# day after bushfires



## Jewyy95 (Sep 24, 2011)

Me and a couple of my mates went for a walk into the pearl beach bushland were we have gone herping many times.

What made us go up today with such bad weather was that the 240 hectares of bush was burnt down by the rural fire brigade.

Although backburning is a helpful thing to residents in the area i was shocked to see how much bush was gone. We went up in the night past the barrier blocks to see how they were burning and it was cruel, they just set the bush on fire and let it burn through the whole bush right through to the roads and houses which there they would put out the fire.

we saw a few skinks and a green tree snake out soaking up the sun , but the burnt bushland and logs that were still on fire gave the animals no where to hide.

Heres a photo of the the green tree snake we found, luckily it had no damage from the fires


----------



## coastalboy (Sep 24, 2011)

This is sooo sad. all the animals that would have got burnt, killed and homes destroyed.


----------



## Jewyy95 (Sep 24, 2011)

yea didn't see many dead animals other than a koala that ran out of its tree on fire. pretty sad just know how many animals would have died.

the koala was taken by national parks and wildlife


----------



## Eddie2257 (Sep 24, 2011)

we should go up there when they are burning next and walk along the face of the fire see what we can save. this green tree was very cold and slow it dident even move when i tryed to pick it up. 
eddie...


----------



## JordanG (Sep 24, 2011)

thats soo bad, i feel so sorry for all the animals that would have died


----------



## Jewyy95 (Sep 25, 2011)

yea i reckon eddie, haha wasnt to suttle when you were giveing me a hold and went for a strike at me haha


----------



## baker (Sep 25, 2011)

as sad as this is for the animals that have dies or lost homes, dont forget that the Australian has evolved over many thousands of years with periodic bush fires set by the local Aboriginals. the plants and animals have all evolved different adaptations to survive the bush fires and survive the lack of shelter. give it a couple of weeks after they finish burning and have another look and there will all be new regrowth for the animals to live in and use.


----------



## waruikazi (Sep 26, 2011)

Agreed with Baker.

Nature is rough and fires are part of the landscape. Frequent fires are an important part of keeping most of our ecosystems healthy.


----------



## jack (Sep 26, 2011)

fire can be terrible for individuals, but it is essential for our ecosystems. it is a lack of appropriate fire regimes that has helped stuff up everything. 
if i was in charge the east coast would be pretty smoky this time of year!


----------



## Jewyy95 (Sep 26, 2011)

i understand that backburning is needed to protect houses and what not but i think that 240 hectares is way to much, fair enough if they burn about a 2km radius from roads and trails to prevent a fire traveling onto houses but i see no need to burn so far up the ills and wipe everything away.


----------



## jack (Sep 26, 2011)

240 hectares is not near enough: thousands, perhaps millions of hectares need to be burnt, albeit in a patchwork at locally varied timings


----------



## PythonLegs (Sep 26, 2011)

Hooo, boy. Someone take that lighter off jack, quick!


----------



## waruikazi (Sep 26, 2011)

Our landscape has evolved with fire. No doubt the east coast is different to the North but it is important for our landscape to have regular low intensity fires to avoid the intense wild fires that significantly scar the landscape and also to protect property.



Jewyy95 said:


> i understand that backburning is needed to protect houses and what not but i think that 240 hectares is way to much, fair enough if they burn about a 2km radius from roads and trails to prevent a fire traveling onto houses but i see no need to burn so far up the ills and wipe everything away.


----------



## jack (Sep 26, 2011)

PythonLegs said:


> Hooo, boy. Someone take that lighter off jack, quick!


 
probably should, i love the smell of burning eucalyptus


----------



## GeckPhotographer (Sep 26, 2011)

> Our landscape has evolved with fire. No doubt the east coast is different to the North but it is important for our landscape to have regular low intensity fires to avoid the intense wild fires that significantly scar the landscape and also to protect property.



Indeed the East Coast is very different and in many places regular low intensity fire would be devastating. Regular fire is not a natural process in rainforest which makes up much of the east coast. 
I'm not saying that fire is not a natural process in Australia, I'm not against some backburning, and in the North I'm not against a fire regime, but I think the burning management that goes on now in places like Katherine is not actually what Australia has evolved with, it is far to regular and does not allow enough regeneration. The regimes being put in place are based on Aboriginal burning. But Australia was adapting for millions of years, the few tens of thousands of Aboriginal inhabitance is almost nothing in evolutionary terms.


----------



## REPTILIAN-KMAN (Sep 26, 2011)

i agree with baker and others , Aboriginals used burning for thousands of years to management there land to prevent firestorms from wiping out everything, until the greens groups stopped the practices , in the NT they still practice small burns in romote areas were they still have a right to manage their lands, but i do always feel for any animal caught up in a burn and its its ability to escape form the fire


----------



## waruikazi (Sep 26, 2011)

The fire problems that we are having up here at the moment isn't because of the regularity, it is the intensity. Introduced weeds are growing much faster than the native grasses and are adding too much fuel to fires. They burn hotter for longer and as a result, kill the plants that usually need fire to help them regenerate.



GeckPhotographer said:


> Indeed the East Coast is very different and in many places regular low intensity fire would be devastating. Regular fire is not a natural process in rainforest which makes up much of the east coast.
> I'm not saying that fire is not a natural process in Australia, I'm not against some backburning, and in the North I'm not against a fire regime, but I think the burning management that goes on now in places like Katherine is not actually what Australia has evolved with, it is far to regular and does not allow enough regeneration. The regimes being put in place are based on Aboriginal burning. But Australia was adapting for millions of years, the few tens of thousands of Aboriginal inhabitance is almost nothing in evolutionary terms.


----------

