Tamb said:

The dead animal count has now increased to millions. Gee that escalated fast.

—-

For quite some time, the estimate of the number of dead animals has been in the hundreds of millions.

Now, we need to have some discussion of what is meant by animal, here. There would be tens of trillions of ants and other small invertebrates in the affected area, and sadly some significant percentage will have perished, but that’s probably not what people are focusing on when considering the beastly headcount.

Let’s assume we’re talking tetrapods: mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles.

(Would the fires have affected many fish? I suppose it’s possible.)

The most widely quoted figures are from Chris Dickman from the University of Sydney. He estimated (a month ago) that the count was 480 million in NSW alone. This only counted mammals (other than bats), birds, and reptiles. It didn’t include amphibians, bats, and non-tetrapods.

This was based on a 2007 report for the Worldwide Fund For Nature called “The impacts of the approved clearing of native vegetation on Australian wildlife in New South Wales”, which mined various recent relevant animal density surveys.

In this report, 77% of these tetrapods were reptiles, 11% were mammals, 12% were birds.

Is there reasons to think these estimates would be broadly inapplicable to the current bushfire situation?
Firstly, the areas affected by approved landclearing are not statistically identical to those affected by recent bushfires. I think it would be fair to say that this difference would not result in a large consistent bias, but adds to the general uncertainty.
Secondly, we would need to assume that the rates of fatality are similar for landclearing as for bushfires. To my mind (and as this isn’t my field I welcome input), if anything the deathcount from bushfires would be higher. The “speed of the front”, the sheer areal rate of destruction and the results of not fleeing are all more severe for these bushfires than for approved landclearing.

Does the estimate pass a spotcheck? Does it, on its face, seem reasonable?

At the time that Dickson made this statement, about 5 million hectares of NSW had burned.

A hectare is 10000 square metres, 1% of a square km. It’s the area of a square that is 100 metres on the side. Dickson’s estimate suggests that the average hectare of destroyed bushland previously held at least 10 mammals, 11 birds, 74 reptiles. From my own experience in forested areas these numbers don’t seem unreasonable. Not all mammals are huge beasts. To call the bandicoots and antechinus “least concern” seems an understatement. To say that there is one mammal per 1000 square metres sounds okay to me.

In conclusion, the estimate of 480 million in NSW (and maybe a billion nationally) seems like a reasonable ballpark figure. If it were me, I wouldn’t have given a 2 significant figure estimate, given the great uncertainty.

Again: this is just for mammals other than bats, birds, and reptiles.

Sydney Uni statement
https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2020/01/03/a-statement-about-the-480-million-animals-killed-in-nsw-bushfire.html
Impacts of landclearing.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318029981_Impacts_of_Landclearing_the_impacts_of_the_approved_clearing_of_native_vegetation_on_Australian_wildlife_in_New_South_Wales

The East Gippsland galaxias, a native Australian fish, has had 100 per cent of its potential habitat burnt.

Leaked report lays bare environmental devastation of Victorian fires

Rule 303 said:

The East Gippsland galaxias, a native Australian fish, has had 100 per cent of its potential habitat burnt.

Leaked report lays bare environmental devastation of Victorian fires

Yeah. But the economic value?

sarahs mum said:

Rule 303 said:

The East Gippsland galaxias, a native Australian fish, has had 100 per cent of its potential habitat burnt.

Leaked report lays bare environmental devastation of Victorian fires

Yeah. But the economic value?

Eleventy bazzillion dollars.

sarahs mum said:

Rule 303 said:

The East Gippsland galaxias, a native Australian fish, has had 100 per cent of its potential habitat burnt.

Leaked report lays bare environmental devastation of Victorian fires

Yeah. But the economic value?

0, can’t burn them in a coal power plant

sarahs mum said:

Rule 303 said:

The East Gippsland galaxias, a native Australian fish, has had 100 per cent of its potential habitat burnt.

Leaked report lays bare environmental devastation of Victorian fires

Yeah. But the economic value?

At least 7, but I unable to name the currency.

I can’t understand how they could intend to log in areas adjacent to those impacted by fire. So much not giving a shittedness.

sarahs mum said:

Rule 303 said:

The East Gippsland galaxias, a native Australian fish, has had 100 per cent of its potential habitat burnt.

Leaked report lays bare environmental devastation of Victorian fires

Yeah. But the economic value?

12 Talons and 6 Darseks

Tau.Neutrino said:

sarahs mum said:

Rule 303 said:

The East Gippsland galaxias, a native Australian fish, has had 100 per cent of its potential habitat burnt.

Leaked report lays bare environmental devastation of Victorian fires

Yeah. But the economic value?

12 Talons and 6 Darseks

It’s the Chinese buying so it’s 5 Mace & 2 Candareens.

One other point I’d mention:

The uncertainties here are great because Australia’s wildlife density surveys are very spotty. Estimates of the number of koalas in existence range from 40000 to over 100000.

It would be nice if there were rolling nationwide surveys, little blocks in typical areas, conducted regularly (e.g over a 5 year cycle). At the moment there are occasional areal density surveys in some areas and large regions with no data.

dv said:

One other point I’d mention:

The uncertainties here are great because Australia’s wildlife density surveys are very spotty. Estimates of the number of koalas in existence range from 40000 to over 100000.

It would be nice if there were rolling nationwide surveys, little blocks in typical areas, conducted regularly (e.g over a 5 year cycle). At the moment there are occasional areal density surveys in some areas and large regions with no data.

The mammal Survey Group have monthly camps. two nights of live trapping with around 70 traps, mix of cage and elliot. Two nights of spotlight surveys of a few hours each, depending whether we got lost or not. Longer camps at easter, xmas and long weekends. results went to the appropriate govt wildlife dept.

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

One other point I’d mention:

The uncertainties here are great because Australia’s wildlife density surveys are very spotty. Estimates of the number of koalas in existence range from 40000 to over 100000.

It would be nice if there were rolling nationwide surveys, little blocks in typical areas, conducted regularly (e.g over a 5 year cycle). At the moment there are occasional areal density surveys in some areas and large regions with no data.

The mammal Survey Group have monthly camps. two nights of live trapping with around 70 traps, mix of cage and elliot. Two nights of spotlight surveys of a few hours each, depending whether we got lost or not. Longer camps at easter, xmas and long weekends. results went to the appropriate govt wildlife dept.

https://www.fncv.org.au/fauna-survey-group/

do more stuff now than when i was a member.

I’m delighted that people have started to take a look at the number of animals killed and injured by bushfires.

Most years in the past, they haven’t given a F^&*

mollwollfumble said:

I’m delighted that people have started to take a look at the number of animals killed and injured by bushfires.

Most years in the past, they haven’t given a F^&*

Between 1901 and 2011 there have been 260 bushfires in Australia associated with a total of 825 known civilian and firefighter fatalities. That’s a tiny number, in absolute terms. 7.5 Px/yr average.

Until this year, a comparative property damage assessment would reveal flood to be many times more damaging.

The last of the three critical priorities in disaster – environment – is finally getting some attention. Let’s see if governments can reverse course before the world’s fucked.

The national total is now 19 million hectares burned, which is quite a lot, really… not much smaller than Victoria.

dv said:

The national total is now 19 million hectares burned, which is quite a lot, really… not much smaller than Victoria.

Sure is. 190,000 square kilometres!

dv said:

The national total is now 19 million hectares burned, which is quite a lot, really… not much smaller than Victoria.

Which is about the size of England plus 3 x Wales.

party_pants said:

dv said:

The national total is now 19 million hectares burned, which is quite a lot, really… not much smaller than Victoria.

Which is about the size of England plus 3 x Wales.

pfffft, hardly worth a mention then.

party_pants said:

dv said:

The national total is now 19 million hectares burned, which is quite a lot, really… not much smaller than Victoria.

Which is about the size of England plus 3 x Wales.

Or maybe one of the Dakotas

ChrispenEvan said:

party_pants said:

dv said:

The national total is now 19 million hectares burned, which is quite a lot, really… not much smaller than Victoria.

Which is about the size of England plus 3 x Wales.

pfffft, hardly worth a mention then.

There have been very large areas burnt in previous years, but in top end and WA. This one’s unusual in being both large and SE Australia.

Compare this year

With the much greater area burnt two years ago.

mollwollfumble said:

ChrispenEvan said:

party_pants said:

Which is about the size of England plus 3 x Wales.

pfffft, hardly worth a mention then.

There have been very large areas burnt in previous years, but in top end and WA. This one’s unusual in being both large and SE Australia.

Compare this year

With the much greater area burnt two years ago.

That top map doesn’t look right. The burnt bit got to the coast at Mallacoota. And a fair bit of the high country burnt too.

buffy said:

mollwollfumble said:

ChrispenEvan said:

pfffft, hardly worth a mention then.

There have been very large areas burnt in previous years, but in top end and WA. This one’s unusual in being both large and SE Australia.

Compare this year

With the much greater area burnt two years ago.

That top map doesn’t look right. The burnt bit got to the coast at Mallacoota. And a fair bit of the high country burnt too.

Moll, that’s a garbage map and you should probably know it. There were massive fires in NT this season, 6 million hectares burnt, and not shown on your map for this year. You should probably review your M.O.

2 years ago was not a remarkable year, in terms of bushfires. This year has been the worst year on record in NSW for area burned by bushfires, by a good margin, and the worst nationwide since the 1970s.

dv said:

2 years ago was not a remarkable year, in terms of bushfires. This year has been the worst year on record in NSW for area burned by bushfires, by a good margin, and the worst nationwide since the 1970s.

There’s still time to break more records.

sarahs mum said:

dv said:

2 years ago was not a remarkable year, in terms of bushfires. This year has been the worst year on record in NSW for area burned by bushfires, by a good margin, and the worst nationwide since the 1970s.

There’s still time to break more records.

I suppose if you are talking calendar years the fire season looks different. Black summer started way back in winter. It’s still going.

Guys guys get a grip, there’s been bugger all burnt this year, map is right I’d say.

Joe Root brought himself on to bowl to liven things up,

SA 1/89.

sibeen said:

Joe Root brought himself on to bowl to liven things up,

SA 1/89.

Shaddup, sibeen, you idiot.

Peak Warming Man said:

Guys guys get a grip, there’s been bugger all burnt this year, map is right I’d say.

There’s been an area roughly the size of Victoria burnt.

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Guys guys get a grip, there’s been bugger all burnt this year, map is right I’d say.

There’s been an area roughly the size of Victoria burnt.

Which contains a lot of invertebrates let alone the rest.

dv said:

buffy said:

mollwollfumble said:

There have been very large areas burnt in previous years, but in top end and WA. This one’s unusual in being both large and SE Australia.

Compare this year

With the much greater area burnt two years ago.

That top map doesn’t look right. The burnt bit got to the coast at Mallacoota. And a fair bit of the high country burnt too.

Moll, that’s a garbage map and you should probably know it. There were massive fires in NT this season, 6 million hectares burnt, and not shown on your map for this year. You should probably review your M.O.

2 years ago was not a remarkable year, in terms of bushfires. This year has been the worst year on record in NSW for area burned by bushfires, by a good margin, and the worst nationwide since the 1970s.

> Moll, that’s a garbage map and you should probably know it.

I do know it (-: It’s the map for this year (since 1 Jan), not for this fire season. Unfortunately, the only maps I have are by calendar year not by bushfire season. If you can find maps of burnt area by either month or by bushfire season then please let me know, I’d like to turn them into a ewetube video.

> 2 years ago was not a remarkable year, in terms of bushfires.

I agree. There’s been less burning of the top end this bushfire season than normal. Two years ago was typical. Burning an area the size of Victoria in a single bushfire season is not remarkable.

Well that was a trick. Get off my lawn.