It's not just recent recent bushfires that "highlight" the pest havens and fire hazards that are the huge, wasted and neglected tracts of land called National Parks. These areas, dedicated to so-called environmentalists and politically motivated eco-activists, should really be referred to as National Disgraces, impacting as they do on hard pressed farmers and graziers with uncontrolled pest plants and verminous animals.

There is no neighbour worse than a government.

While it might be necessary to have some national parks in Australia, government has gone over the top creating parks they cannot maintain in their stupid desire to pander to enviro-lunatics who don't even vote for them. And, as O'Brien writes, most of them have no desirable characteristics to justify their existence.

The author's reference to the 'adjustment' to years of neglect the bushfires have provided in the matter of koala overpopulation in KI national parks, and brumbies in Kosciuszko national Park is an interesting one. Controlled logging and other wealth- creating activities in these areas would help with such problems, and uncontrollable bushfires. Given the trashing of our manufacturing industries, we need to be paying more attention than ever to primary production. With two thirds of Australia barren, every bit of fertile land we have should be put to good use, not sacrificed to minority extremist groups who want to see the country reduced to Third World status.

Has it crossed any mind that many farmers are doing and have done it tough with pastures nibbled to the topsoil all while our national parks and forest reserves were waist-deep in some areas with animal fodder!

And had this herbage been grazed by starving animals they wouldn't have starved and most of the fuel load that contributed to recent wildfires would now be manure on the ground in these same areas.

But locked up at the behest of eco-fascists and their activism!

And assisted by self-serving politicians who would do a deal with the devil for the devil's preferences! And just to serve, I believe, a patently puerile pernicious partisan political outcome!

We need to look for and understand best practise and judge it on the substantive evidence, not brainwashed fallacy! And means we need to put as much water as possible into the landscape.

Not with massive dams that exacerbate evaporation that currently can take up to 50% of our surface water annually But rather a multitude of new upland dams that only raise the water table by around a metre above adjacent ground level, and we need a combination of levies and weirs along most major lowland watercourses that serve via a trench system every hundred feet or so to saturate the landscape via covered evaporation free trenches and extended as far as the topography and total water volume will allow We've been too successful at watering the ocean!.

[ N.B. A one-metre high weir can power as many homes as thirty.]

On the understanding that broadscale irrigation also serves to mitigate against climate change and killer heat waves.

Those who object need to take a good long hard look at outcomes and a destroyed tourist industry that among other things the greens have argued for as they and their asinine preferred policies sent the joint to the nearest taxidermist!TBC.
Alan B.

A credible objective of national parks in Australia is to preserve conditions as they were before European settlement. That clearly excludes hoofed animals and willows along riverbanks. We also need large areas of vegetation as a carbon sink, the estimate for the last two financial years being about -19 Mt CO2. That erases the emissions from two big coal stations and is in the emissions stats quoted by the PM.

However the pre settlement condition we may not able to preserve is fire proneness. The recent fire and any future bulk thinnning or grazing of parks would turn the negative into a positive i.e increase rather than reduce emissions. Nonetheless I think we should have a trial policy of letting park fires burn out. In the late 2020s assess what the net CO2 effect is, one possibility is less CO2 uptake then again less fire.

All crown land should be available for grazing with reasonable conditions.

Leave the National Parks alone...
You are NOT the only inhabitants of this planet.
Animals need somewhere to live too.

Leave the National Parks alone...
ateday,
tell that to the noxious weeds that most fuel comprises of now !

Yep, introduced and put there by stupid humans

Looks to me the likely Royal Commission into recent fires should concentrate on why recommendations from previous ones have so often not been carried out. Are several aspects of these. eg Inappropriate regulations and action by bureaucrats that have been counter productive and also sometimes extremely costly to governments and/or individuals and communities. Many examples could be considered for working out how this problem may be minimised. eg Re two that occurred not long before Black Saturday.

A community group, whose leaders remained anonymous put 35 Angus steers on Barmah Island, north of the town of Barmah, Vic in late spring to reduce the serious fire hazard from grass growth along the river after could not get any departmental action to reduce it. In the situation, burning off and slashing were totally impracticable. However the bureaucrats huffed and puffed and tried unsuccessfully to find who to try and prosecute. After about 2 months of this fuel reduction grazing, they organised - at obvious large public expense, a team from elsewhere which tried for a day to find and muster these cattle in a 3,000 acre river red gum forest. However locals tipped off in advance covertly got most out beforehand except a few they did not find. One of undoubtedly large numbers of examples of public money used to obstruct rather than help measures to help reduce damage from possible fires.

Someone in the process of building a house in Reedy Creek area SE of Broadford, Vic, cleared trees from around it thinking was approved on permit. However, seems after discovering area was larger than authorised, a bullying council officer went in hard. Managed to get unfortunate property owner convicted and I think the order of a $40,000 fine. Then obviously partly due to supposedly illegal clearing, this was the only house in the area that survived Black Saturday. Heard afterwards that the responsible (or irresponsible) official would be soon pushed out of his job by community pressure

Seems there are lots of other examples of preposterous prosecutions and fines, which would deter many others from attempting desirable fuel reduction.

A bit more courage is needed. Greens are invariably idle non-working creeps with boundless time and arrogance bordering on mental illness. They will always attack, infiltrate and get into the position of authority to punish people.
We need to always refer to them as filthy, anti-people, trouble-makers. We need to take them to task and kick our current useless representatives who back up the greens bullying. Labour is not worth talking about as they are so useless but the LNP are now following the labour lead rather than bashing the hated greens every chance they get. The field to stick it to the greens is very large and needs to be used. Such as six "Activists" who stopped a prescribed burn in a forest last winter which was destroyed by the recent bush fires. Expose these people and stop them before they destroy so much of our country.

Yep, introduced and put there by stupid humans
ateday,
well, I believe it's called evolution ever since Gondwana broke up !

If any area is infested with introduced feral weeds, imported here as pot plants and rabbit fodder so the first English migrants could feel more at home, can be removed mostly, by the introduction of herds of goats who have legendary appetites for tin cans, music boxes and washing on the line. Plus things like scotch thistle, stinging nettle and milkweed. Camels are about the only animal that'll graze on prickly acacia.

Humans have always had a predilection for acts of stupidity or bastardy. Even today we see lots of it in the green movement and callous population control advocation by the usual range of highly autocratic, moribund control freaks who believe they and they alone are the suppositories of all wisdom.

And their unsolicited argumentative, broken record advice is always intended for everyone else, never ever themselves or theirs!

Indigenous populations have for millennia selectively logged their forests without harm to flora or fauna, just the opposite. Moreover, trees store carbon whether vertical or horizontal.

Selectively logged forest create twice as many jobs as clear-felled forests and use up half the trees, create log roads that serve as fire breaks and managed forests have more self-interested eyes monitoring the forest for fire!

Willow trees have proven invaluable for the prevention of erosion and intensive short term grazing by hoofed animals alligator the ground, breaking it up so the rain soaks in as opposed to running off of land baked hard by hundreds of seasons of repeated burning, creating flash floods and huge erosion in the process!

Rapid growing willow soaks up carbon faster than most fire-tolerant native species! And the timber is useful for many applications! Goats will happily chomp on it for most of the day.
Alan B.

Quiz:- Who would you think would have the most practical knowledge
of land management ?

1. A bureaucrat sitting in a capital city office.
2. A third generation farmer living next to a large unused block.

The farmers need to get together and notify the authorities that the
control of the land has changed and the farmers and other land
stakeholders are taking over.
Their justification is survival.
Rights to survival over rule all other rights.
They could start a Fund Me and I am sure the insurance companies
would top it up.

Who would you think would have the most practical knowledge
of land management ?
Bazz,
Someone who doesn't require excessive profits !

Exactly right Bazz. A good land manager cannot an environmental studies course make. Nor can a public service uniform.
Only the person with skin in the game, so to speak, who faces loss from wrong decisions will manage land with clear eyes.

Landowners bordering mismanaged public land have been struggling with the problems for years but their complaints always fall on the deafest of ears. There's always been a kind of arrogance, a sense of superiority over the private individual from the public service. The result is indifference over harm caused. It's endemic.

That's why the only real solution is removing all land use, vegetation and fauna management restrictions from private land

removing all land use, vegetation and fauna management restrictions from private land
Jamo,
Yes & no because it all depends on what's down-stream so to speak.
If a landowner clears a lot of vegetation he must also ensure that no run-off affects next door etc. This is an even more pressing issue if there are waterways involved.

"If a landowner clears a lot of vegetation he must also ensure that no run-off affects next door etc. This is an even more pressing issue if there are waterways involved."

Individual. Indeed such concern has been the basis for most "environmental" controls imposed over private property. However, removing restrictions doesn't remove liability for harm caused over the fence.
An argument is made for these inverse onus state controls that liability is lessened where process is followed.
This can be an issue for say a private landowner suffering problems radiating out from land managed in technical accordance with state laws. Such as national parks. Could be any land really.

As well there's the plain unfairness of your enjoyment of your land curtailed at the whim of others, at your cost, not theirs.
Seeking permit grants every busybody, malcontent and sly advantage seeker influence over what you paid for.
Through this inverted onus environment an unhealthy sense of entitlement to 'own the view' has grown motivating objectionist activity.
Equally, the encroachment of others is manifest in the outright vegetation clearing bans on private property. There's no compensation avenue there for loss as a result, as the fires are showing.

the basis for most "environmental" controls imposed over private property.
Jamo,
Yes, most of these restrictions come from bureaucrats rather than people who know.
It reminds me when I called police because the neighbour was burning batteries a bout 5 metres from my bedroom & the smoke drifted right into the room. I decided to call the Police because the bloke just didn't take any notice.
The Police came up with a great alternative, "you should move into another room if the smoke bothers you ".

Clear and reachable;
not simple yet realistic;
professional goals should be related to life goals;
specific, demonstrating your understanding of the industry, the area where you want to work;
focus on improving not only your life and the content of your bank account but also the lives of people around you, society, the country, and possibly the world as a whole.
Tell about Your Best Qualities
Determine what special qualities and knowledge are needed for success in the chosen program and your future profession. Describe these skills, giving examples from the study, work, and everyday life. Think about what kind of common human dignities will help you to succeed in the chosen path. Describe these merits, giving examples from your academic, professional, public, and sports life. If you have interesting hobbies, mention them. Inform about what qualities and knowledge are necessary for the successful progress of your career. Do not praise or demean yourself.

In Great Britain there were Riparian rights. Basically, the water they came onto my property and then moved to my neighbours could not be affected by me to my neighbour's detriment.
I belonged to the Anglers Co-operative Association who used their fighting fund to sue people who stuffed a water course that went off their property to someone elses property. Where it affected the fish or fishery of course.
Anyone know the Australian position.

Anyone know the Australian position
Jboyer,
Totally different mentality !

Individual, can you repeat this in English?

Individual. Yep, close living requires tolerance sometimes. Works both ways. I've lived both close and open space. My experience open space living just means boundaries to argue over are longer.
What is different is the size of the yard. Suburban homes I've owned there was no question about how I could utilise the space. The layout of lawns paths and gardens was mine alone. The only constraint was to not cause nuisance such as unnaturally directing runoff to a neighbors block. The first one did have six eucalypts, two we were able to remove but the remainder required permits to remove. We were however free to clean up under them and utilise the space. Subsequent owners have removed them, and sensibly so. They were growing too large to be that close to houses.
It's no different for rural properties. The space needs to be managed. It ought to be solely up to the owner how it's managed and mostly it is unless native vegetation exists there. Due to the area involved a perception has grown that rural land isn't someones yard, that it's nature space to be maintained according to common want. That wouldn't be so bad if it was an opt in thing and the common paid the owner to keep it that way, but that's not the case.
These fires, many originating from mismanaged public land, have highlighted some of the inequity of nature preservation laws imposed over private property.
I'll keep bringing it up because it's such an inequity. Made good sound bites for vote fishing politicians to virtue signal about 'preserving nature' and 'storing carbon' but it's all at the expense of people who struggle when the bills come in like everybody else.

There are some so-called farmers who do what they've allus done because that's what they've allus done! Yes, there are some very gifted folk on the land and exampled by visionaries like Peter Andrews, a hands-on Farmer who had two episodes of ABC's Australian story devoted to him. And a useful template for turn salt-laden salt pan back into highly productive pasture.

All hill country ought to have contour drains and dams at every turn. Those dams will need a built-in flood gate and need to be covered, to reduce losses due to evaporation.

Flatland down on the lower plains need their waterways protected via levees and weirs.

Their water stored in the adjacent landscape via cover tenches that can carry the water some kilometres from source. A bone dry country will need one good season of rain to completely transform it!

And I've seen examples of that very practise in operation and its amazing! Completely transformed and hugely productive! And, Look, mum, no pumps or water pumping fuel bills!

And willows planted atop the levees, dams or contour drains will bind them and assist in preventing erosion or damage by cloven hooves at critical junctures. And willows asperate recharge moisture and store carbon!

I grew up on a farm and as a mature adult, ran a contract cultivation company for a time, so most of what I argue has the backing of both hard-won, practical, hands-on experience complemented by years of study and research aided by what for most on the land as not unusual, an open mind! In conclusion let me reiterate, broad-scale irrigation is part of the solution and mitigates against climate change and localised heat waves.

Moreover, all plant life stores some carbon a in no-till farming ultimately sequesters endless season of it in the topsoil, where among other things, assists on improved moisture retention.

This advice not intended for farmers who know most of this stuff already, but empire-building bureaucrats who between them haven't a clue. Ditto career pollies
Alan B.

Flatland down on the lower plains need their waterways protected via levees and weirs.
Alan B,
I have long been saying that particularly around Brisbane which experiences periodic flooding, a parallel watercourse(s) should be created to take the flood height down. Such a waterway could double as a high end Canal development which would create substantial employment & even more substantial flood reduction/damage, literally creating a Delta !
The economic & environmental benefits would surprise many !

Every block of land's different. My experience it takes a fair chunk of a lifetime to start to get a "feel" for a spot.
Technical knowledge makes a good tool kit but it's only supplementary to knowing a place.
Fourth generation on our place and was a bit critical of some of the past management when I took it on.
Today I'd say time's a humbling tutor.

A bit of interesting lateral thinking there individual and canals can also move bulk freight for less cost per kilometre than anything else. Anything built on flood plains ought to be on stilts.

Moreover, some of our tidal estuaries could be used in similar fashion as is common in many Asian or Island nations.

Canals could even become highways for such inhabitants and would exclude the necessity to build access roads. Canal constructions via cutter dredges, also contribute spoil to the levee construction.

Around Brisbane, years of below-average rainfall and concrete and bitumen have between them dried out the subsoil which invariably crack along with those buildings atop them!

So, keeping your subsoil damp by the above suggestion of storing vastly more in the landscape and having it do double or triple duty would alleviate some of the structural damage caused by deep cracking in ultradry subsoil!

One wonders if this could also be true in Sydney or Melbourne in recently highlighted cracking in newish highrise development?
Alan B.

Canals ? Why do you think the canals closed down as soon as the
railways were built in the UK ?

canals closed down as soon as the railways were built in the UK ?
Bazz,
And, look where the UK is now ? Even the Europeans have connected all the major rivers now, from northern Germany to the Black Sea & France inbetween. Stop looking at the UK for reference, they're history !

The traffic on the Rhine and Danube is nothing like the rail and road traffic.
The rivers mainly carry bulk cargoes eg like sand for cement.
I don't remember seeing one container on a barge.
Just had a look at my photos and the barges were bulk carriers except
one that had two semi trucks & trailers on board.
We saw many up close when in locks.

Back to management of national parks.
I've suggested before perhaps the melding of parks management and wildlife may be a problem. As it is the dual purposes seem to have become one for the purposes of the other. Parks maintained for wildlife. That could be narrowing the focus.

The increase of land area managed by P&W is probably a big factor.
Here in Tas areas formerly managed by forestry are now managed by P&W.
The philosophy and focus is very different. It's pretty much just left alone now. Unfair to say it's all neglect. Physical capacity and funding would have to be an issue.

We're expecting big fires at some time. When, not if.
Not that it really matters if the parks and state forests burn. The damage to property beyond them does.

Perhaps cleared boundary buffers could be created around these spaces. Maybe 100m wide with formed roads each side where possible so the buffers can be slashed or burned relatively easily. At least that'd create a ready made line to back burn from in the event of an internal fire starting.

More important than parks and state forest is private property. We had the heady days of preserving forest and native vegetation in place for carbon accounting and the idea of biodiversity preservation. But the result apart from the cost to the landowners affected losing the potential of their land, is what's so plain and that's that it'll end up burning anyway. Death and destruction will be the continuing outcome. Which in reality is the exact opposite of what the land clearing bans and burning off constraints were intended to produce.

More important than parks and state forest is private property.
Jamo,
Again, yes & no. If private property is such that the owner or occupier is incapable or unwilling to rid the property of noxious vegetation i.e. potential fuel then no, it's up to them. However, if the state of their property is such that it is a clear menace/fire potential for adjoining properties then yes, the proprietor should be required to have at least a fire-break along their boundary.
If an unkept property is a clear risk to ignite a State forest then yes, fire-breaks should be mandatory. EPA & other Govt agencies must also be more responsible for the area under their jurisdiction. Regular cold burns will ensure less fire damage !

Trying to sequester carbon in vegetation and the soil while your entire economy creates it is tantamount to trying to fill a bucket with a hole in it. The faster you pour the faster it exits via the hole. But if one deserts carbon as a source of transport and electrical energy the hole becomes a pinhole.

And you can't get ahead of our current circular carbon (put it in, pull it out) paradigm! And only because I believe our politicians are owned by the fossil fuel industry and coal? Albeit that alleged relationship could evolve over time?

National parks belong to all of us, not just a minority of rent-a-crowd, vociferous greens!

And it has been the lock it up and leaves it that has created most of the problems plus feral weed infestation tha invariably follows wildfires or so-called cool burns.

There may have been a time when cool burns were the only form of land management.

After all, the indigenous population had few tractors, bulldozers, graders of domesticated grazing ruminants, for their farmers?

Everything we derive from coal, gas, oil as energy or exports income has vastly superior and more profitable carbon-free, safer more affordable alternatives available to us!

No not tomorrow genius, but over the decade we'd need to transition to a CARBON FREE nuclear energy economy! ECONOMIC EVOLUTION?

I DON'T NEED TO ENDLESSLY REPEAT THE ONLY VIABLE, AFFORDABLE 24/7 SOLUTIONS AGAIN DO I?
Alan B.

it has been the lock it up and leaves it that has created most of the problems plus feral weed infestation tha invariably follows wildfires or so-called cool burns.
Alan B,
Yes and, who & what kind of people made those decicions ?
Let's hope there'll be some less indoctrinated decision makers by the time the cool burn opportunities for the next season comes around.
Perhaps we could get people who know rather than those "experts" we've been plagued with until now.

"the proprietor should be required to have at least a fire-break along their boundary."
Individual, this is where we have a problem.
Property owners aren't allowed to remove native vegetation. They can apply for permits, at their expense. Limited permits are sometimes granted. Sometimes not. Same applies for the owner seeking exclusion or containment.
I don't know how it is elsewhere but the recently created statewide planning scheme for Tas has created distance limits for clearing along boundary lines. It's down to 1 meter depending on the classification of vegetation. We don't even know how that could be done. It's not even vehicular access.
Arguably the current clearing bans extinguish liability for harm caused, which only encourages neglect. Red Greens don't think these things through do they.
Mandating can be a bad idea. It tends to produce perverse outcomes.
We need to remove native vegetation preservation requirements for private land. Then owners can perform the most beneficial actions for their land unhindered. The current rules regarding native vegetation have failed.
Shared waterways are a different thing of course. Incidentally waterway management was screwed up by the same governments that messed with vegetation laws. But that's a different discussion.

Removing vegetation preservation laws for private land doesn't mean it'll all suddenly be bulldozed away. One of the really perverse outcomes of the current clearing bans is they've turned areas of valued remnant bush into despised patches of noxious weed for the landowner. What remained before the bans, remained because it was valued for what it was. These dictatorial eco laws are so dumb. Dumb and dangerous.

We all need to admit to ourselves that we live in a climate that will get progressively hotter and drier.

I reside in the Blue Mtns and will be pushing to cut back the forests and keep a buffer between residences and the natural bush. Therefore no more mixed conservation zones with people living within the natural surroundings.

The catastrophic fires will be back. They are the new normal and we have to take measures to prevent loss of life and property when they do.

If we follow the advice of the AGW / CC denialists it will be business as usual and we will neglect putting in place the measures we need to protect human occupation areas.

Come on Mr O, the blue mountains going up every 6 to 10 years was the norm in the 50s, 60s & 70s.

How many times has the Bell Line of Road gone up, & how often has that extended to the Putty road. The whole area from Mittagong to Sandy Hollow is a death trap on a regular basis, all disgusting National Park.

Hasbeen,

And you AGW / CC denialists would keep it that way with your "The planet is getting colder I tell you - the new ice age is just around the corner.' and "Don't listen to Greta Thunberg - LIAR! LIAR! LIAR!"

If the fuel is not there, the fires will be small & beneficial to the native forests & the environment as a whole ! Any village idiot understands that but the "experts" don't !

"Experts" once said the sun and planets orbited the earth.

Jamo,
Yes and, "experts" also brought in the Cane Toads !

Yes the Cane Toads!

Still waiting for the y2k bug to hit. Any day now..

Ah "experts".

Still waiting for the y2k bug to hit.
Jamo,
It already has in the form of BA carrying pseudo Academics also known as Lefties !

The Y2K was real but was fixed by lots of programmers doing lots of
overtime. A friend bought a house and car on the proceeds.

Just heard some bloke on the ABC telling us the the fires will become worse every year because of Climate Change.
Let's see, if cool burns are carried out then how can fires get bigger or worse without the fuel they need to burn ?

Individual, the fires will get bigger on the ABC as they have over the last few years. Temperatures will also increase on the ABC and danger will increase until a broad green tax is enabled against the poor. Of course on the ABC air travel will be fine unless you or I do it, plus a lot of other things. Taxes fix everything so lets put a reduction tax on the ABC until things improve. Say 10% reduction on their funds this year, 20% next year, get the drift?

Burning off isn't a solution on it's own. Bush tends to grow back thicker than before after a fire. That's why I'm only luke warm about all the talk of prescribed burning as a solution for national parks and state forests. Repeating myself but slashable buffers are more easily maintained.
Then the point of it all which is protection of life and property, needs addressing. This is where climate change and bio diversity preservation policy is the problem. So called carbon storage by preventing clearance and conversion is now a proven failure. It goes up in smoke eventually. Unfortunately the coalition still sound married to their Kyoto carbon storage forest lockups. On private land this applies. Howard coerced the states to legislate it and Rudd ratified it.
Then there's the threatened forest communities listed under the epbc act. These listings, some on very very questionable claims, mean not only can the timber not be removed but not even the undergrowth can be cleaned out. This is on peoples private property.

Realistically the chance of national parks and other state forest ever being managed such that they'll never be a fire risk is zero. It just won't happen, if it ever could. Therefore the only real thing that can be done, and it won't cost the taxpayer, is exclude private land from all native vegetation preservation laws.
It'd have to be done in a way so greens influenced bureaucracy and councils can't sneak back in the way they do.

I have no problem with unmanaged public forest, if that's what the public want. Also have no problem with unmanaged private land if that's what it's owners want. Do have a problem with everyone else being prevented from maintaining their own land as they see fit. Particularly when it means those landowners are prevented from managing their land to guard against problems others create

Burning off isn't a solution on it's own.
jamo,
There'll never be a solution as such but what can be done by humans is to curb the damage caused by humans.
Mowing amongst trees is invigorates new growth which more likely than not will increase wildlife breeding to unnatural levels & when fires do occur, more wildlife will suffer as dried cut down growth becomes fuel for for flames !
We should not interfere with the natural seasonal burning, just let it burn.
When fuel appears to be building up, burn it soon after the rains while there's no risk of fires getting out of hand. No volunteers required to be flown in. A National Service crew can direct the burning !

Ah Individual. So it's all about those nasty humans and their destructive ways.
You seem to react each time I suggest engineered mitigation measures and that private property owners be respectfully left to manage their own according to their needs and abilities.

Just as herbicides alone are not a solution for weed management, burning off alone isn't a whole solution to fire risk.
Anyone who farms or otherwise physically manages land will understand that.

Sweeping and slashing understory is a useful option on suitable ground. All be it a bit expensive. It's a particularly good option for smaller holdings. Benefits over burning include encouraging grasses over scrub, weed suppression, all cut material returned to the ground which builds organic matter and aids moisture retention. On top it can be done at any time unless a specific outdoor machinery use ban has been declared for the day. This means the drying off spring growth can be knocked down in time for summer.

Burning off is an excellent and available method, cost effective over large areas and able to be utilized on country unsuited to mechanical management. However getting a good burn is important and that isn't as easy as it sounds. It cleans out the scrub but it leaves the soil exposed until new growth takes off. If the fire hasn't been so hot that it bakes the soil the regrowth is pretty quick. In fact it's much faster and more vigorous, due to the dose of potash and destruction of competition, than what Individual imagines slashing produces. This is where burning alone isn't a solution. Unmanaged afterwards the longer term result will be even thicker scrub than existed before.

Not saying don't burn. Burn more I say. It's a must. But it's not as black and white as the popular discussion seems to see it.
It's all very good when we've got sensible pragmatic government but it only takes an election and we've got a bat dirt crazy govt that says stuff it, trees are sacred let them be and we'd be right back here.

Jamo,
I'm not disagreeing with you. What i'm on about is that with the present mentality of addressing the Bushfire & other natural disasters, the most effective way is cold burning. The suggestion to mow the understory is fine however, considering that the most bush is on mountain slopes & valleys etc. makes mowing impossible or at the least extremely difficult. Also, thick undergrowth is where much of the wildlife gets tangled & can't escape the flames.
What I'm getting at is, let's take action with the will & method available & clear the mostly introduced undergrowth now ! Waiting for the "experts" to come up with yet more investigations & whilst the undergrowth is building up again for the next disastrous fire season, is what caused the problems in the first place. We need to act now because we can't afford to wait for the "experts" to see practical reason !

jamo,
Also, mowing spreads seeds including weed seeds. Fire knocks it on the head whilst many indigenous seeds need fire or so I'm led to believe !

My experience is entirely the opposite jamo. Forest grazing blocks were locked up every 3 or 4 years to allow a build up of grass to carry a fire hot enough to kill gum tree & other saplings/seedlings. Without this fire an understory of struggling seedlings turned into a ticket, with little grass. This scrub was of little use to man, stock or wildlife.

After burning the grasses were the quickest to establish, & if not over grazed, would crowd out & reduce establishment of less desirable shrub & tree seedlings.

National parks are now so full of vermin flora & fauna, it really doesn't matter what you do to it, as long as it no longer presents a danger to neighboring properties.