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.