Did anybody see this; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-22064978

400 calls about grass and rubbish fires in one night!

There have been two near me recently, one up on Chat Moss and one on rough scrub and grassland at the back of makro on the Barton stretch. The latter made me the more upset as it was in an area I have regularly seen pairs of jack snipe and reed bunting.

I wonder if a percentage of these has anything to do with a new 'craze'...kids making homemade bombs...a friend of mine who lives in Swinton posted on facebook about kids round her way making their own explosive devices out of simple and easily bought items. I can't remember the exact concoction but she posted a video and the 'bomb' caused quite a scorch mark on green grass. I imagine if one was set off in area with dead vegetation then a fire would very easily be started.

Paul, a burnt fence is serious enough but it could have been quite easily and catastrophically worse as I'm sure you appreciate.

With regards what good could come out of it I really hope you're successful and I'm sure you will be but I was wondering if something might be done should another such fire occur. Could the local Fire Authority be contacted to discuss attendance times for the Fire Service to such incidents? I'm not sure of the situation in Cheshire but most Fire Services treat 'grass' (sorry!) fires as a low priority with attending crews doing so at normal road speed, unless there is a threat to life or property. Perhaps, if this is the case, then stressing the biological importance of the marsh might assist them to consider their attendance policies for future incidents here? Contacting local attending stations could be an option in order to work out an action plan for future incidents. Crews being aware of local water supplies or access points can considerably cut down the amount of time it takes to restrict fire spread. Areas of perhaps specific importance (a particular breeding bird or colony; area of rare plants etc) could be marked on a map so resources are initially directed in these areas if necessary. If one hasn't already been devised then I'm sure local fire crews would welcome such input, for their own personal safety whilst out there too.

Anyway, I'm probably sticking my nose in where it doesn't belong again so my apologies for that but I would hate to see another such incident at this wonderful location.

There is a train of thought that suggests that regular fires in certain landscapes (grasslands, moorlands etc) do less harm to vegetation than one-off, rare fires. This is because there is build up of dead leaf litter year on year when regular fires to do not occur, and when it eventually goes up in flames it will burn much deeper and cause longer-lasting damage. Regular fires burn through the grassland quickly without damaging most roots as there is not much leaf litter to fuel the fire. Sometimes, our over-reaction to fires in some 'non-human' landscapes by putting them out leaves more leaf litter in areas which would have burnt for future burns and thus will cause a larger more damaging fire when this eventuality happens.

I have a question though, does fire form a natural part of keeping the marsh a marsh here on the Dee or are fires only caused here by certain unsolicited humans?

Thanks.
Henry.

-- Edited by Henry Cook on Thursday 11th of April 2013 10:38:40 AM

Paul Hurst wrote:

---

Though I obviously am very sad about the loss of habitat, especially so near the breeding season, I can't help but think that some people are forgetting that fires are also important for all the habitats. I'm deriving my reasoning from the mediterranean habitats, but I think that the logic applies here as well.

Many of our rarer habitats (eg. Sand dunes), need disturbance (and that includes fires) to renew itself. We all know how a grassland will first be bare soil, than grass, than shrubs, than young trees, and finally an old mature forest. So even for some of our rarer habitats, they are actually in transition towards woodland. By protecting a rare habitat (restricted access, prevent fires) we may be inadvertidely 'destroying' the habitat. An example that springs to mind is when some sand dunes with some rare plants was protected, which caused the decline of the plants because the sand dunes were progressing to the next stage. As a result, the people had to 'destroy' the habitat (i can't remember exactly how- they damaged the sand dunes), which goes against your instinct to preserve the habitat, but which is essential to stop the rare habitat from disappearing. Fires could have been regulating this. Also consider the forest fires that clear areas of mature forests, therefore permitting many shrub or bare ground birds to nest in the middle of the forest (put this in the context when britain was covered in mature forests a long time ago, when these grasslands were rare).

I have no idea of how the ecosystem at Parkgate works, if fire would be a natural regulant there, or what the people there do to maintain the habitat, so maybe my logic doesn't apply there. People lighting grassfires on your patch isn't nice either (and it's dangerous). But please don't disregard fires as a wholy bad thing. Some plants and animals depend on them.

---

I would think its a yes and no here Paul.

How often would natural fires occur on the marshes of Parkgate? And is human interference increasing the amount?

The marshes here are probably kept from succession into the next phase by both grazers (rabbits, voles) and more importantly by the frequent high tides (salt water) and salt spray, thus not allowing trees and shrubs to develop.

A link to a youtube video on deeestuarybirding shows a horrible black patch where the fire clearly left it's mark. However the damage doesn't seem as bad as expected (to the untrained eye) so hopefully some wildlife could have escaped and there will still be some areas where birds and mammals can breed. As for Paul's suggestions below, I certainly hope you are right, but I may be right in saying that fires result in more nutrients being added to the soil which is not required on a marsh like PG. The immediate damage is what is spoken about in the RSPB press release, with no mention of any long-term advantages. But maybe there will be some, you never know with nature. I guess a vote of thanks is in order for those who fought the blaze, attempting to prevent it destroying any more habitat etc.

Though I obviously am very sad about the loss of habitat, especially so near the breeding season, I can't help but think that some people are forgetting that fires are also important for all the habitats. I'm deriving my reasoning from the mediterranean habitats, but I think that the logic applies here as well.

Many of our rarer habitats (eg. Sand dunes), need disturbance (and that includes fires) to renew itself. We all know how a grassland will first be bare soil, than grass, than shrubs, than young trees, and finally an old mature forest. So even for some of our rarer habitats, they are actually in transition towards woodland. By protecting a rare habitat (restricted access, prevent fires) we may be inadvertidely 'destroying' the habitat. An example that springs to mind is when some sand dunes with some rare plants was protected, which caused the decline of the plants because the sand dunes were progressing to the next stage. As a result, the people had to 'destroy' the habitat (i can't remember exactly how- they damaged the sand dunes), which goes against your instinct to preserve the habitat, but which is essential to stop the rare habitat from disappearing. Fires could have been regulating this. Also consider the forest fires that clear areas of mature forests, therefore permitting many shrub or bare ground birds to nest in the middle of the forest (put this in the context when britain was covered in mature forests a long time ago, when these grasslands were rare).

I have no idea of how the ecosystem at Parkgate works, if fire would be a natural regulant there, or what the people there do to maintain the habitat, so maybe my logic doesn't apply there. People lighting grassfires on your patch isn't nice either (and it's dangerous). But please don't disregard fires as a wholy bad thing. Some plants and animals depend on them.

Very Gordon and if we get the warm summer we all want then its going to get a lot worse for fires. Bring on the rain (just with sunny bits in between please)!

Unfortunately there is little the Police can do with such deliberate grass fires. They are extremely difficult (mainly inpossible) to pin point to a specific location of origin, they are usually lit with a lighter (not that forensic evidence would be used in such just grass fires) and unless purpetrators are caught actually in the act of lighting the fire then there's nothing that really can be done. Even when they are caught the CPS is unlikely to pursue the matter and a Police caution is probably the worst they can look forward to. Maybe the Police are not really that interested but unfortunately its a lower priority incident for them and now also for the Fire Service due to cut backs in availability of resources

Very sad, Pete, I hope that if it is deliberate then they nab the culprits :/