There is far too much bushland in Australia to conceivably hazard burn.

A simpler and less expensive approach is to change zoning requirements mandating the removal of trees and scrubland from village settlements and bush residences.

In the end, those hazards were responsible for the burning down of assets.

As a precedence, flood zoning is robustly adhered to. There seems little to no effort made to similarly zone for fire protection.

Dan

A simpler and less expensive approach is to change zoning requirements mandating the removal of trees and scrubland from village settlements and bush residences.
diver dan,
I went for a fair hike in Bushland north of Cairns & I was amazed at the residences I walked past. They're totally obscured by trees so, when a fire does eventually grab hold, there won't be a single house left standing. The owners will then bleat for help from Govt & blame everyone & everything else for the loss.
I think, if a property can't bee seen on Google Earth then the owners should have to waive their their right for assistance in an emergency ! If they're not willing to safeguard their property by simple means of keeping flammable bush away from their homes then aren't they literally inviting a fire to burn it down ?
Insurance premiums are too high for those who are unlikely to ever claim because of those who selfishly disregard precaution. There needs to be legislation for Insurance policies that those who take reasonable precaution, don't pay such high premiums to pay for others !

I agree with the author that we should be concerned at how arms-length academics without practical experience have become so prominent and potentially influential in shaping government policy and practice on forest fire management.

Last week, we had arguably the nation's most publicly vocal ecologist (courtesy of the ABC and Fairfax media) stating in two of Australia's biggest daily newspapers that fuel reduction is only effective if done in close proximity to houses and repeated every three years.

The fact is that major fires, such as those in Victoria and NSW last summer are most often ignited in remote areas where reduced fuel loads could enable them to be contained while small. Letting fuels build in such areas as many ecologists advocate via opposition to broadacre fuel reduction, almost guarantees that remote fires will eventually become uncontrollable mega-fires with catastrophic impacts on the ecology and possibly human communities. That so called conservationists are effectively advocating such ecological damage is perverse