What Burnt A large part of a Sydney Water Board bush regeneration project area in the Lane Cove River valley was burnt on Thursday 6 January - an area stretching some 7 kilometers from Brown's Watehole northward. It was originally thought that a single fire started at Brown's Waterhole and from there it spread up the slopes on either side of the river, but later information suggests that a number of fires were set along the river by someone moving quickly, perhaps on a bicycle. Most of the understorey was burnt out (as well as several thousand tubestock) and as the wind picked up trees with rough or stringy bark acted as torches to feed the flames into the tree canopy - a classic crown firre. The fires leapfrogged back and forth across the river, but selectively sparing quite large patches of bush along the river and more predictable detouring around large rocks, clearings and the green lawns around houses. Bush regenerators were down on the river at first light on Friday and although many trees were still smoking, it seemed that the fires were under control but later that day the fires picked up again, racing downriver to Killara, Lindfield and West Chatswood. Mowbray Park, another regeneration project and unburnt since Boxing Day 1957 (according to a local resident), was almost totally burnt out, the fires stopping just short of adjacent houses. Several residents praised the efforts of bush regeneration teams saying that the removal of large quantities of dead weeds and other rubbish over the past two years had certainly helped save their houses. Immediately after the fires Monitoring: Within 24 hours bush regenerators had established monitoring sites on the Lane Cove River and at Mowbray Park. Photographs were taken and basic data collected; at this point we were not quite sure what to look at, but it seemed sensible to set out transects and quadrats and make some inital observations. Because we had comprehensive data for each site prior to the fires, we expect to gain a lot of basic knowledge about the recovery of bush after a fire - particularly at bush regenerations sites that have been worked over a period of five years or so. Over the next week, many burnt areas in the northern Sydney region were visited, investigating edge sites where the flames were hindered by creekline vegetation, drainage lines or dense Privet growth. We also looked to see how the dreaded Pittosporum fared as we hope to monitor its regrowth (or lack of). Hopefully, some good research papers are on their way. Regeneration and Weed Control: At bush regeneration sites on the Lane Cove River inspection revealed that the very degraded areas along Terrey's and Devlin's Creek had not been burnt - despite our fervent prayers, so that it was business as usual in the upper tributaries to prevent weed seed dispersal into the main project areas along the river. This work took on an added urgency as the burnt sites are now open to weed invasion from a variety of sources, not least the weeds in the upper catchment. As an aside we were most disappointed to see that the standing Privet has not been incinerated - the fires had merely blackened the stems and moved on - a great disappointment indeed. Small teams were sent into burnt areas where woody weeds had not yet been poisoned to drill/poison the burnt stems in situ; these included Privet, Camphor Laurel and exotic vines which had almost certainly not been killed by the fire. Using teams of one or two people was thought to be preferable to sending in larger groups which would have caused damage to regenerating natives and/or the unstable topsoil. For the first few weeks there was very little in the way of regeneration, but following light rains, the ground in some areas became a green "carpet" - but, what were those tiny seedlings, weed or native? Unless seedlings could be positively they were left to grow a little more. In each team one person was assigned to an area - and each week that person is responsible for investigating and taking whatever action is required. Again, one person will do less damage than a horde of bush regenerators. As for the future - "slowly does it" seems to be direction. Investigate, monitor and weed carefully. Reassess continually. Take photographs and record your observations on a regular basis. If weeding is necessary in areas where natives are recovering, stick to one access point and take care not to unduly disturb the soil profile. Keep off steep slopes and riverbanks if possible. Some comments and observations: The Predictable Backlash Within days reports were coming in about bulldozers clearing undergrowth and residents chopping down trees. Understandably people were frightened and possibly many overreacted. Media hype was probably responsible for a lot of this over-reaction, and if the predicted backlash against conservationists does occur, much of the blame must be laid at irresponsible reporting. Many people have contacted our office, including local and interstate newspapers and an FM radio station asking for definitive statements on "how to make the bush safe for people", how to "select fire-proof garden plants" and other impossible questions. One inquirer even asked me to assign blame - "was it the greenies or the council?" Everyone wants to get in on the act Leaving aside multiple newspaper articles and gardening programs aside, and not being one to miss a commercial advantage, a major chemical company hired an advertising agency to promote the use of herbicide to "get in there and kill the weeds" after the fires. Well meaning perhaps, and organised properly of great advantage, but just how many people are going to get out there and spray everything in sight, either in their own properties or over the back fence. The rationale goesweeds grow back fast after fire, so it follows that all those seedlings must be weeds, so spray them out - a dangerous situation! Taking a Positive Attitude: Driving around the suburbs over the past few weeks has highlighted just how blase Sydneysiders had become about the dangers of bushfire. Never have so many gutters and backyard rubbish piles been cleaned out so quickly. Land managers and bush regenerators are going to get a lot of flack about pushing the "save the bush" barrow. If we are to further the cause of urban bushland conservation in the long-term, this negative reaction must not be fuelled by our own reactions. We must approach the argument sensibly and avoid conflict situations and most important, to avoid assigning blame. Avoid the "if you hadn't dumped all that rubbish over the back fence, none of this would have happened" approach. Mind you, it may be true, but it isn't politcally astute to say so, nor is it likely to convince these people that urban bushland is valuable. The most constructive thing we can do at this time is to provide practical advice about replacing garden plants (possibly suggesting large-leaved "rainforest" vegetation for the home garden in vulnerable areas), providing practical help to allow elderly residents to clean up overgrown backyards and providing a free "pick-up" service for weed debris and fire rubbish. Finally, for those people who want to help out in bushland areas, training, encouragement and supervision with bush regeneration projects should be provided.