Talk:Bushfire

North/south?

This statement has been in the article for some time: In the south, bushfires are most often started by lightning. However, near populated areas, accidents and arson cause many fires. In the north, most fires are deliberately lit. Can anyone provide a reference? Sounds like nonsense to me. -- Ian ≡ talk 08:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

yeah, it sounds like nonsense to me as well, hope they remove it...

i agree... anywayz south rox yewwwwww —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.73.13.89 (talk) 07:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Timing of fires in the north

Fires in northern Australia are almost non-existent in winter. Winter storms are extremely rare so natural fires obviously don't occur then. Human set fires are ignited when there is sufficient moisture to ensure the grass can respond with new growth. Traditional wisdom dictates that fires not be set until at least two inches of rain have fallen AFTER October. This is definitely not winter, nor is it the dry season. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.29.68.206 (talk • contribs) .

• Do you have any sources? and also please sign your comments on the talk pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bidgee (talk • contribs) .

Sign my comments says an anonymous poster.

And yeah, I have references, how many would you like?

Anderson, E.R., Pressland, A.J., McLennan, S.R., Clem, R.L., & Rickert, K.G. (1988). The role of fire in native pasture management. In Native pastures in Queensland their resources and management (eds W.H. Burrows, J.C. Scanlan & M.T. Rutherford). Queensland Government Press, Queensland.

Bowman, D.M.J.S. & Prior, L.D. (2004) Impact of Aboriginal landscape burning on woody vegetation in Eucalyptus tetrodonta savanna in Arnhem Land, northern Australia. Journal of Biogeography, 31, 807-817.

Roberts, B. (ed) (1990) Fire Research in Rural Queensland. Queensland Govrnment Publishers, Brisbane.

Williams, R.J., Congdon, R.A., Grice, A.C., & Clarke, P.J. (2003) Effect of fire regime on plant abundance in a tropical eucalypt savanna of north-eastern Australia. Austral Ecology, 28, 327-338.

At this a point a better question would be where you are getting your information from? I can't even imagine why any grazier would light a fire in the middle of the dry season as you suggest. Such an action would destroy all standing feed. What would stock eat for the next 4-6 months? In Northern Australia fires in winter are seen as a disaster. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.29.68.194 (talk • contribs) .

• • Do you have any Online sources? Yes I forgot to sign my comment but please sign your comments with ~~~~. -- Bidgee 22:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Photo description

The photo with the description 'Long term damage of the Bogong Bush Complex in 2003' What does this mean? What do you mean by long term damage? What is 'Bogong Bush Complex? Please explain? I intend radically change this description. Lentisco 04:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Winter in Australia is, when there is summer in Europa.

Summer in Australia is, when there is winter in Europa.

That means in June, July and August is winter in Australia.

That means in December, January and February is summer in Australia.

Bushfire happens most of the time in summer in Australia, because of the dry weather. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.192.84 (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Geographical bias

This article is biassed towards Australia, but bushfires (similar in some ways, different in other) occur in other parts of the world and the term 'bushfire' is used extensively in Africa. Either material from other regions of the world like Africa should be added or the title should be changed to "Bushfires in Australasia" to reflect the geographic coverage. Rexparry sydney 03:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears that neither this article nor Wildfire really cover much on African fires. Perhaps this article could be divided into sections: African and Australasia. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There is already an article called Bushfires in Australia which appears to duplicate much of this material. Is there any way in which a bushfire differs from a wildfire? If not, perhaps "Bushfire" should redirect there and a bunch of geographically specific articles be spun-off.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Why then should we use the term 'wildfire' over 'bushfire'? Bushfires, as per the term, occur in many different countries in which that term is in widespread use, not just Australia. The article should not be deleted and the scope of the article Bushfires in Australia is limited to Australia and is not appropriate to merge or take the place of the 'Bushfire' article. Furthermore, the article 'Bushfires in Australia', does not replicate much of the information in this article, it's content pertains to Australia in particular. Nick carson (talk) 06:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Could we add a section of bushfire-prevention methodology...

through horticultural, forest, phytosynthetic, agricultural, gene technologies or environmental engineering ???--165.228.147.130 (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Such as hybridizing desert plants with rainforest plants or even aquatic plant by engineering water, sugar contents of trees--202.173.190.40 (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

fog favorite trees moderate the temperature of climate plus the advantage of bushfire prevention but being of a road-safety risk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.173.190.40 (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Mountain dew trees prevent fire but maybe disease sensitive

High sugar-content trees have the same advantages as high-water content trees but unfavorable to climate

Now we have got an artificial-rain tech to preventing drought. Could we develop an artifical dew/fog tech, which is a middle way to combat the two extremes of bushfire and flood? --202.173.190.40 (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

After having googled the topic, little information is available to the pulic and I'm sure the broad research of this area is worthful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.173.190.40 (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?as_q=bushfire+prevention&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr= —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.173.190.40 (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Short circuits

Fires can be ignited by short circuits caused by wind or fallen branches causing non-insulated aerial power wires to touch. These shorts can be prevented by changing to insulated Aerial Bundled Conductors where the three phase wires and the earth wire are grouped in a bundle.

Tabletop (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Perhaps we should consider merging some of the information from Wildfire, Wildfire suppression, and List of wildfires with Bushfire, or vice versa. I don't think it really matters one way or another, there just needs to be a single source of general fire info. However, there can exist separate articles on The history of fire in Austrailia or Fire suppression techniques in Austrailia (or elsewhere). Thoughts? MrBell ^(talk) 18:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

We already have a list of fires in this article. Also I do not support merging Bushfire with Wildfire vice versa. We could have a section about suppression of bushfires but both articles should be left separate. Bidgee (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Bushfires in Australia have a strong cultural context, and because of the way in which population is distributed in Australia, affects it quite differently to the US and Europe, so there is a good case to have a separate article. Orderinchaos 00:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The Wildfire entry has a clear North American emphasis. Bushfires are specifically Australian (and perhaps NZ and New Caledonia as has been mentioned in the article - but surely the New Caledonian ones would have a French name.) The fires in Australia are probably the most extreme and deadly in the world, so the local name should be respected. The term wildfire is not used in Australia, except by commercial media following American influences, as they tend to do in many areas. Roblowe48 (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel that it would be best to keep the articles separate as each has a reasonably sized article and bushfires are specifically Australian. Cgoodwin (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the Bushfire article is almost entirely about Australia, perhaps the solution is to rename Bushfire to something like "Bushfires in Australia". But "Bushfire" and "Wildfire" are clearly very similar terms and it makes no sense to have separate generic articles. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Obviously wildfire/bushfires occur around the world, but I agree with the sentiment here that bushfires have a very central historical and cultural (for want of a better word) position in australia, and that the "wildfire" article is US-focussed at the expense of specific Australian context. Keep them separate, but perhaps more work needs to be done to more strongly define the Australian context of bushfires. --Merbabu (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Though "technically" a bushfire is similar to a wildfire. in comman speach the terms differ. The Word Bush refers not to a specific plant but to the enviroment similar to the "wilderness" or "the wild". Furthermore due to the flora, and climate of australia a bushfire can result from different factors and act in different way.

example: some flora require fire in order to reproduce thus they increase the likely hood of fires occuring.

The manner in which the enviroment must be managed in order to prevent a severe bushfire is individual due to these factors.

The Australian focus of the article is justified as the term Bushfire comes from Australia and is not used widely enough outside of the region to be termed as "bushfires in Australia". Granted, sections should be added to describe bushfires in New Zealand and other countries where the term is WIDELY used. Finally in Australia the cultural significance and misunderstanding of the term wildfire justifys the existance of a seperate page for bushfire Digmores (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the merge and strongly support keeping Bushfire separate from Wildfire for the reasons relating to the Australian culture and distinctive environment as given above. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus was no; I will remove the tag. What about incorporating the science of fire? How might combustion, crawling fires, crown fires, detection, etc., be better presented in this article without copying verbatim from the Wildfire article (or is verbatim copying permissible)? MrBell ^(talk) 19:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

hmm..just proposed a merge, but judging by this it seems there is opposition to the idea, but not on many substantive but rather emotional ties to the article as a facet of Australia itself. I think the article should exist separately due to the specialized (albeit similar) use of the term 'bushfire'; and, I think that as I said before, this article has a lot to gain (as well as people using WP in general as a resource), by integrating and sharing content on the wildfire article.Apothecia (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Not worldview tag

I strongly feel that this tag is inappropriate and should be removed. My reasoning follows on from the above discussion about the colloquial nature of the terminology. The tag should be removed on the basis that the merger proposal has been rejected, as the grounds for this were based on a bushfire being different from a wildfire.

Consider the following articles: Freeway and Motorway. Here we have quite distinct articles around a similar subject, with the freeway article focusing on the countries where the term freeway is used, and the Motorway article focusing on the UK and Ireland where the term is used. As the 'not worldview' tag is not justified for the colloquial article on Motorways, then so it is also not justified for the colloquial article on Bushfires. --Savlonn (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If Bushfire were to incorporate a discussion of other countries and continents, then I would agree the tag could be removed (e.g. see Motorway#History - discussion of Pakistan). Perhaps more information could be gathered about fires in New Caledonia or elsewhere where the term bushfire is used (African continent?). MrBell ^(talk) 15:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well we need people to contribute such information rather than just talk about it. Also, since when has the same view been collectively held by the entire world, ever? "Not worldview" is a rubbish term. Nick carson (talk) 06:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Impacts of Bushfires

come on all you smart people out there (not me) put the impacts of bushfires here...i need it fo my assignment!! wait i could always go to assignment.com hmmmmm.... ♥love kenzie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.73.13.89 (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge to wildfire?

Great article, lots of good info, and I think it would be more comprehensive if merged into wildfire. The differentiations between the two (if any) can be handled here, but otherwise both articles could stand to gain a lot by merging relevant information and techniques into one article, while avoiding confusion at the same time.Apothecia (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The Bushfire article appears to be a typical example of a sub-topic content fork as per the Summary style guideline. As such, I am not sure a merger would be appropriate, especially considering that a combined Wildfire/Bushfire article would be about 100k in size, which is well over size where the splitting of articles is recommended. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't seem to be very long, (~17000kb) compared with wildfire (~83000 kb).

Also, I am not proposing a complete merge, as there are differences between wildfires and bushfires, (if indeed the term is applied mainly or solely to AUS), but, there is some overlap which is not only redundant, but could potentially be confusing to a casual browser of WP.

As I said before, I think that this article can drop some weight through a partial merge with wildfire, this article would remain, but I think in a more specific manner to AUS/SouthAfrica.Apothecia (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the merge, but keep this article per the previous consensus. Perhaps there could be a single article that discusses the science of wild/forest/bush fire with additional articles that focus on the region-specific details - such as Eucalyptus in AUS, regional heat/drought cycles (e.g. El Niño), USFS decision in early 1900s to suppress all fires, etc.. MrBell ^(talk) 16:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm amazed this merge hasn't happened yet. Actually no I'm not amazed, because it's typical of Wikipedia. There is no difference between a bushfire and a wildfire. Zero. Zilch. None. They are just different words. There are regional differences in bush/wildfires, and these should be handled using regional articles, "Bushfires in Australia", etc. Actually this article as it stands contains almost zero non-Australian content and should be merged into to Bushfires in Australia. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Support a merge. Half the article already deals explicitly with non-australian content for goodness' sake. The wildfire article is much more comprehensive, and is very much applicable to Australian conditions in most cases - hardly anything would need to be changed in the master article. Suggest editing Wildfire to explain regional names for "Bushfires", and redirecting the Australian specific content to Bushfires in Australia. Perhaps add a DAB to Wildfire along the lines of

"Bushfire" redirects here. For Australian-specific information, see Bushfires in Australia.

. Willing to help perform the merge and argue for the necessary changes in Wildfire.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, basically per the arguments last time this was proposed (see above). I don't see what has changed to indicate that there might be a new consensus this time around. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC).

Oppose, as per the above comment.Cgoodwin (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The current proposal under discussion at Talk:Wildfire is to merge Bushfire to Bushfires in Australia, which keeps the cultural context but doesn't require duplicating a huge amount of the Wildfire article.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bushfires in Australia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)