The abodiginies didn't have to put up with people whinging on the phone about the smoke upsetting their asthma or whatever.
If the neighbouring tribe came over to give them an earful they ate them. People are an excellent scource of protein.
When we start doing that, the complaints about the smoke will drop off and we wont have as many deaths from bushfires.
Although the overall fatality rate might be similar.

I want to know where this aboriginal prescribed burning thing comes from. What is the proof? Sounds weird.
It makes no sense that a nomadic people, who followed the food/water sources would have a need to burn stuff to help it replenish itself (which takes 10yrs, so what did they write down the schedule of places to come back to...?)

I think they took adavantage of areas where lightning had started a fire ie: the new growth years later meant it was bountiful so they stayed there a while. Now there is this myth they did deliberate burning off. It doesn't make a lot of sense so I'd like to hear the proof / rationale / research

I don't know how accurate this is - but an archaeologist ex girlfriend of mine told me that "firestick farming" by the Aboriginals was mainly a method of concentrating game into smaller areas to make hunting easier.
The side effect of the burning was the patchwork of burnt, recovering and regrown areas which naturally limited massive outbreaks of fire.

The continual burning and hunting over thousands of years killed off a lot of animal species, and affected the types of trees, plants and animals that survived.

The myth that the Aboriginals lived in harmony with nature and didn't damage the land is just that - a myth.
They did a heck of a job of changing the Australian landscape and fauna since their arrival [and pushing out whoever the previous occupants were].

Whitefella is doing similar job of changing the landscape - just a damn sight faster.


stephen