permaculture

[<permed@nor.com.au>]

>I am not sure you are totally right about fire being introduced into 
>landscapes
>by humans.  Here in the Pacific Northwest huge forest fires caused by 
>lightning
>have always swept this part of the continent .  In fact, trees such as the
>lodgepole pine have adapted to this cycle by developing cones that will ONLY
>open in response to intense heat, such as from a forest fire. I don't know 
>about
>other parts of the world, but why should they be so different?  Where there's
>lightning, there's fire.
>Heide

The same arguments have been put forward here in Australia in support of 
regular burn-off practices regarding fire ecology species (acacia, 
banksia, eucalypts etc) germination response to fire. Botanic 
archaeologists find that fire forescence dramatically increased over 
20,000 years ago well beyond the frequency of lightening strike origin. 
Turn the ecological clock back far enough and you won't find much in the 
way of these fire ecology species occuring here on the Australian east 
coast, which was dominated by rainforest plants. In Victoria there's a 
tree known as Australian Ash which takes 100 years to form viable seed 
and a bush fire will kill a mature tree - the assumption has been drawn 
that severe fire from lightening strike would have occured in that 
particular ecosystem in something like a 200+ year cycle.
Tim Flannery's theories are very controversial in Australia, but I think 
they provide a lot of food for thought regarding assumptions about fire 
and 'noble savage' thinking. He contends that humans irreversibly alter 
and degrade their environment and then have to develop strategies and 
techniques towards some degree of stability (sustainability) to survive.
Fire is and has been used extensively by hunter gatherer societies as an 
easy way to flush out game, and large (slow & cumbersome) herbivours are 
the easiest prey and the first wave of extinction in not only the 
Australian landscape.
Robyn