Some of the reasons 'cultural' burning may not work include permanent buildings, fences, multiple land titles, prevalence of asthma, introduced flammable plants and increased wind speeds. It seems pyrogeography that sounds like a technical subject is now steeped in mysticism by invoking the wisdom of the elders. That should get plenty of favourable coverage from the ABC.

I'd be more inclined to follow the deeds of a region that has been razed several times but has managed to make itself fire resilient. I suspect that will take more than 'cultural' burning.

will take more than 'cultural' burning.
Taswegian,
It'll also take more than maintaining the culture within our bureaucracy that causes such natural events to be worse than they otherwise would be !

The fix is in! Did anyone expect anything else? Green politics, they will go to any lengths to destroy us!

The problem is well stated by Taswegian above.

It's the attitudes of those that choose to live in the bushfire danger zone.

I live in an area where villages galore, are built in extremely hazardous bushfire areas,huddled into bush land.

These villages were showered with huge resources during the recent bush fires, in order to save them.

There is no evidence at all, these villages intend to remedy their own plight by clearing fire breaks.

These villages and outlying scrub dwellings should be given an ultimatum, either clear surrounding hazards or move out.

Dan

Firebreaks and waterbombers don't work in bad weather. But during the settlement drought in 1792 they controlled fires at Parramatta in mid 40 degree temperatures and howling dry northwesterly winds because blackfellas maintained a healthy and safe landscape.

Science? What science!? some PhD with an opinion that relies solely on traditional belief and hearsay, is just not science, but rather consenting, don't rock the boat, opinion!

Anyone with alphabet soup after their name can mount a contrary opinion. Some will as paid commentators, mount a case that climate change is all BS!

And some bought and paid for politicians will do and say the absurd to support such claims.

For years we know the scientists employed by big tobacco and asbestos, claimed no harm from allegedly benign products. Is this the sort of (fossil fuel) science being presented here?

Intensive grazing also reduces hazardous fuel loads!
And the soil is made even more carbon-rich and nutritious for plant life and the herbivores that graze on them

Intensive cell grazing ensures that the carbon and rare minerals are returned and recycled. Add dung beetles and the soil is made even more pervious to such rain as does fall and allows it to soak in as opposed to running off and contributing to erosion.

Traditional cool burns, were only ever a practise to make hunting easier and done for no other reason.

The fact that thousands of years of such practise also includes many fires that got away is never considered, or that such fires always take out all the non-fire tolerant species, destroyed as a billion with the last firestorm

Nowhere where traditional burning practised do we see the soil improved, but we do see vast arid wasteland where this has been traditional practice/ownership of centuries.

Fuel loads can be also reduced by grazed animals and whipper snippers. Very short term call grazed with hooved herbivores also chops up fire-baked and hardened soil, allowing the rains to soak in!

Uncontrolled fires and cool burns that got away, allowed feral infestation! Often impossible to reverse!

I get that you want to reoccupy as rangers/land managers and then able to support traditional land claims where none are currently available for "urban blacks"
Alan B.