Roger this is the best article I have read so far this year and you are on the mark about land management and the potential disaster waiting to happen here. For thousands of years the Jubaguy Bama in the Daintree Rainforest have burnt off areas of forrest to attract game and to aide some species of plants that we used for medicine and food to germinate.

Since the end of the Vietnam war, the management of our forests have been neglected and left overgrown with fuel, and with more city dwellers and their green agendas coming into the bush and Government's not investing in proper management plans these areas are a recipie for disaster.

After fighting fires at my in-laws house in the Adelaide hills during Ash Wednesday, and then the big NSW fire Ten years ago, I am not realy looking forward to the next one.

Spot on Rodger and Yindin,
The subdivision of rural land to that of rural dwellings has created a vast problem with more fuel,poor access and people who have no fire knowledge and are relliant on emergency services. Rural people are, in fact, the emergency service. Your house must be built with the enviromant in mind and bushfire is generally the biggest threat. Its nice to have a house nestled in the bush, but look out next summer. The fires that took 500 homes in Canberra was not a freak. those conditions occur every summer.

My place has adequate water, good gravity presure, to keep yard green all summer. An under verandah sprinkler system is there and roof sprinklers as well. I use a pony in small paddocks to reduce the fuel outside the yard and I have my own small fire fighter on a 1 tonne truck. My house is my emergency shelter. I reckon the sprinkler system cost me say $2000 and I can't get an insurance discount.

If you read this Rodger. I reckon the current moves to centralized bushfire control is asking for more trouble. It does not work. Field officers that can actually take control and make decissions on the job is far better.

I could talk for hours or write a book, but i recomend that everyone should read 'The Complete Australian Bushfire Book' by Joan Webster.

Yindin, you may know of her. She's Vic and wrote the book after Ash Wednesday.

How does the author explain the drastic reductions in bushfire losses and damages over time? I would suggest that he take a quick glance at bushfire losses over the past 100 years or so and check his conclusions.

The author also does not mention climate change as a possible driver of more regular 'mega-fires' (as they have unfortunately been termed). The author may not agree that these are important factors (a safe bet if he's coming from Jennifer Marohasy's blog), but many respected scientists do and it is disingenuous to not at least acknowledge them.

One could argue that improved emergency management and the greater involvement of residents in preparing and defending their properties have been far more effective in reducing bushfire losses than fuel reduction. Indeed, the evidence supports it. Losses were far higher when fuel reduction was at its peak.

JMD,
Firstly, I believe the author mentioned 'global warming' inhis third paragraph, but discounted it in favour of the three other reasons he wrote about. His perogative.

You claim losses have been drasticly reduced. Do you mean here or in Greece, where the author was writing about? If you mean here I would like to know which losses are your refering to.

1. Value of losses per year
2. Area burnt per year
3. Homes lost per year
4. Lives lost per year
5. Firefighters lives lost per year

Without looking up the stats, I expect the loss of 500 homes in Canberra could not be termed a reduction. The fires in Victoria last year also could hardly be termed a reduction in area.

The author may be correct about the change in Departmental responsibility in Greece, but I would argue the opposite here and I seem to recall the NSW NPWS getting some heavy critisism over not enough hazard reduction burning.

The changes here in land management and usage has had a significant effect on bushfire fighting in the southern areas of Australia and has raised the losses not reduced them. Adjoining me, there are now 12 houses on hobby farms and rural residential blocks, on what used to be one rural property with one house. Fuel loads have increased dramaticly. On the 30k road to town there is now only one functioning rural property, which employs one person. The balance is hobby farms and residential. Mostly both husband and wife work in town so exce[t for a couple of old retirees there is no one about during the day. This is not unique, and is the same near most larger towns and cities.
cont..

Traveling stock used to reduce the roadside fuel and roads were used as fire breaks. Now roadsides carry high fuel loads rendering them unsuitable for fire breaks and are more hazardous to negotiate by vehicle during fires. Local bushfire brigades are now made up of people who work in town mainly and have to leave work, travel to the local fire station,assemble,don their gear and go to the fire on the tanker. This increases the time taken to attend to fires.

More bushland is shut up for reserves, national parks or by private people wanting to keep the bush in a 'natural' state. These areas are carrying very high loads of fuel.

All these factors together have led to situations where fires get away and become very large under the right conditions.

People have to realise that when large fires are running, the brigade resourses are simply not there to protect every house. Homeowners have to take more responsibility and make their house safer and then stay there to defend it.

For a start, have a look at trends in losses of human life and assets since 1900.