# Forum More Stuff Debate & Technical Discussion  To burn or or not to burn

## ringtail

Very true. Nearly every ironbark on our farm shows the scars of retarded cattle farmer induced fires. Same with all the fence posts

----------


## intertd6

> Very true. Nearly every ironbark on our farm shows the scars of retarded cattle farmer induced fires. Same with all the fence posts

  yes! those retarded farmers only doing 1/10the the burning that the country actually needs, the slackos.
inter

----------


## ringtail

Burning is absolutely the worst thing one can possibly do. To advocate burning shows zero understanding of ecology

----------


## intertd6

> Burning is absolutely the worst thing one can possibly do. To advocate burning shows zero understanding of ecology

  Those pesky farmers are really only johnny come lately amateurs when it comes to the ones that did the 40,000 years of burning that came before them & the ecology that adapted to it.
inter

----------


## ringtail

Oh right, so you obviously think that the aboriginals burnt the land for ecological reasons.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

There's not much difference between ecology and ideology in some people's log books, Ringtail.

----------


## phild01

Doesn't some vegetation need the fires to propagate?

----------


## ringtail

Yep Phil

----------


## ringtail

> There's not much difference between ecology and ideology in some people's log books, Ringtail.

  Care to elaborate on that SBD ?

----------


## Marc

Unfortunately for the environment, the ideology of 'save the planet' is used more as a tool to tell others how they should live their life and less to actually do something useful for the environment. Considering how many different opinions there are in relation to how or what to do, and considering that each person believes to have the absolute truth and that the others are the absolute enemies, each person that has a genuine interest in doing the right thing is by definition on a collision course with another with similar goals but different ideas of how to. if you add to that the political interest and economic interest, (just have a look at the global warming thread) you will see that knowingly or not, there are irreconcilable ideas in relation to the environment even when it should be something rather obvious and simple.
Sad really.
As far as burning or backburning judging from the bushfires we have each year it is clear that we don't do enough by a county mile or two, but there are probably many that disagree. That's the nature of the beast.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Care to elaborate on that SBD ?

  I would have but Marc just demonstrated it 'perfectly'.

----------


## ringtail

Totally agree. Well said Marc. All I shall say on the matter is it's impossible to teach, an old dog new tricks. The cattle farmer that owns the land surrounding us has just done another burn. Right down to the creek banks. We got some heavy rain the day after. Now the creek bank is in the creek. Just because grandpa used to do it doesn't make it right. Just sayin.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Just because grandpa used to do it doesn't make it right. Just sayin.

  True but it works the other way too. Just because science demonstrates when to do it (and when not to) doesn't make it wrong...even if it ain't socially or politically expedient. 
I still really like ironbark...even if the country it grows in is really hard.

----------


## ringtail

Define "really hard" Our land is full of it and while it's hilly (ok, very hilly) it's green, lush and productive. Certainly not bony at all. The ironbarks tend not to gow on the steeper slopes around us. Heaps of other eucs do though. Surprise surpirse. Flat out finding a tree that isn't a bloody euc in Australia. Monoculture from burning  :Tongue:

----------


## intertd6

> Oh right, so you obviously think that the aboriginals burnt the land for ecological reasons.

  i don't know what your trying to say for me, I'm just saying your idea of fire conservation is counter productive for the ecology that has adapted to one of continual burning for over 40,000 years, if you notice the country has a fairly rounded profile from the hills to the creeks from the erosion partially caused by fire, I'm fairly certain the original inhabitants never stopped for a moment & said " hey bro! Don't let that fire burn that creek bank, the dept of soil conservation, greenies or the townies in 40,000 years are not going to approve of that!"
they burnt it for survival reasons & the ecology adapted to that.
inter

----------


## GrahamB45

There's a book by Bill Gammage called 'The Biggest Estate on Earth: How Aborigines Made Australia' which ties in with some of the replies/comments here.

----------


## ringtail

> i don't know what your trying to say for me, I'm just saying your idea of fire conservation is counter productive for the ecology that has adapted to one of continual burning for over 40,000 years, if you notice the country has a fairly rounded profile from the hills to the creeks from the erosion partially caused by fire, I'm fairly certain the original inhabitants never stopped for a moment & said " hey bro! Don't let that fire burn that creek bank, the dept of soil conservation, greenies or the townies in 40,000 years are not going to approve of that!"
> they burnt it for survival reasons & the ecology adapted to that.
> inter

  Inter, if you want to educate yourself on the matter I suggest you read Back from the Brink and Beyond the Brink by Peter Andrews. Draw your own conclusions after reading them both but at least they will be conclusions made with benefit of knowing all sides of the story surrounding burning ( and lots of other stuff) in the past and present. I'm certainly no green. But I can't stand seeing land degradation through ignorance.

----------


## PhilT2

While it's fair to acknowledge the impact of aboriginal activity on our landscape it is helpful to remember that we are the oldest continent, with parts of Aus being continuously exposed to the atmosphere for approx 600 million years. The amount of weathering that has happened over that time, especially in high rainfall areas, has had a lot to do with the shape of our landscape today. The Kimberely is a good example of this. About 3 million years ago the climate changed , becoming drier and wiping out the last of the Jurassic coniferous forests. 
Compared to this the aboriginal contribution seems insignificant.

----------


## intertd6

> Inter, if you want to educate yourself on the matter I suggest you read Back from the Brink and Beyond the Brink by Peter Andrews. Draw your own conclusions after reading them both but at least they will be conclusions made with benefit of knowing all sides of the story surrounding burning ( and lots of other stuff) in the past and present. I'm certainly no green. But I can't stand seeing land degradation through ignorance.

  you have made a broad statement whereas your idol specifically has targeted over grazed, deforested waterways. I am quite familiar with his work.
inter

----------


## ringtail

You obviously are not as familiar with his work as you think you are inter. Have you read his books ?

----------


## intertd6

> You obviously are not as familiar with his work as you think you are inter. Have you read his books ?

  no I've just seen the ABC programmes & the media articles about his work on degradated waterways, which make no mention of his ideas about broader fire management beyond those areas.
i believe aboriginal land councils Australia wide should be employed to burn native forestry year round to reduce fuel loads, in an attempt to try & return the burning cycle to which the ecology has adapted, the benefit being a greatly reduced incidence of destructive wildfires & the damage they cause, repairing riparian zones for better farming is another kettle of fish & generally not related to the types of cool burn fires causing the damage initially.
inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> Define "really hard" Our land is full of it and while it's hilly (ok, very hilly) it's green, lush and productive. Certainly not bony at all. The ironbarks tend not to gow on the steeper slopes around us. Heaps of other eucs do though. Surprise surpirse. Flat out finding a tree that isn't a bloody euc in Australia. Monoculture from burning

  The remnant ironbark woodlands I'm familiar with are on the western slopes and plains of NSW rather than your lusher soils and wetter climate! 
Some of these areas are lucky enough to even have sand and gravel between the stones! The positive to that is the resulting diversity of the understory. 
However there are quite a few places where the soil improves sufficiently to grow grass for sheep but rarely ever enough to satisfy expectations of land managers...

----------


## ringtail

> no I've just seen the ABC programmes & the media articles about his work on degradated waterways, which make no mention of his ideas about broader fire management beyond those areas.
> i believe aboriginal land councils Australia wide should be employed to burn native forestry year round to reduce fuel loads, in an attempt to try & return the burning cycle to which the ecology has adapted, the benefit being a greatly reduced incidence of destructive wildfires & the damage they cause, repairing riparian zones for better farming is another kettle of fish & generally not related to the types of cool burn fires causing the damage initially.
> inter

  Sure, in some isolated cases there is justification for burning but mostly, there is none. Burning the forest floor removes vital mulch and nutrients and once it's burnt, it's gone leaving the forest floor bare. This in turn does three things. Promotes erosion, leaves the soil prime for eucalyptus seed to germinate and dries out the landscape making fire even more possible. This is why we have a monoculture of eucalypt in this country. There is no biodiversity in the forest anymore. The gums are chokkablock full of volatile oils and burn with extreme heat and intensity and with no moisture in the surrounding environment the fires are extreme. Keep the forest floor as wet as possible with ground covering mulch, plant fire retarding plants in the understorey and thin the eucalypts right out and cull their regrowth. Of course, allowing tree clearing around houses is essential and this is where the Greens retarded anti tree clearing laws adopted by governments needs to change. Of course, building a house in the middle of the trees is just as retarded and local building codes need to reflect this and change. What do people expect to happen ? Hydrating the landscape and the movement of fertility is the key to everything and burning does nothing to aid that. Re hydrating the landscape takes an awful long time even with good rainfall so in the interim, thinning the gums and planting appropriate understory plants is a good start. Having aboriginal land councils do the burning ? why ? They're the ones that started the whole mess in the first place. Burn the diversity out of the forests and create a tinder dry monoculture of plants full of VOC's just ready to burn. As far as repairing the riparian zones for better farming, it's not another kettle of fish. It's the same fish. Hydration of the landscape starts in the high country and moves down to the flood plains. As does the fertility. It's an entire ecosystem.

----------


## intertd6

> Sure, in some isolated cases there is justification for burning but mostly, there is none. Burning the forest floor removes vital mulch and nutrients and once it's burnt, it's gone leaving the forest floor bare. This in turn does three things. Promotes erosion, leaves the soil prime for eucalyptus seed to germinate and dries out the landscape making fire even more possible. This is why we have a monoculture of eucalypt in this country. There is no biodiversity in the forest anymore. The gums are chokkablock full of volatile oils and burn with extreme heat and intensity and with no moisture in the surrounding environment the fires are extreme. Keep the forest floor as wet as possible with ground covering mulch, plant fire retarding plants in the understorey and thin the eucalypts right out and cull their regrowth. Of course, allowing tree clearing around houses is essential and this is where the Greens retarded anti tree clearing laws adopted by governments needs to change. Of course, building a house in the middle of the trees is just as retarded and local building codes need to reflect this and change. What do people expect to happen ? Hydrating the landscape and the movement of fertility is the key to everything and burning does nothing to aid that. Re hydrating the landscape takes an awful long time even with good rainfall so in the interim, thinning the gums and planting appropriate understory plants is a good start. Having aboriginal land councils do the burning ? why ? They're the ones that started the whole mess in the first place. Burn the diversity out of the forests and create a tinder dry monoculture of plants full of VOC's just ready to burn. As far as repairing the riparian zones for better farming, it's not another kettle of fish. It's the same fish. Hydration of the landscape starts in the high country and moves down to the flood plains. As does the fertility. It's an entire ecosystem.

    *Traditional Aboriginal burning*   Published: 12 June 2013	 Traditional burning. Photo © Parks and WildlifeBefore Aboriginal people populated the Australian continent some 40,000 to 60,000 years ago, the major cause of fires would have been lightning. Aboriginal people learnt to harness the naturally recurring fire caused by lightning and other sources to their advantage, which resulted in skilful burning of landscapes for many different purposes. *Fire was used to:*  make access easier through thick and prickly vegetationmaintain a pattern of vegetation to encourage new growth and attract game for huntingencourage the development of useful food plants, for cooking, warmth, signalling and spiritual reasons. Early European explorers and settlers commented on the Aboriginal peoples familiarity with fire, and the presence of fire in the landscape continually throughout the year. Most of the fires were relatively low intensity and did not burn large areas. This constant use of fire by Aboriginal people as they went about their daily lives most likely resulted in a fine grained mosaic of different vegetation and fuel ages across the landscape. As a result, large intense bushfires were uncommon. Fire is a significant part of Aboriginal culture and the knowledge of its use has been retained by many Aboriginal families as their culture and values are shared between generations. Karla Wongi  Fire Talk is an interesting article that provides additional information. The plants and animals themselves provide clues to the ubiquitous presence of fire. *Fire fact*

----------


## ringtail

> *Traditional Aboriginal burning*     Published: 12 June 2013     Traditional burning. Photo © Parks and WildlifeBefore Aboriginal people populated the Australian continent some 40,000 to 60,000 years ago, the major cause of fires would have been lightning. Aboriginal people learnt to harness the naturally recurring fire caused by lightning and other sources to their advantage, which resulted in skilful burning of landscapes for many different purposes. *Fire was used to:*  make access easier through thick and prickly vegetationmaintain a pattern of vegetation to encourage new growth and attract game for huntingencourage the development of useful food plants, for cooking, warmth, signalling and spiritual reasons.  Early European explorers and settlers commented on the Aboriginal people’s familiarity with fire, and the presence of fire in the landscape continually throughout the year. Most of the fires were relatively low intensity and did not burn large areas. This constant use of fire by Aboriginal people as they went about their daily lives most likely resulted in a fine grained mosaic of different vegetation and fuel ages across the landscape. As a result, large intense bushfires were uncommon.

  Make access through thick vegetation - unnecessary, go around it.
Maintain a patten of vegetation - yes indeed, a monoculture of gums and no biodiversity
The third one is just fluff 
but add to the list 
- Caused massive erosion along every watercourse by burning the creek banks which in turn has removed wetlands and turned nearly all of Australia into one big gutter and drain system that delivers rain water to the ocean with great velocity instead of it soaking into the landscape as it did once upon a time. Of course, white fellas made the problem 500% worse with their farming practices.
- Created deserts by burning the understorey growth thus removing the mulch layer and causing the ground to dryout and trees to die. What was once a forest is now a desert. Trees cool the air around them and attract rain/moisture. All you achieve by burning is a drying of the landscape which in turn promotes bushfires.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

Ringtail, you are banging your head on a large parked bulldozer. Stop now or you'll hurt yourself...no matter your knowledge and experience that dozer ain't moving.

----------


## intertd6

> Ringtail, you are banging your head on a large parked bulldozer. Stop now or you'll hurt yourself...no matter your knowledge and experience that dozer ain't moving.

  your right! 40,000 years of history & the collective knowledge, resources & experience of the Australian parks & wildlife services is very hard to dispute.
inter

----------


## SilentButDeadly

See what I mean... 
Sorry inter but you can't burn everything all the time...my fire management colleagues in two states tell us this quite frequently.  
Little nibbles here and there every decade or two work well enough but truth be told there's not enough remnant bushland left in SE Aust to support traditional burning. Works fine in the north, centre and north west but anywhere in the cropping and population areas...very very rarely. 
Annual burning of grassland and grassy woodlands makes more grass which is why seasonal grazers often do it...but it is a rod for the back because it means that then there's only grass which burns easily and hot and if it doesn't rain....there's sod all ground cover. 
Nobody is factually wrong but nobody is factually right either. It all depends on where you factually are. 
Now can we go back to decking?

----------


## ringtail

> your right! 40,000 years of history & the collective knowledge, resources & experience of the Australian parks & wildlife services is very hard to dispute.
> inter

  Inter, just buy and read Peter Andrews books. Then go for a long drive through the countryside with your eyes open. I'll say no more.

----------


## intertd6

> Inter, just buy and read Peter Andrews books. Then go for a long drive through the countryside with your eyes open. I'll say no more.

  I just have to look out any window to see the country side & am just lucky not think that one persons ideas on one particular area are going to become accepted practice for reducing wildfire causing fuel loads, so you will have to humour me on how it's possible.
inter

----------


## ringtail

Read the books inter

----------


## intertd6

> Read the books inter

  If you're trying to sell the idea you're going to have to get me interested with some relevant tidbits.
inter

----------


## PlatypusGardens

Ringtail  :Unsure:  
I agree with you when it comes to most things discussed on this forum, but to in any way shape or form insinuate that the aboriginies did not know what they were doing is quite arrogant. 
They survived in, looked after and understood this country better than anyone ever will.  
Most negative effects on the countryside we're seeing now is a result of what has happened since the settlement.

----------


## Marc

I think that saying aborigines "looked after" the land is a bit of wishful thinking from a white (green) european point of view. People do what they need to do to survive. Abborigines did not have the numbers to do a lot of damage. Give enough numbers and there wouldn't be a thing left standing. Just rocks. 
However and to answer ringtail take, I find his or rather the author of that book interpretation of how things went, rather plausible. Sure thing it may have been fire that caused an oligoculture of eucalyptus and casuarinas and other trees adapted to germinate after a fire. 40,000 years? quite possible.
yet to think that we can revert it _now_ is a bit ... how to say... imaginative. 
Sure it can be done experimentally in a localised way with a lot of money for very little gain. Clearly not statewide or nationwide.  
Meantime backburning is the only way to coexist with a forest that burns. 
And we don't do enough of it, nor do we have methods of early detection be it via thermal cameras, alarms, watch towers or whatever we could do and don't.

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> I think that saying aborigines "looked after" the land is a bit of wishful thinking from a white (green) european point of view. People do what they need to do to survive.

  Surviving......which, in their case didn't include farming, mining, building roads, changing waterways, dredging, overfishing, introducing plant and animal species, cutting down entire forests etc etc etc. 
Just surviving.
And killing eachother.
But everyone does that.     

> Abborigines did not have the numbers to do a lot of damage. Give enough numbers and there wouldn't be a thing left standing. Just rocks

  I seriously doubt that.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## PlatypusGardens

Anyway gonna remove myself from this conversation    :Bluegrab:     
for now....       
Talk amongst yourselves    :Gossip:   :Stooges:

----------


## Marc

Well ... look at it from a dispassionate point of view. 
There are many examples of native cultures who absolutely destroyed the land to the point of desertification simply because of overpopulation, religion, war, abject ignorance etc. Nothing different would have happened here giving the right numbers. We read way too much into some superior wisdom that was nothing but survival instinct and time.

----------


## PlatypusGardens

I think I hear a low deck being constructed somewhere.

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> Well ... look at it from a dispassionate point of view. 
> There are many examples of native cultures who absolutely destroyed the land to the point of desertification simply because of overpopulation, religion, war, abject ignorance etc. Nothing different would have happened here giving the right numbers. We read way too much into some superior wisdom that was nothing but survival instinct and time.

  
Yes but most of those things happened due to farming, building "stuff" and "making things" that required cutting down trees and over-using the land.
The aboriginies did none of those things.     :Gaah:  what am I still doing here in this thread?  :Unsure:

----------


## Marc

Sure, there is no question they did not. I question the reason given for that. It was purely due to low numbers certainly not due to some measured approach to looking after the land. Giving enough numbers, competition would have meant a completely different result. if they managed to change the forest ecosystem in such a dramatic way with the little numbers they had, imagine what they would have done in large numbers.

----------


## Marc

Low deck ... yea ... what happened to the one setting plastic board on sand?

----------


## johnc

> Burning is absolutely the worst thing one can possibly do. To advocate burning shows zero understanding of ecology

  Actually if you get it right you can actually do small scale burns that see grass returning in a few days, very cool pretty much gets the dry grass, you leave the root ball in a state that sees the plant bounce back. Depends on the type of grass though, we used to do it regularly in the 1960's and 70's but then the permits came in and slashing seemed an easier option.

----------


## ringtail

> Actually if you get it right you can actually do small scale burns that see grass returning in a few days, very cool pretty much gets the dry grass, you leave the root ball in a state that sees the plant bounce back. Depends on the type of grass though, we used to do it regularly in the 1960's and 70's but then the permits came in and slashing seemed an easier option.

  Funny that. Slashing or "chop and drop" is absolutely the best thing you can do. Creates mulch and soil building. All that energy  and nutrients that the grass has stored in order to grow is now put back into the ground. As opposed to burning where all that goodness is just gone. You can ( and should) practice chop and drop at home mowing the lawn. No catcher, mulching plug in if you have one and watch the difference. Anyone that throws grass clippings away is a fool. At the very least they should go into the compost heap but left on the lawn is better.

----------


## ringtail

> Ringtail  
> I agree with you when it comes to most things discussed on this forum, but to in any way shape or form insinuate that the aboriginies did not know what they were doing is quite arrogant. 
> They survived in, looked after and understood this country better than anyone ever will.  
> Most negative effects on the countryside we're seeing now is a result of what has happened since the settlement.

   Understood, maybe, looked after, nope, Survived in - definitely. And they did what they had to do to survive. Is there an easier way to flush out a herd of roos from the bush than setting fire to it ? Is there an easier way to attract wildlife to the waters edge to eat the fresh new clip grass than burning the banks to get that new clip to grow ? Yes they were wrong but they were not stupid. Expend as little energy as possible for maximum gain. That's survival. That's just common sense. As soon as whites came here with the hard footed cattle and sheep is when the poo really hit the fan. No one denies that.

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> Sure, there is no question they did not. I question the reason given for that. It was purely due to low numbers certainly not due to some measured approach to looking after the land. Giving enough numbers, competition would have meant a completely different result. if they managed to change the forest ecosystem in such a dramatic way with the little numbers they had, imagine what they would have done in large numbers.

  
I still don't think they would have started logging the forest, herding cattle, farming and building pyramids or large stone heads even if their population had quadrupled times ten. 
They did what what they did for so many thousands of years and showed no signs of "evolving" (for want of a better word) in to an industrialised civilization.

----------


## ringtail

> However and to answer ringtail take, I find his or rather the author of that book interpretation of how things went, rather plausible. Sure thing it may have been fire that caused an oligoculture of eucalyptus and casuarinas and other trees adapted to germinate after a fire. 40,000 years? quite possible.
> yet to think that we can revert it _now_ is a bit ... how to say... imaginative. 
> Sure it can be done experimentally in a localised way with a lot of money for very little gain. Clearly not statewide or nationwide.  
> Meantime backburning is the only way to coexist with a forest that burns. 
> And we don't do enough of it, nor do we have methods of early detection be it via thermal cameras, alarms, watch towers or whatever we could do and don't.

  Imaginative ? How so ? All it takes is the Government to order it be done and we are away. Direct action is a perfect start as long as the right trees are planted in the right areas. Planting trees is not expensive at all. The labour could be had for free using umemployed  :Tongue: . The situation is entirely reversible. It just takes an attitude adjustment from farmers and Governments. Peter Andrews spent decades being crucified by just about everyone. Now he has the Order of Australia. His system and theories are 100% proven by all types of scientists too. Using his systems in conjunction with other types of "radical" thinking like permaculture and keyline are just too easy yet convincing farmers to change is harder than changing the USA gun laws. 
Meantime, backburning is the only way to ensure that forests continue to burn.

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> Understood, maybe, looked after, nope, Survived in - definitely. And they did what they had to do to survive. Is there an easier way to flush out a herd of roos from the bush than setting fire to it ? Is there an easier way to attract wildlife to the waters edge to eat the fresh new clip grass than burning the banks to get that new clip to grow ? Yes they were wrong but they were not stupid. Expend as little energy as possible for maximum gain. That's survival. That's just common sense. As soon as whites came here with the hard footed cattle and sheep is when the poo really hit the fan. No one denies that.

  So they lit a few fires...big whoop.

----------


## ringtail

> I still don't think they would have started logging the forest, herding cattle, farming and building pyramids or large stone heads even if their population had quadrupled times ten. 
> They did what what they did for so many thousands of years and showed no signs of "evolving" (for want of a better word) in to an industrialised civilization.

  No way they had the numbers to "evolve" in that way. They regulated their population depending on resources and roamed the country. Fighting with other roaming tribes kept the overall population down.

----------


## ringtail

> So they lit a few fires...big whoop.

  Yeah well, the focus should really be white fellas rather than the Aboriginals. What's done is done. It can be undone though.

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> No way they had the numbers to "evolve" in that way. They regulated their population depending on resources and roamed the country. Fighting with other roaming tribes kept the overall population down.

  Exactly. 
Meanwhile "the civilised world" was riddled with diseases, suffered from poverty because they had invented money and obeyed some inbred family sitting in a stone castle.  
I know where I would rather have lived.....

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> Yeah well, the focus should really be white fellas rather than the Aboriginals.

  
You brought it up......

----------


## ringtail

And gladly. It seems some get all aggro if a bad word is penned about the Aboriginals and their culture.

----------


## PlatypusGardens

They did far less damage with more understanding and on a smaller scale. 
They observed what was happening naturally and used it for their gain.

----------


## ringtail

> Exactly. 
> Meanwhile "the civilised world" was riddled with diseases, suffered from poverty because they had invented money and obeyed some inbred family sitting in a stone castle.  
> I know where I would rather have lived.....

  
For sure. Been a whopping great very sparsely island with minimal contact from the rest of the world had a lot to do with it too.

----------


## intertd6

> Imaginative ? How so ? All it takes is the Government to order it be done and we are away. Direct action is a perfect start as long as the right trees are planted in the right areas. Planting trees is not expensive at all. The labour could be had for free using umemployed . The situation is entirely reversible. It just takes an attitude adjustment from farmers and Governments. Peter Andrews spent decades being crucified by just about everyone. Now he has the Order of Australia. His system and theories are 100% proven by all types of scientists too. Using his systems in conjunction with other types of "radical" thinking like permaculture and keyline are just too easy yet convincing farmers to change is harder than changing the USA gun laws. 
> Meantime, backburning is the only way to ensure that forests continue to burn.

  what a load tree hugging rubbish, you're taking the mantra of repairing degradated waterways & trying to reverse the evolution of 40,000 years of ecology of the native forestry, flora, fauna & countless other ecosystems that have adapted to it, from your comments I'd be fairly certain you haven't been educated in Australia because you haven't much understanding of its history ecology or its people, NZ Id say at a guess.
inter

----------


## ringtail

> They did far less damage with more understanding and on a smaller scale. 
> They observed what was happening naturally and used it for their gain.

   
Sure the odd fire was natural but only from lightening. No little ferals back then flicking fag butts out the window  :Biggrin:  . The rest were all deliberately lit for their gain. Can't blame them for it. It's survival. But if by " understanding" you mean an understanding that it's easier to gather food by burning it out of scrub then yes, I agree with you. If you mean understanding as in managing the land with actions like todays catch cry phrases like "cool burn" and "hazard reduction" then no. The only reason the country wasn't completely destroyed back then is the fact that there we no hard hoofed animals in the country. As soon as they arrived with settlement the pendulum swung the other way.

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> Sure the odd fire was natural but only from lightening. No little ferals back then flicking fag butts out the window  . The rest were all deliberately lit for their gain. Can't blame them for it. It's survival. But if by " understanding" you mean an understanding that it's easier to gather food by burning it out of scrub then yes, I agree with you. If you mean understanding as in managing the land with actions like todays catch cry phrases like "cool burn" and "hazard reduction" then no. The only reason the country wasn't completely destroyed back then is the fact that there we no hard hoofed animals in the country. As soon as they arrived with settlement the pendulum swung the other way.

  
Yes that's pretty much what I meant in regards to the fire etc.   :Smilie:     

> what a load tree hugging rubbish, you're taking the mantra of repairing degradated waterways & trying to reverse the evolution of 40,000 years of ecology of the native forestry, flora, fauna & countless other ecosystems that have adapted to it, from your comments I'd be fairly certain you haven't been educated in Australia because you haven't much understanding of its history ecology or its people, NZ Id say at a guess.
> inter

   :Unsure:    
I'm outta here    :Bike2:

----------


## ringtail

> what a load tree hugging rubbish, you're taking the mantra of repairing degradated waterways & trying to reverse the evolution of 40,000 years of ecology of the native forestry, flora, fauna & countless other ecosystems that have adapted to it, from your comments I'd be fairly certain you haven't been educated in Australia because you haven't much understanding of its history ecology or its people, NZ Id say at a guess.
> inter

  And that's exactly what they all said about Peter Andrews. For years and years. This guy is totally nuts and has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. Now however, his work and theories are proven and accepted. It's all out there inter. All you have to do is read.

----------


## ringtail

> Yes that's pretty much what I meant in regards to the fire etc.          
> I'm outta here

  thought you were outta here in post 36  :Biggrin:

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> thought you were outta here in post 36

  Well the welding/decking sections have been quiet today, so....

----------


## PlatypusGardens

:Smack:  :Lockd:  :Smack:  
Now, now, guys......    :Rolleyes:

----------


## ringtail

> Well the welding/decking sections have been quiet today, so....

  Fair enough. Stick around and stir the pot

----------


## PlatypusGardens

> Fair enough. Stick around and stir the pot

  
I still stand by my opinions and comments and wasn't posting anything to stir anyone's pot.
 (We did kinda agree on a few things in the end  :Wink:  )  
But I'm really going now.
Time to feed/walk the dogs.   :Smilie:

----------


## intertd6

> I still stand by my opinions and comments and wasn't posting anything to stir anyone's pot.
>  (We did kinda agree on a few things in the end  )  
> But I'm really going now.
> Time to feed/walk the dogs.

  theres nothing wrong with stirring up some outlandish ideas with some civil p*ss taking.
inter

----------


## phild01

time to rest this one

----------

