferocity, and many avoidable wildlife deaths. The longer fire has been excluded, the longer the bush takes to recover when it is eventually, and inevitably, burnt.
Over the last decade, research in south-western Australia by the Department of Conservation & Land Management (CALM) and Curtin University into fire marks on hundreds of balga grasstrees has confirmed traditional two to four year fire in dry eucalypt areas. Ridges with pure jarrah burnt every three to four years, slopes with some marri every two to three years, and clay valleys with wandoo every two years. There would have been thousands of small refuges, in rocks or near creeks, which would have burnt less often, perhaps never. Recent fierce fires destroy these, and the fire sensitive plants they protect. The ecomythology of long fire exclusion over large areas, is destroying the very plants and animals it claims to care for. Equally guilty are those ‘talking heads’ in politics, and the news media, who unthinkingly promote ecomythology.
The oldest balga records go back to 1750, and show traditional frequent, mild fire until measles epidemics killed many Noongars in 1860, and 1883. In some places two to four year burning continued until the First World War. In others, it continued up to the 1930s, and even the 1950s. Some old Perth Hills families remember when any fire could be put out with wet bags or green branches. This is only possible when fires are in litter no more than four years old, with flames less than a metre high.
Far from destroying diversity, this frequent burning enhanced it, by creating a rich mosaic of different aged patches. Animals had both food and shelter, and wildflowers flourished. Today’s muddle headed blanket fire exclusion leads to an eventual single, blanket, fierce fire, which simplifies the ecosystem down to a single age.
By insisting, through our political representatives, that CALM burn the bush more often, and more patchily, we will make it safer, see more wildflowers, avoid most animal deaths, and avoid dense, choking smoke from fierce wildfires. We will have to live with occasional light smoke from prescribed burns. If most litter were less than five years old, smoke would be minimal, and arson would be futile. All it could cause would be a mild, creeping fire, which would benefit the bush.
Think of the savings and benefits by working with nature, instead of fighting it. No more squadrons of aircraft, anxious home owners, and choking smoke for a week or more. The police could get on with catching burglars. More young Noongar people should be employed by CALM to help manage the bush with fire, restoring their culture and healing their self esteem.
Copyright David Ward
10th April 2005
By jennifer
Until recently the most popular blog piece (measured in terms of traffic/hits) on this site was ‘What do Geologists Know about Climate?’ (posted 29th April) – the Michael Duffy interview with Bob Carter.
The most popular blog piece is now ‘Vague about Collapse’ (posted 1st June) – the piece I wrote after watching Jared Diamond (author of ‘Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive’) on SBS Television.
What is it about Jared Diamond that he always gets read?
I have been emailed links to two excellent reviews of ‘Collapse’.
Victor David Hanson reviews the book at the following link http://www.nationalreview.com/books/hanson200505200837.asp.
Mick Keogh has written a devastating critique of the chapter on Australia which can be downloaded at the Farm Institute website, go to http://www.farminstitute.org.au/__data/page/1/2005_NJA_May_Keogh.pdf .
In the comments following my ‘Vague about Collapse’piece I said I would write about the lecture he gave in Brisbane on the Thursday – but I still haven’t got around to transcribing my notes.
Graham Young was at the same lecture and has written a blog piece on the lecture at http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/000643.html .
How can Diamond be so revered – he spoke to 850 at the Brisbane lecture which was a full house and there was much cheering and clapping – yet he gets things so factually wrong?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD has worked in industry and government. She is currently researching a novel technique for long-range weather forecasting funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation.
Read more