ttbn: aboriginal burning, like any rational and sustainable human activity was socioeconomic. They occupied a wilderness about 65,000 years ago and they burnt to live. They established a new balance of nature dependent on mild burning. Whitefellas, except for some pastoralists, stuffed it up until foresters realised the mistake in the mid-20th century. Then greenies with wilderness between the ears came along and stuffed it up again. They are the nongs. frequent mild burning maintains a healthy, safe and resilient landscape, but it is illegal because of green bs. it ain't about black vs white. some blackfellas, graziers and foresters know how to fix the problem, but they don't get a hearing. fairdinkum science agrees with traditional aboriginal knowledge, as explained by Vic Jurskis in Firestick Ecology

Mr Little is stuck in an, always was always will be, time warp. The Aboriginals did not have whipper snippers and goats! But they do now!

Of the deaths in that bush fire that had a smoke plume around the globe, 444 of them were just smoke inhalation?

This world is a very different place from pre-colonial Australia! And history and management tells us there is always a better way than what Granddaddy allus did!

Traditional land management by Exclusively Aboriginal Rangers may be a way for a few urban folks to lay claim to vast swathes of territory. Many of who would fail a DNA test?

I believe the vast majority of Australians have little or no interest in turning back the clock and allowing the traditional practices, or 3% of us, to decide our best way forward?

I get that there were survival strategies before there were vast dams fire trucks, water bombers, colourbond fences, etc!

But that was then, this is now! Folks who dwell in the past have no future!

Yes, let's give credit where due, acknowledge the original custodians and their primitive survival strategies and adopt those that serve all of us going forward, as one nation, rather than a collection of, never ever able to agree on anything, tribes!

Let's prioritise a Treaty, a bill of real rights and reconciliation. then worry about what traditional primitive land management practice may serve the collective, rather than a few reminiscing for what once was, will never ever be again!

There is only one constant in the universe and that one constant is, constant change!
Alan B.

Alan B,
you should reread your own nonsense before you post further comments. Mild burning maintained healthy, safe and resilient landscapes for 40K years. Coupled with new technology such as aerial ignition, it worked in southwestern WA for the past 60 years. "Vast dams, fire trucks, water bombers, colourbond fences etc." don't work. The lessons of history are valuable, the opinions of old goats are not.

Dear Little,

Mate you are making it up as you go. The Aborigines didn't burn into the forests. Down here in the western districts of Victoria they certainly created the vast 'estates' through burning but the more hilly country they left alone and it was impenetrable when the settlers/invaders first arrived.

They certainly knew how to manage fire and the records show them saving white families on numerous occasions because of that knowledge. But to try and foist blame for the greenies for our forested areas going up is just inane.

SteeleRedux: I'm reporting facts. You're dreaming up crap to promote green ideology. Here's what the first white explorer of the Western Districts, Major Mitchell, wrote when he ascended Mt. Macedon on his way back to Sydney: "The trees on its side were of a much grander character than those in the forest, and consisted principally of black-butt and blue-gum eucalypti, measuring from six to eight feet in diameter. The rock was syenite, so weathered as to resemble sandstone. I ascended without having been obliged to alight from my horse, and I found that the summit was very spacious, being covered towards the south with tree ferns".

SteelRedux "The Aborigines didn't burn into the forests."

Mate with those 7 words you exposed your ignorance on forest management. Best to stop writing more about it so you don't embarrass yourself on this forum. Or alternatively follow Little's lead and read some of the early explorer's descriptions of the land they passed through. Maybe then you might start to understand what this debate is about.