What is a bushfire? It is a fire in bushland, but what is confusing today is how we describe ‘bush’.
Today, we have vast agricultural and settled country interlaced with neglected road reserves, nature reserves and park lands, and alternative lifestyle areas on the forest fringe, all described as ‘bush’.
It must be admitted that fire in these regions is a great threat to human life, livestock, public and private assets, and should be prevented from occurring by due diligence and prevention practices including slashing, burning, cultivating and planning unfettered by government controls.
In bygone times landholders in these areas, assisted by local CFA units, were competent at achieving adequate fire prevention measures – of course they weren’t controlled by bureaucracy.
But along with the new bureaucratic control and the glossy new firetrucks came the impractical management and restrictions which have effectively neutered the old local CFA units and individuals of yesteryear and left the country vulnerable to fire.
No doubt climate change will be to blame, not the shortsighted, ignorance and mismanagement of government.
We will now talk about the other ‘bush’, and from where the term bushfire evolved – the deeper forests.
Fire in these deeper forest, like those just discussed in the more settled areas has been very badly managed in recent times by bureaucracy and government.
For a better understanding of forest fire and how it should be managed, we must look to the past in those earlier times, prior to say the 1940s, and in particular referring to Far East Gippsland – the area I know best.
There was always some area burning, particularly in the late summer-autumn period, with heavy smoke because this was usually the calmest time of the year wind-wise.
These burns, or fires, were alight because of the very low forest fuel levels due to a more regular burning regime.
Fires were mostly started by lightning but sometimes by the hand of man to reduce the risk and promote the natural grassy understory for livestock.
Prior to this era a lot of burning was no doubt done by the Aborigines who used fire to flush out game, among other reasons, so constant fire in the forest was a natural phenomenon.
Even Cook on his first exploration voyage of the East Coast of Australia commented on the “smoke that lay over the land”.
So it was that the bush of Far East Gippsland was at peace with itself, and in a balance with fire and nature – that is, until about the 1940s when it was increasingly settled by people who lacked understanding of the natural role of fire in the Australian bush and wished instead to restrict burning for fear of damage to their developing assets – and besides, they did not like the smoke.
These people did not understand that by restricting natural burning, they were increasing the forest fuel loads, leading to hotter more damaging fires in the future.
Alfred Howitt noted around 1880 that some settlers, by restricting the natural fires, were causing the bush to “scrub up” as he called it, which would lead to hotter, more damaging fire.
This was the start of the problem and an end to the open forests that we inherited.
The problem was exacerbated in the 1930s with the newly formed Forests Commission, and their ‘no burning’ policy.
Up until this time all Crown lands were under the control of the Lands Department which encouraged settlers, timber men and cattlemen to keep their areas clean by burning.
This method of management was successful as prior to the 1950s and the forming of the Forests Commission, there were no serious fires in the forests of East Gippsland like those of today.
Jack treasure, a noted bushman from the Dargo area of pioneering stock, stated in the Bairnsdale Advertiser after the 1978 fires that if all lightning strikes were left alone to do their job, the bush would fix itself.
The Victorian Government has a lot to answer for in that local people and bushmen who had maintained the old natural system of management successfully and at no cost to the government were now outed in favour of a new regime of academically-trained managers with no real bush experience.
Their failures of management are there for all to see.
These forest managers talk of planned burns, but rush out and put out every lightning strike, which is nature’s way of introducing fire into the forest – the forest managers of today must learn to work with nature, not against it as they do now.
A natural fire starts at an ignition point and expands radially from that point, dependent on slope, and so on.
It creates less heat than the current practice by government of lighting drip torch lines of fire in a box pattern and then bombing out the central portion with incendiaries which creates a hot fire and little chance for wildlife to escape.
The evidence is there to see – the government has failed in forest management – local bush knowledge and experience has been totally ignored.
For instance we have a Chief Fire Officer with no bush background or experience, completely ignorant of the true role of fire in the environment, who blames climate change as the cause of the increasing and hotter fires – his ignorance of the role that increasing fuel load and irregular burning play is amazing.
This fellow was a merchant seaman, then 32 years with Parks Victoria before being appointed to his present position with DEECA in 2018.
At a recent meeting at Mallacoota chief fire scientist, Kevin Tolhurst, now deceased, gave a presentation, explaining that the fires that impacted Mallacoota in the 2019/2020 fires would have been considerably less intense, had fuel reduction burns been carried out to the west of Mallacoota in previous years, but the Chief Fire Officer said this had not been possible because of their heavy workload and the effect of climate change.
It is true, we no longer have the old Aborigines, bushmen and cattlemen of yesteryear to do their unrestricted, regular burning, but we can imitate their methods with the use of aerial incendiaries to ignite spots along ridge tops and spurs at appropriate times, chiefly autumn, but the population has to learn to accept that heavy smoke for weeks at a time is the price of safety from major fires.
For too long, politicians, senior bureaucrats, and our legal system have been responsible for the failed management systems, presently operating.
I refer to the prescribed area to be burned per annum to be five-eight per cent of the total area, as set by government following the 2009 Royal Commission, whereas prior to government management the area burned annually in East Gippsland would’ve been more like 20 per cent per annum.
This means that at the five per cent rate for a prescribed area, it would be 20 years between burns by which time the scrub growth would be very heavy resulting in too hot and intense a fire, whereas if a 20 per cent per annum fire regime were adopted this would mean five years between burns on average meaning much less fuel and much cooler fires.
So it is obvious that if present management is continued, we are headed for more forest disasters, such as the 2019/2020 fires.
They do not seem to understand the longer they exclude fire from the forest that eventually in drier years than we are now experiencing, the bush will be ignited by accident or lightning and, because of the increased fuel loads due to the lack of fuel reduction burning and suppression of natural fire, it will be much more damaging.
Native birds, animals and insects have adapted to the necessary periodic fire of the Australian bush.
The government and its misguided views and management of forest fire over many years has created the unprecedented monster that we now face – ‘heavy fuel loads’, ‘dirty bush’.
The general voting public, mostly urban, without bush background or knowledge, are deceived of the true facts of forest fire management as they trust (as they should be able to) the policies and approach of government and its agencies to best mitigate the risk of forest fires.
Prior to the 1950s, our Far East Gippsland forests were managed by local people, bushmen and cattlemen at no cost to government in those times.
The bush was safe and in balance, which it is not now, so I would suggest local bushmen and knowledge be sought out to manage, advise and assist government departments back to a more practical, historic and proven approach to forest and fire management.
It is also imperative that managers be domiciled in their area of responsibility.
I realise that my views and recommendations won’t be acceptable to the modern day fire bureaucrats, but at 93 years of age I have lived and operated under the old system of management which was successful, whereas the present day system is not and is leading to large and more frequent disasters.
In this country of ours where frequent mild burning is essential for the practical maintenance of healthy forest and reduced fuel loads, it is ironic the risk of potential legal liability should a planned burn go wrong outweighs any perceived benefits such as protection of environment, communities, water supply, infrastructure, human life and property.
Combined with a shortage of skilled, knowledgeable and experienced burn practitioners and an increasing number of inexperienced, unskilled greenhorns, our bush has been set for even greater fire disasters in the future.
Written by member of the Howitt Society, John Mulligan.
