[plug] [OT] CALM burns, protesting Iraq (was: Free speach[sic])

[Steve Grasso]

On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 16:09, Leon Brooks wrote:
> On Sunday 02 February 2003 10:50 pm, Adrian Blockley wrote:
> > CALM have a very tough job and work very hard to minimise
> > haze events due to fuel reduction burns
>
> They could try doing them in late autumn, and in small blocks, which would
> kill less endangered critters and result in less runaways.
[snip]

In a perfect world, where resources and suitable burning weather are 
plentiful, the size of the area to be protected is smaller, and the overlay 
of legislative constraint less encumbering, I would agree. However, like 
everything in life, what actually happens is the best compromise that can be 
arranged. Sad but true.

I suspect that the haze risk for late Autumn burning would be similar to 
early spring given prevailing wind and weather patterns. Feel free to provide 
evidence to the contrary. Smaller block sizes = larger number of individual 
fires to achieve the same level of protection afforded by the desired mozaic 
of burnt and unburnt forest. I don't see how this will help with fewer 
runaways, since there are potentially more sources of ignition over a longer 
time period. Smaller block size also = greater cost.

Anyway, here's what CALM has to say on forests and fires in overview: 
http://www.naturebase.net/forest_facts/fire_forest.html

PS. Don't be misled by the email addy, I'm not a CALM employee, although I do 
have a forest ops background and have been involved in fire protection first 
hand. Flames to me, but I won't care cos I still have my suit :-P

Cheers,
Steve