Another knee jeck reaction to a natural event.

Re the follwing paragraph: "For some prescribed burning has assumed the status of unchallengeable orthodox dogma. But in my view hazard reduction burning is becoming completely ineffective as global warming takes hold. Even when carried out with environmental sensitivity it still has inevitable impacts on native flora and fauna"

It is notable that the 'some' who regard prescribed burning as an "orthodox dogma" are those who work in the realm of forest and fire management, whilst those (such as the author) who doubt its effectiveness generally have little or no practical experience of forest fire.

In a warming climate, the use of prescribed burning becomes even more important as it has the capability to make bushfires more controllable. The alternative of not burning and thereby allowing fuels to accumulate to heavy accumulations makes fires burning even under relatively benign conditions, very difficult to control, and more dangerous to both firefighters and the public.

Much of the fear about the environmental impact of prescribed burning is irrational because people don't understand what it is and how often it would be done. Too many people see images of Black Saturday type devastation when they imagine prescribed burning and think it entail burning areas every 3 to 4 years. In fact, the RC's recommendation to burn 5% of the forest per year, equates to burning each part on average once every 20 years.

The research shows that environmental damage would be incurred by both burning very frequently (less than 10 years apart), and leaving areas unburnt for 30 - 40 years. The RC's recommendation strikes an appropriate balance.

Well said Mark Poynter - right on the mark.
Remind me to start lecturing Paul Collins on religious matters. Ever since he purchased a bush block and got burnt out in 2003, Collins has set himself up as an authority on forest management.
He has as much right to do that as I have to teach the Pope religion!
What the R.C. found regarding prescribed burning is the very minimum that ought to be done.
On ABC Radio, Bushfire scientist David Packham suggests up to 12%. I have no doubt that Bushfire scientist Phil Cheney would agree.
What the bushfire R.C. completely missed was that the John Cain Government stopped prescribed burning in 1981. Why? The Greens had just helped his election and flushed with the Franklin River success they gave themselves the authority to treat Australian forests the same as deciduous forests.

If Paul Collins is searching for truth, then he is straying way off the track by embracing and preaching green ideology.

This is surprising, given that he regards himself as an historian. It is obvious that, as an historian, he did not put much effort into checking out the history of the anthropogenic climate change (AGW) movement (or should I say religion) of which the greens are devout followers. He would have found that AGW is an hypothesis which has no scientific proof to justify it. The IPCC has spent more than 20 years "researching" it, but has failed to find the proof . The best the IPCC can do is come up with the assertion, " Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”.

Paul Collins has his head in the sand if he believes that the Black Saturday fire intensity was not influenced by the lack of hazard reduction by the Victorian Govt, whose policies in this regard had been set to appease the greens

Paul Collins has never been a practitioner of fire/land management, only a voyeur looking on from a distance.
He has never known the experience of being involved in a prescribed burn performed in Autumn that then gives shelter to wildlife and firefighters the following Summer at FDI's exceeding 100.
He doesn't share the anger at poor land management that allows high intensity fires that kill trees that were standing when Cook sailed up the coast.
He doesn't understand that even if it is true that the current warming in the climate is anthropogenic, the only thing we can manage TODAY is the amount of fuel in the landscape.
Paul Collins is to fire management as Richard Dawkins is to religion, a heretic.

The trouble with the "its all the fault of global warming" argument, is that it means nothiing can be done to minimise serious bushfires in the future, because, as I understand the argument to run, nothing can be done to stop global warming. In fact this is a defeatist, and largely inhumane argument. In fact a great deal can be done, and amongst all those things, the application of a sensible program of fuel reduction burning is one of the most important.

It should be remembered that not all of the fires that killed people on Black Saturday started on that day. Some were burning for days, and had they not been burning with such intensity in such heavy fuels could more easily have been caught before the worst of the fire weather arrived.

I find Paul Collins article depressing. He has no training or experience in bushfire science, but puts himself forward as an expert. He has no responsibility for bushfire operations, but is critical of those who do. He rejects the wisdom of people with a life-time of experience and scholarship in fire science and operations, but takes as gospel the words of academics who no almost nothing. This does not make for a useful contribution to the challenge of preventing another Black Saturday in the future.

Yorkie