The article glosses over the high chance of 'controlled' fires getting out of hand. Increasing numbers in the population are now at risk of respiratory distress, for example asthmatic kids requiring medical attention. I think there are less risky methods of fuel reduction. For example goats or cattle could be confined within a two strand electric fence running along fire trails. They could be purged of weed seeds in their guts before occupying a new area. Docile animals that escape should not be a problem. Another method would be to chip undergrowth with brush hog type machines. The chips could left in place as a form of biosequestration, they could be taken away for mulching or they could be torrefied (scorched) to make dry fuel used elsewhere.

I believe that burnoffs may also break clean air rules. If I recall particulate under five microns should be no more than a milligram per cubic metre of air. The more FRBs the greater the chance of casualties either from an escaped burn or an asthma attack. When that happens expect lawsuits while the media talks about grown up boys playing with matches. Fuel reduction must be done by not by onsite burning.

Mark Poynter has contradicted himself in this article.

“However, even under extreme circumstances, extensive areas of well-conducted FRB would somewhat reduce the development of crown fires and spotting thereby reducing environmental impacts and improving the capability to defend well prepared properties or provide residents with more time to safely evacuate.”

FRB is done at ground level and is no help at all when the fire is crowning.
There is also some research in the US that show that an area that has had a FRB, the moisture level has been reduced in the soil and fires that occur after are hotter.

To sarnian
I have not contradicted myself. It has been well documented for decades that Australian crown fires are not generally sustained when they encounter consolidated sections of forest with light ground fuels.

As I said in the article, when part of the 2009 fire met the area of light fuels arising from the 2006 Kinglake North bushfire, the fire dropped from the crowns to the forest floor. There is an aerial photo of this occurence on the ABC Unleashed website where this article was first posted several weeks ago. Similar occurences were noted elsewhere as well.

However, if fuel reduced areas are very small and lack sufficient depth, a crown fire burning under the extreme conditions of a Black Saturday may pass through without dropping to ground and perhaps this is what you are referring to. This highlights the advantage of large consolidated areas of fuel reduction over the small, pocket-sized burns that many environmentalists seem to have a preference for.

As a former CFA volunteer, I know full well that one of the safest places to be in a fire is ground that is already blacked out.

Likewise, I also know from experience just how difficult fuel reduction burns can be.

I thought this article struck a fairly sensible balance.

Mark

Excellent article.

We need to learn from the past or be doomed to repeat history.

FRB = Safety.

Simple.

Our Australian Bush is our National Heritage. The bush contains 90% of our native species, and I am amazed how excuses of expediancy and financial consideration seem to sway the public to tolerate such gross vandalism on our natural heritage.
FRB = vandalism of the worst kind, that is, legitamised by the governemnt on a grand scale, in an effort to be seen as doing something.
Surely there must be a better, more environmentally friendly solution to the problem. Let's find it!