No, it's not them but the coward decision-makers who kowtow to them and for a few votes! Imagine if we had bipartisan governments.

And if the labor and liberal parties exchanging preferences? Those tails that wag dogs would never get a guernsey! And the will of the people would be more accurately reflected as opposed to massively manipulated in dirty deals done at midnight!

It's heat per se, not fire specifically that breaks seeds open! Fuel load and bone dry conditions is a disaster of biblical proportions going somewhere to happen. Seeds that germinate in fire also germinate in baker's ovens proving it's heat specifically that opens them!

We could turn much off our national parks into man-made rainforest/wetland. Rain forests and wetlands act as natural fire breaks And could all be completely sustained by effluent currently flushed! And stormwater runoff.

There's more here than meets the eye, to confirm subjectively cherry-picked data.

Fuel can be reduced by a number of means, and intensive cell grazing is superior. One notes that selective logging assisted control as did annual grazing in national parks etc. And opposed at every turn by the lunatic fringe/green movement!

Yes, the runaway fires were the consequence of tinder-dry conditions and excessive record heat! Some were the result of back burning that escaped containment lines. Or traditional mosaic burning that did likewise!

Intensive cell grazing doesn't allow fuel to build up, but rather returns it to the fire-hardened ground broken open by sharp cloven hooves, as organic manure.

Introduced dung beetles ensuring it is buried to break down and sequester the carbon in more friable soil, that absorbs and retains more moisture.

If one can reduce the fuel load with grazed herd animals an for a profit, why burn feed as animals starve?

Not all environmentalists can be chucked into the crowd of green herd think!

And insane! As is promoting this (coal, lobbyist's) (burn baby burn) humbug!
TBC. Alan B.

The first animals to repopulate burnt bush are goannas.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hpxeqiyQLlk

Cont: There are some real solutions and ones that mean giving up rigid herd think and try some new ideas! New ideas resisted at every turn by incompetent administrations and others controled by just 15% of the nation (unions) and none of them concerned with the interests of the bush! Just winning and holding power for its own sake!

As long as a tiny minority want us padlocked to foreign-owned and foreign-controlled coal?

Not very much will change apart from creative carbon accounting!

We need to return the inmates to the asylum and put rational adults in charge!

We just don't need anymore narcissistic egotistical egoists at the helm and steering the ship of state in ever decreasing circles as they scapegoat their decisions or lack thereof!

Or put the earplugs in and talk, talk, talk!

We stand on our record, etc, etc. yackitty yack, blah, blah, blah!

And smile, you're on candid camera. Another photo op! Yummy!

Nudge nudge, a nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse. Know what I mean?
Alan B.
.

Same old. Same old. Another in OLO's repetitious line of News Limited like commentators blaming "leftwing" environmental messengers and firebugs.

Climate Change (for Whatever Reason) increaasingly = Drought where fire can spread and faster = Longer, More Svere Fire Seasons

Basically fuel load reduction is a Furphy in many/most cases.

Fuel load burning is not a solution where:

A. many coastal and inland homeowners (from SA, VIC to Qld) wish to build their homes in existing or expanding forests.

B. in vulnerable cities and towns where suburbanites have large gumtrees or pinetrees in their backyards/frontyards

C. where much fuel load is mixed into farmland. Understandably Farmers don't want their mixtures of homes, sheds, paddocks, windbreaks, orchids, and carbon-credit tree clusters burnt down by others.

D. RFS managers report that Fire seasons are now so LONG that days/windows to do hazard/fuel reduction is now vey short and, even then, it is often too Wet for burning off.

'Environmentalists have themselves to thank for much of Australia's bush fire problem.'

you actually mean the people hating Greens Tom. They create mess after mess in society and then blame everyone else.

Hear, hear and well said Pete, thank God there are still a couple of rational thinkers commenting in this space.

Loads of broken record rhetoric here. Typically by, learn nothing new, runner, still pushing his blame shift diatribe.

As for smile a lot pollies dishing out cash, never ever allow a photo ip and look at me, look at me, I'm a good guy. Are part of the problem?

Why, because like a moribund runner they can't see the solutions staring them in the face, for the ideological imperative that determines every position/decision.(Can't see the forest for the trees?)

Today's parliaments are chock full of folk who to a generic man are part of the problem not part of any real solution.

Deionization dialysis desalination is part of a range of viable solutions that rather than harm the economy, massively turbocharge it!

And doesn't our economy need just that sort of stimulus just right now!?

Some of my usual detractors would just love to label me green, but can't because of my well-known stance on CARBON FREE nuclear energy. Which along with four times cheaper deionisation dialysis desalination and broadacre irrigation are an integral part of any real solution!
Alan B.