Wildlife habitat is not to blame for the fires.
It is an equal victim.

According to TFS fire is to be contained within a property.

The same should apply to the toxic smoke from any deliberate burning.

Burning should only take place if there are no other alternatives.

Anybody involved with ‘firing’ a lethal weapon should be required to satisfactorily complete a prescribed training course and be licenced (in this case lighting fires in the open).
Severe penalties should apply for non-compliance.

The public must be consulted in the drafting of any licencing program.

Caring for Our Country surely extends to protecting susceptible groups and our wildlife.

A fire-fighter being interviewed at one of the Gippsland fires, said ” this whole area was burned out in 2006 and its burning again now.
What I ask is the purpose of fuel reduction burns if it is a raging furnace six years later?
Does that mean that it has to be burned off once a year?
I have read reports of research in the US that show an area that has had a fuel reduction burn, burns hotter because the moisture has been cooked out of the forest.
If this is so why is there a call for more fuel reduction burns?
It would seem to me that there is very little research into fire management and certainly not enough data available.

Another example of how to waste the peoples money on cow dung propaganda. There is no need for studies or idiotic pilot programs carried out by over educated knowledge less fools, there is enough local expertise and experience to be able to formulate proper plans and strategies to combat and live with this increasing threat.

We all know what has to be done, it’s just the idiots in power who are the problem and always will be, as long as ideologically controlled political parties are allowed to destroy life and the planet for their insane delusional illusionary beliefs and empty hope.

It’s the same with the so called recovery team, a bunch of useless academic elites and empty headed bureaucrats who have no knowledge or experience of these situations or life outside a school, office or their ideological egocentricity. The idiots in government will throw millions at these fools in fee’s, expenses, travel, accommodation and stuffing themselves on the public purse, whilst the effected communities end up with more of the same, nothing really being done of worthwhile significance, or decent outcomes.

Blind Freddy knows that fires promote growth.
FT have said this for years.
Burners have to make up which line they are going to use.
Are they going to say, “it needs to be burnt to get rid of the build up of fuel”.
Or are they going to say, “in two years or so it will be back to normal and you won’t even notice we have burnt it.”

Haven’t we had enough of fires and smoke?
I would like our politicians to support methods that do not use open fire.
All we will be doing with FRB’s is shifting expenditure onto the already cash strapped Health sector.

If any one takes the time to drive down through the devastation of the peninsula’s, or look at the TFC site, they will note a few area’s between Dunnelly and the Tasman which have not burnt and probably saved the shop/garage and houses of Murdunna. These area’s were subject to fire in the last 3 years and others that I have spoken to have said area’s where they had burnt in the last couple of years didn’t burn.

No one can expect burn offs to protect indefinitely, beliefs like that just show how ignorant some people really are. However burning out strategic sections of surrounding bush, or area’ s which will contribute to a fire storm that will effect human habitation is a smart move as it slows and diverts the fires path.

The only long term fix is strategic planning so fires can be diverted or slowed so they can be combated. This includes clearing,fire breaks and burn offs of different areas of danger every couple of years and they don’t need to be big area’s, just ones which contribute to better safety for habitation.

For those urbanites who don’t have a clue and babble nonsense, these form of fires operate by first creating a fire storm which is a crown fire, this races across the crown of the forest at tremendous speeds. Once the crown fire has passed over, it’s closely followed, but at a slower speed by the ground fire created by falling embers. If fuel on the ground is reduced, it slows the fire and doesn’t provide fuel for the crown or ground fire. If you have any real experience in these matters, you will know and see that reality.

Only time will tell.

Thank you #3 and #5 Clive as you have raised very important points.
1. We need a cooling vegetation type such as Rainforest could provide where it is ecologically to carry Rainforest. I now for fact that the temperature inside and above a rainforest, especially on hot and very hot days is very different to that of even aged stands of young, fast growing Eucalypt and Acacia regrowth vegetation.

2. When we take note of many long established farm properties, often with inter-generational family ownership here in Tasmania and on mainland Australia, the Homesteads and driveways leading to them a often surrounded by (exotic) mature size, deciduous Oak and Elm trees that can (if properly managed and maintained) act like a less flammable oasis or work as part of a fire protection zone.

3. The larger towns and cities down have established parks often with European and American oak species and other deciduous, non flammable tree species that are in fact work as cool reserves for anyone trying to shelter from the hot sun and need some fresh, cooling air movement.

4. A week ago one of the farmers badly affected by the fires near Ouse was telling us via the ABC’s Country Hour, that in effect his 1ha(exotic) commercial Cherry orchard established near his house and core buildings shielded the radiating heat and effectively blocked the path of the fire so his estate and lives survived.

5. What happens to the tones of Oak seeds in autumn I have to ask? They are often discarded as nuisance and just go to landfill or end up in some big hole in the ground by the truckload.
One example comes to mind, why not create wide less flammable roadside vegetation? Is it because our society is dominated by purist believers?

I say it is time to rethink vegetation management and to make use of problematic material in a responsible way. Clive Stott is to be listened to; more of the same problematic smoke particles represent hazards and at the same time missed opportunities and energy wasted and exported overseas in a puff.
What I am suggesting here is that ‘yes we can’ do much better as a community with positive, creative collaboration and respect to each other.
The elitist actors in various positions in our society need to loose their exclusive support as it is leading us into just more of the same and even worse.
A combination of proper planning, continued management and also by making use of (still) unrealised organic materials such as biomass in various forms, can help to   optimise the opportunities, as well as counter-act growing problems.
Tasmanians have a chance to create meaningful (green collar) employment, cooling environments and healthier soils and maintain clean air with pro-active community action. 
It will take time to create the debate and a paradigm shift in thinking away from the decades long negative separation and repeated elitist and unsustainable deal making.

Australia is not the first and only country that is working on a better future, so we can find clever initiatives that provide support in good development.
Until next time, stay positive and cool.

Although it is private property being the responsibility of TFS, NRM needs to get both Forestry and Parks heavily involved in training and mentoring.
Both have the necessary experience and expertise in carrying out successful burning operations.
NRM is normally associated with Greenish outlook for the fiery Tasmanian landscape, clearly there needs to be shown a balance between asset and ecological protection.
Lets face it the more assistance to private land owners that can be given the better the result. Resulting from the RFA research Special Values fauna, flora, geological, aboriginal heritage some of the as examples need to be considered in each WRITTEN Burning Plan associated with Fuel reduction.
Preburning firebreak construction when required must comply to FPC standards to protect water and soil.
Last thing are scorched earth landscapes, and heavily crowned trees.
The reduction in forest fuel loads should effectively reduce the intensity and spread of any wildfires that may occur within or from surrounding lands.
Fuel reduction allows a better chance for fire crews to tackle wildfires within a safer working environment.
Wildfires occuring during long periods of drought can kill off local vegetation changing the post recovery native vegetation mix, which can promote invasive weeds to replace native vegetation.
Keeping the ultra Greens and the usual whingers of the public out of harms ways, the Pilot Project should be sucessfull with including responsible burning practices into the whole of farm property management.
As a matter of procedure and protocol:
*Just remember to check and recheck for those hot spots from dry stumps burning underground.
*All burns must be signed off when declared as out, black out.

When do the fire exclusion trials start? As landscapes in SE Australia have, for millions of years, included areas with inherent fire resistance/suppressing characteristics, and as we are heading into uncharted terrain as far as climate change goes, will governments and responsible entities be providing funding and resources to identify and suitably manage the ecological niches that provide natural bushfire mitigation? The types of ecological niches I am thinking of are mature forest, elevated forest, wet forest, rainforest, riparian communities etc.

Many areas that have or had natural bushfire mitigation qualities have been significantly compromised by 200 years of systematic disturbance but, if we are here for “the long haul”, shouldn’t we consider conserving and reinstating components of natural systems that mitigate fire and contribute to relative ecological stability?

I’m not suggesting that these areas are likely to stop to the types of fires we have been experiencing, and are more likely to encounter in forecast AGW scenarios, but they would at least assist in slowing and taking some of the heat out of fires. In doing this we would be helping to slow or prevent negative ecological feedback loops that will in turn make fires bigger, hotter and generally more destructive.  The structure and moisture content of forests are fundamental to how hot a fire is and the potential ‘rate of spread’. In our blind panic to “reduce fuel” with indiscriminate broadacre FRBs we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater and ultimately accelerating evolution to a more fire prone landscape.

Tony Blanks from FT-
“So it means that even though we generate smoke, we can’t absolutely guarantee that there will be a direct benefit as a result of it.” - ABC Stateline 20/8/2010

It is all so simple Frank Strie #7 isn’t it?
By the way did any of the people in the main article contact you? Your knowledge in this area would be most valuable….unless they just want to go head-long with blinkers on into burning the landscape (and as a result producing tonnes of fine particle pollution that countries the world over are meeting to implement ways to reduce).

Take gorse for example that has been burnt in the Northern Midlands in recent times. How many people did that stinking smoke affect? Gorse doesn’t have to be burnt. That was just total lack of consideration towards others. There are other ways.

Pyromania is the desire to burn things.
People need help to be shown alternative ways to burning.
If this is what this trial is about then good. If not then thumbs down.
I would like to see the section/s in the manual pertaining to smoke published in these comments.

I would also like to know who in NRM North or Macquarie Franklin has an understanding of the serious health effects of smoke.

I recall it was our own Prof. Davis Bowman who said “There has got to be an understanding that people who complain about the smoke have a legitimate case, the medical science is on their side now,”
This was in relation to FT smoke, but particulate matter is particulate matter. Right?

#7 Frank, do you know if it is possible to establish a small biochar facility on private property at little expense?

It is pointless to get involved with politicians about such things.  They’re best ignored.  We just need to get on and do what is best for a triple bottom line approach at the local level.

At the moment we put all our olive grove prunings through a chipper, which produces quite a huge pile of chips which we leave to break down over several years before using it as compost.

However we cannot do that with the large amount of fuel on other parts of our property.  A permanently sited biochar facility on our property would overcome that problem.

Some good points here about vegetation type and fire risk.
I recently travelled through Victoria, taking 12 days to ride through the Alps and Yarra ranges area.
The Black Saturday fires around Marysville were particularly devestating and also very informative.
Where there were eucalypt dominated forests the fires killed everything, but in gullies and patches where rainforest dominated the fires mostly missed.
The damage to the eucalypt forest has a lot to do with the volatile oils in the trees being ignited, also the understory in the rainforest is much moister and does not ignite and carry small fires as easy.
In Tasmania we have been trying to get rid of rainforest and replace it with eucalypt forest for many decades. The Blackwater road are of the Tarkine is a perfect example. What was once fairly fire proof forest will now carry fire with alarming consequences.
Frank’s ideas of planting fire proof roadside vergers has merit, it may be a bit difficult to get the “must be native” purists to come over to his side.
Although with a bit of work the roads could be revegetated with dogwoods and Myrtle.
As far as hazard reduction burning goes the best time to use this tool is as the fire is coming towards you. We used to pick a line, wait at the bottom of a hill and light our backburns so they burnt up the hill into the slower moving fire coming down. A small blacked out area like we made was enough to stop most fires.( not crown fires though). We saw some crazy stunts caused by fire controllers who were not familiar with bush fires but more used to grass fires near towns. One such controller had people driving tankers along a road and lighting a back burn from the road to burn down a gully. We did point out that lighting a fire to burn down a hill will cause flames to come back at you but he did not understand until the flames were leaping over the top of the glossy fire trucks.
It appears that humans don’t usually learn too well from others but must experience things for themselves before they understand.
In that fire we waited until the controller had gone home for the night and burnt from the bottom of the gully up into the fire to stop it.
It did mean getting out of the truck and carrying a backpack but so be it.

Hello Clive #11, “By the way did any of the people in the main article contact you?”
Answer: No, not since the fires.
And
Thanks for asking for technical information Peter Henning #12:
As a quick response, here the latest article about one of a number of Aussie made prototypes, this one looks to me like a very simple, cleaver slow-pyrolysis unit presented only a few days ago.
This is all work in progress and when we start exploring the inter-related topics, there is an amazing amount of credible exchange happening, anything from small cooker units made from recycled metal containers to multi-million dollar industrial plants of appropriate scale for co-generation of char, thermal energy and power.

For anyone interested in small to medium scale Charcoal and Biochar production units, I strongly recommend to order the Book (on line) by Dr. Paul Taylor, titled ‘The Biochar Revolution’.
I am in e-mail contact with Paul Taylor since last year I have invited the author to visit us here in the Tamar Valley for early 2013 to explore with us the latest findings and to inform us about his 6 month away in the USA and Germany in the second half of 2012.
Paul has a world wide understanding of the latest as he also attended the 2012 US Biochar Conference in Sanoma, California and then whilst visiting Germany in September October, he exchanged information with a number of Researchers there, Switzerland and Austria. 

The photo of the new Jiggi unit can be seen via this link:
http://www.echonews.com.au/news/jiggi-project-at-forefront-of-biochar-revolution/1719528

The article without photo:

Jiggi project at forefront of biochar revolution
Jamie Brown
17th Jan 2013

BURNING ISSUE: The new kiln at the Jiggi bamboo plantation.
INSET: Finished product.

A BAMBOO plantation at Jiggi is the home of an experimental biochar kiln, the brainchild of soil carbon advocates Dr Paul Taylor and Prof Stephen Joseph.

Landowner Kerrie O’Neill is currently commissioning the furnace, which can hold two cubic metres of feedstock - in this case rapid growing, perennial bamboo.

Last Saturday she showed it off to a small gathering of keen gardeners intent on improving their own backyard soil.

For Tweed Valley resident Dr. Taylor, author of the book ‘The Biochar Revolution’, the newly-created kiln will help make a regular supply of this valuable
organic charcoal and at the same time reduce carbon in the atmosphere by storing it underground where it will last for hundreds of years.

Last week Dr Taylor hosted a visit to the area by Prof Joseph of the University of NSW. The pair visited the kiln they designed at Jiggi and demonstrated its efficiency to a workshop group. They are also finding time to create a smaller version, which when finished will be suitable for home use.
They plan to make both designs available in a bid to increase home and small farm biochar production.

The Jiggi kiln is designed to create an enhanced biochar soil additive, based on the research of Prof Joseph, using a blend of chicken manure, straw and clay as well as woody fibre (in this case bamboo) in an attempt to recreate the remarkable Terra Preta soils found in the Amazon basin.

Terra Preta, Portuguese for ‘black earth’ is found in pockets of rich, fertile dirt under the Amazon rainforest, otherwise known for its poor, thin soils.

Dutch scientist Wim Sombroek recognised in the 1950s that Terra Preta was human created since it contained charcoal and other refuse and artefacts of human culture.

The charcoal in Terra Preta soils had been there for up to 3000 years.

Simply sprinkling straight charcoal on the ground may not always have the desired effect on plant life because it may initially lock up nutrients, rather than make them available.

Enhanced ‘Terra Preta’ biochars, on the other hand have been used in field trials with just a few hundred kilograms per hectare, rather than 10 times that much using plain charcoal.

Dr Taylor, an astrophysicist who has turned his attentions to the issues of climate change and renewable energy, pointed out that the term ‘biochar’ was only coined
in 2005 and today it is regarded as a potential ‘magic bullet’ in the race to pull C02 out of the atmosphere.

What makes Dr Taylor and Prof Joseph so excited about this black, granular material is the fact that - like the Amazon Indians - everyday people using simple techniques
can take weeds, waste and woody materials and store their accumulated carbon in the ground for a very long time.

“We can take a waste material, process it and lock it up in the soil and at the same time benefit that soil and make it and food production more resilient,” he said.

“It can enhance water and nutrient holding capacities of the soil and act as a catalyst for micro organisms and plant growth.” ...

Further to the question by Peter Henning #12.
You and anyone interested may like to attend the next event of the Alternative Technology Association’s Tasmania North Branch
website: http://www.ata.org.au
A non-profit community group that aims to use and promote environmentally friendly technology. ATA has around two thousand members across Australia, ...

The ATA’s next Tasmania North Branch February Meeting will be on the 12th Feb at which I will be speaking about pyrolysis technology and biochar and “A whole island: from seashore to mountain” approach. This will be in the Long Room at Launceston Environment Centre, 72 Tamar St. The meetings at “5.30 for 6pm”, and will go to 8pm, including question time.

It’ll be the same somewhere next year-and the year after- and so on.

Ive got news for NRM North and Senator Whish Wilson Pilot Study proposals.
Mercury 20th Article: Burn off Debate Urged
Photo of TFS CEO Mike Brown
Fire officals want vigorous public debate over the need for fuel reduction burns as the state continues to recover from one of its worst bushfire seasons.
The push for discussion of fuel reduction burns follows recent claims that this months bush fires would have been less severs if Greens policies had not stood inthe way of such burn offs. The greens denyed theyopposed the burns.
Tasmania Fire Service chief believes strategic, well executed fuel reduction burns are a way of mitigating bushfire risk. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Emergency Management Minister David O Byrne said the State Government, through the fire service was investing about $400,000 into fuel reduction research.
For fucks sake we dont want more research we need action to bring about fully operational burning by this autumn and following spring.
Council areas with high high fuel loads around the bush interface with towns for a start, Tolmans Hill and Mt Nelson come to mind.
The farmers through TFGA would have tens of thousands of hectares of summer time tinder boxes throughout the State that require urgent fuel load reduction attention.
Get of with the job, dont fiddle about with research nonsense
All is needed to identify target areas do the fields work with the land Owner/Manager and fill out Low Intensity Planning and Recording forms cross check with the Natural Values data base, sign the plan, and be in a state of immediate readiness for time period for burning.
Forestry and Parks have both been doing it that way for that way over the past 20 years, so where is the problem???????????????
Why more time consuming studies and wasting on mainland consultants, meetings followed by more meeting, forming of committies and sub committies.
I bet there will be plenty political interference before the State gets its next lot of bad bushfires!

Where is a rural dwelling in Tasmania that is:

* In a registered bushfire-prone area (according to the TFS and home insurers)

* Has been safely approved for construction by a local council with proper assessment for the location of the dwelling in respect to bushfire risk

* Has been designed and constructed according to Australian Standard AS3959 (Building in bushfire prone areas) including fire retardant cladding

* Has had the property owner/occupier satisfactorily complete bushfire preparation for the property ahead of the current bushfire season, which has been vetted and certified by the TFS

..and which burnt in a bushfire.

Robin you say in #8 “Keeping the ultra Greens and the usual whingers of the public out of harms ways, the Pilot Project should be sucessfull…”

You actually admit there will be harm involved under this trial.

And where do you propose to herd those who oppose this harmful practice to for days or weeks; those within 1000 Km down-wind of the burn? (This is the distance and time that harmful PM2.5’s can travel).

I take it you have plans to relocate wildlife during the deliberate burns, and afterwards when their habitat is destroyed? 

Yuk, smoky low intensity burns.

Looks like more research nonsence is required eh?

#19 Hello Clive, despite your objections to smoke issues and yes I am well aware of people having ailments due to smoke from fires in the open.
We all live within an unique Australian landscape riddled with the potential for generating smoke either by lightning strikes, accidental, negelect or arson causing wildfires as well as a land management tool for fuel reduction burning and eucalypt regeneration treatment.
The recent spate of fires in the open throughout Australia has a devastating cost on peoples lives and the economy.
No singular group can prevent the Australian way of life in dealing with fire, its a fact of life on this continent that nothing will ever prevent smoke arising from the landscape.
The DHS and EPA’s at both Federal and State levels should by now have brought about worthwhile intervention and procedures to assist persons with respiratory problems due to smoke in the open.
The greater majority of Australians would be well aware of their medical conditions and be able to manage them, you know that is true!
There is no such thing as a smoke free environment within our open landscapes.
Clive, be happy as much as I am, tobacco smoking is progressively being removed from public places.

Hi Robin #20, I don’t know where to start, you seem to be jumping all over the place in this thread :-)

Lets try the end, where you raise the point about tobacco smoking being removed from public places.
This isn’t so the whole community can inhale many of the same toxic and cancerous substances by increased landscape burning surely?

Fire should only be used as a last resort as a land management tool because it has been shown to be a dangerous practice when it escapes control lines or is not extinguished properly. There are other methods available and there are new ways of quickly extinguishing many fires when they commence.
Where there is smoke there is fire. Extinguish the fire at the source and the smoke stops.

Lets get to the smoke side of things. You say there is no such thing as a smoke free environment within our open landscapes.
Exactly, there won’t be when people are deliberately burning.
There are alternatives to burning, These have been published here and in other comments and articles.

I agree, the EPA and DHHS should have brought in intervention and proceedures to assist people with respiratory problems due to smoke. But they haven’t have they? Our environmental laws are not worth the paper they are written on if they will not be administered properly.
At present backyard burning (burning on blocks over 2000 square meters) is not being administered at all by LGAT or the EPA.

I don’t agree that the greater majority of Australians would be well aware of their medical conditions and be able to manage them.
Foetuses and young children are more vulnerable for several reasons to smoke: Their biological defence mechanisms are still forming, and they can not detoxify harmful substances and repair damage the way adults can.
COPD attacks are not just a symptom of COPD, they actually cause the disease to progress.
Air pollution is the hidden cause of deaths that were previously attributed to other causes.

Why should the public have to ‘manage medical conditions’ so that a few people can selfishly cause environmental smoke.
This is a similar argument that was put up by the tobacco industry and it is a selfish attitude.
Clean air should belong to everyone. Burners do not have a monopoly on deliberately polluting it.