Just to add fuel to the fire, this is not the first time Paul Collins has weighed into the forestry debate. In April 1999 he used his religious "authority" as a Catholic priest to write:

"Woodchipping is sinful because it attacks the grandeur of God...woodchipping old growth forests could be seen as a sinful act because it uses a resource at a prodigal rate"

and of course he published his book trying to rewrite fire history in Australia.

To me, rather than being a person of high regard in his religious position, he has shown himself to be a fool in environmental issues by continually publishing diatribes like this. He should simply state his opinion that he believes the fires are not controllable due to changing climate and not use science to back up his claim.

How does proscribed burning defend against the catastrophic crown fires of Black Saturday and other major fires?
On high risk days fires regularly burn through previously lightly burned off areas. A proscribed burn does not burn the crown of the tree only undergrowth and dead fuel. This means there is no proscribed burn off that will stop a fire on a day of extreme wind and temperature when the fire can jump from tree to tree and not rely on ground fuel for propagation.

The next El Nino drought will undoubtedly result in more catastrophic fires and loss of life no matter how much burning is done in winter.
When will we learn to live with instead of always trying (and failing) to dominate nature?

As for scapegoating....
I want answers from the media as to why they screamed arson and went out inciting mob behavior and murderous attitudes at the time of the fires and why they have said virtually zip since it was revealed that the majority were not arsonists but commercial power generators fatally neglecting their maintenance of powerlines.
Why are the media not excoriating the power companies like they tried to do to the imaginary arsonists back at the time of the fires?

Mikk
You are right that bushfires burning under extreme weather conditions can move through areas that have been fuel reduced several years before. However, 99.9% of bushfires don't occur under these conditions, but if fuels are allowed to build-up by not fuel reducing, then even fires burning under lesser conditions can become uncontrollable crown fires.

The great benefit of fuel reduction burning is that these previously treated areas burn with far less intensity and so the damage inflicted on them is much less, even on days like Black Saturday. when there were many instances of this. These areas have recovered far better with far less damage to soils than the areas which were carrying heavy fuels.

In fact, the great benefit of fuel reduction burning is on lessening the environmental impact of bushfires. For this reason it is astounding that the environmental movement, which sees itself as the protector of forests, is so opposed to the recommendation to do more prescribed burning.

To me it only confirms the muddled thinking that underpins Australian environmentalism - the notion of forests as fragile paradises which is so far at odds with the reality that our forests are reliant on disturbance in the form of periodic fire, for their renewal.

It also highlights how so much of our environmental activism is based on conspiracy theories - in this case, the forests will supposedly have the 'bejesus burnt out of them every 3 to 4 years', when clearly a burning target of 5% of the forest per year, equates to an average 20-year interval between burns. Also, prescribed burns are done under cool conditions and are meant to burn in a mosaic fashion which has far less impact on the forest.

It's easy to say that forestry should have been doing more burning off in the lead up to Black Saturday. Given the prolonged dry conditions, no-one can say exactly when it would have been possible. Imagine the furore if one of these controlled burns had gotten away. Foresters are damned if they do burn off in innapropriate conditions and damned if they don't.

Perhaps logging, not burn offs is the way to reduce fuel.

OK so increased frequency and severity of bushfires was a clear prediction from GW...yet still the ignorant cry "it is natural!".
I suppose the record temperatures in Russia are "normal" too?
Climate science is getting nothing but stronger signals indicating Global Warming (*not* "Climate change" but *Warming*) is getting worse according to the worst case scenarios. The clear migration of the tropics and subsequent weather pattern shifts are huge signals and are very clear, as are the ice melts and sea temperatures.
Folks, the canaries are all dead: must we now wait for calamity before the evidence is believed?
Blaming Greens for reduced burning whilst ignoring the impact of cheapskate privatised power line operators is pretty disingenuous.
They also ignore the fact that due to GW there is now much fewer opportunities to burn off safely...particularly in the lead-up to Black Saturday where we had the most prolonged drought and extreme temperatures on record. All the green folks I know support limited fuel reduction burning. When burn-offs get out of control and kill people the CFA get little sympathy.
I'm not sure what it will take to convince the anti-science brigade short of God appearing from the clouds saying "stop sh&tting in your own cradle fools!".

Ozandy
Regardless of whether GW is going to increase the frequency of bushfires, their severity can only be mitigated by doing more fuel reduction burning. This is hardly unnatural since all but the wettest mountain forests natural state is to have low fuels due to the frequent uncontrolled fire from lightning and aboriginal burning that traversed through the landscape every summer and autumn prior to European settlement.

Yes, most of the 'green'folks say they support LIMITED burning - this is the problem, because it needs to be done at a landscape scale, not just a couple of hectares next their boundary fence. If done properly and not too frequently, it shouldn't have much environmental impact, but will save our forested environments from the worst of the massive impacts from catastrophic bushfires like Black Saturday.

A drier climate shouldn't really affect the opportunities for fuel reduction burning too much - it may mean that it cannot be undertaken as early in autumn as it currently is, but it should extend the period in which it can be done as we head into winter.

The CFA does not do much forest fuel reduction burning, although it may at times assist the government agencies, DSE and Parks Vic who are responsible for this. I can’t recall anyone ever being killed by an escaped fuel reduction burn, although there has occasionally been property damage.

Re: Anti-science - in my view, those who oppose fuel reduction burning simply because of romantic notions about the supposed fragility of the Australian bush, are most guilty of being anti-science.