Fires in KNP

[Flutterby]

[Richprins]

This year is unusual...some small areas bunt in February already, and many normal burns since then.

But it is dry, very dry, burning will be different, IMO, and regular and unintentional...

[RogerFraser]

Seen two reports of fires tonight one close to Lower Sabie and another on the Satara Webcam

[Mel]

Looks a bit less now... but it did before already and flamed up again...

[nan]

oups... not really what animals need

[Richprins]

A revisit of the issue by Mr Nigel Fernsby, previously Vice Chairman of the Ornithological Association of Zimbabwe (OAZ)





Some years ago I was rebuffed when I approached both Birdlife South Africa and the Endangered Wildlife Trust about opposing the amount (or all) of the destructive ‘hot burning’ that is carried out in much of the summer rainfall regions of Southern Africa (including the Kruger National Park) in the dry season of May through to November. This burning, done by modern man, turns the habitat that is burnt into immediate black desert – despite that it is temporary desert, until the rains arrive to enhance some grass growth. This temporary desert becomes inert ground, too hot by day and too cool by night and too excessively dried out for the soil structure to be a ‘living organism’ as it should be. There is no food supply for almost all nature under those temporary desert conditions, and no cover or nesting material; the soil is very prone to erosion and losses of fertility, and water penetration and retention in the soil are depleted. Trees are killed by the fires, and a gradual longer term desertification sets in when the practice is repeated on a relatively frequent cycle, as proves to be the case. There are so many hazards with this form of grassveld and bushveld management that, with my background, I had felt compelled to campaign against these reckless destructive burning practices.



I know that there are academics who have studied the hot burn system, and there are some who swear by it, and are paid to promote it. But fortunately two timely bits of recent research in the KNP now reveal, and wholly support, some of the facts of my campaign against these Hot Burn methods that I, and others, see as coming from a contrived form of science.



Firstly, researcher, Tercia Strydom, as reported in SAN Parks Times (Autumn Edition, March 2015, page 18), has found, through her field research trials, that following burning on both basalt and granite soils, that water penetration into the soil is reduced where the habitat has been burnt – ie better water intake into the soil on unburnt conditions, meaning, also, that there is less run-off of rain water when not burning. This is not a surprising research trial’s result as agriculturists – farmers, soil chemists and agronomists – have known this soil / moisture phenomenon for six or more decades, but many ‘so-called ecologists’ have been in denial on this – they insist on burning! But be assured, there are many well informed environmentalists who abhor the burn regimes! From reading this article on page 18 (not written by Tercia Strydom), it is impossible to understand why SAN Parks ever conduct any fire regimes at all, other than to be totally bloody minded to burn fires! There are so many contradictions against burning regimes mentioned in the article! They obviously get the feeling they have to show they are doing something to earn their keep when burning the bushveld – there is no other valid explanation.



The other point of research comes from the two primed very hot burns carried out in the Afsaal area of Kruger in 2011 and 2013. These results, as noted from the SAN Parks Times, (Winter Edition, June 2015, page 27) and backed by Dr Freek Venter and Dr Izak Smit, state that “Biologically speaking, one or two high-intensity fires were not found to be a quick solution for woody encroachment. While there was a major reduction of slow-recruiting tall trees, short ones quickly recovered to their pre-fire condition. Furthermore, the researchers found that “repeated, cooler fires did not open the landscape at all during this trial. In fact, recovery was so quick that one growing season after the fire the landscape was denser than before and very comparable to an area that did not burn at all”. And then, alarmingly, it continues “In four years and after two high-intensity fires, 35% of tall trees were removed from landscape where the experiment was conducted”. N. B. Not only were ‘35% of tall trees removed’, but also ‘there was a major reduction of slow-recruiting tall trees’, and yet the thickets continued.



The above information is what I was telling Birdlife and the EWT some years ago through gathered information and from my personal bush experiences, mostly in Zimbabwe . I had informed the Kruger General Manager of Conservation, midway through the KNP Hot Burn trials, that the trials would produce very similar results to their eventual findings. The moral of the story from the above is; is it the Elephant or Fire that is destroying most of the big tall trees? Uninformed persons, in rash statements, are too keen to put all the blame on Elephants!!



So, from the consequence that the hot burn objectives are a dismal failure in what they were set out to achieve, and that they broadly damage the environment, I conclude that there is no logical ecological future for support of desert causing Grassveld and Bushveld dry season hot burning, and contend that concerned NGOs should voice their opposition to, and their rejection of, these destructive burn practices. – That would, indeed, be ‘Turning Kruger Green’.



A ‘side-show tragedy’ emanating from these fires is the casualty level of Wildlife from the first Afsaal trial hot burn fire. The general public reported at least one White Rhino with scalded flesh hanging off its body (photo in Saturday Star) and the observation of tortoises ‘exploding’ from the heat. It did not come as a surprise that requests to SAN Parks for casualty figures from the two fires were promised but never honoured.



After all, burning is nothing about Conservation – it is blatent destruction. Who would burn the compost and leaf-mould in their own garden? That is the parallel!

[Puff Addy]

Thanks for this!

[Lisbeth]

Personally I always hated these fires, but thought that they were useful (apart from the animals that get caught in the fire ) Now another source says that they are extremely damaging. Who to believe

[nan]

me too, I hate these fires
so for animal


and not sure how is needed

a big part of Europe and even Africa used to slash and burn agriculture and gradually they abandoned

[Lisbeth]

Yes, exactly! I think that science has opted for the natural way