Allow me to point a finger. Those who successfully opposed fire hazard-reduction burning in the face of expert advice as to the consequences should be mortified, their worth as advisers should be severely questioned, politicians who pandered to them should hang their heads.

But I agree with some broader points, we can't change the past, we can act only in the present, and out present volition, speech and actions will help determine our future. Anger and seeking culprits are not positive, they don't contribute to a better future. At the same time, and acknowledging the uncertain nature of existence, when certain parties have wilfully put others in danger, that should be recognised, those parties should face up to the consequences of their actions and re-examine their values and beliefs.

I was shocked to hear the findings of the Canberra bushfires

- if the garden was mulched, the house burned

- if there were trees near the house, the house burned

When homeowners prepare their property for a smaller environmental footprint
- they plant trees to shade the house in summer to reduce reliance on air conditioning
- mulch their gardens to reduce water evaporation, especially important when water restrictions only permit watering 2 days per week

I imagine that people who are concerned about fire safety clear all the bush for a kilometre around their house, so that they build in a paddock, grow lawn and place garden beds away from the house.
As the drought in Victoria enters its 12th year drying out all the bush it appears that bush living is incompatible with fire safety.

Faustino and billie touch on two overlapping, though different, issues.

1) Fire hazard reduction-burning, and;

2) Safety clearances of vegetation for dwellings.

I believe the first matter of reduction-burning holds some primary importance here. David Packham has articulated that point well (see: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25031389-7583,00.html), no doubt to the chagrin of many Vic green fanatics and bureaucrats.

On the second matter, the case of the Sheahan family is striking: fined AUD100K by the state for felling some 250 trees on their own property as a fire break, but the Sheahans were some of the very few to make it through so relatively well in the inferno. They have no doubt that their own firebreak saved them, but the green-dictated laws set a break of no more than six metres from buildings (see: http://www.theage.com.au/national/fined-for-illegal-clearing-family-now-feel-vindicated-20090211-84sw.html?page=-1).

It seems clear that at various levels in the state's strategic fire management and legal framework of environmental management, the bushfires exposed failures, slackness, ineptitude and culpability. Acting on such incompetency need not be considered mere emotive reaction such as "blame".

In normal, healthy commerce and properly conducted military operations, for example, such failure would cause those responsible to be investigated and judged for the extent of their negligence and/or culpability, or lack thereof.

Perhaps Vic's state government apparatchiks and fat cats (if not the SJ too) operate by other standards of conduct. I'm sure the terms of reference for Brumby's royal commission will ensure that the investigation leaves out even the faintest hint of "blame", except perhaps for that general culprit living-breathing "humanity" and its "carbon footprint" leading to "global warming".

Brumby is doing what Sir Humphrey Appleby would have recommended, put off any nasty findings until after the next election. Then when the report comes in subject it to an internal inquiry. Then.....

Some on OLO don't like him but Andrew Bolt hit the nail squarely on the head with his long list of inquiries that have already been held after disastrous fires. Have the recommendations been implemented? The answer is obvious.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_those_warning_we_failed_to_heed/

Premier Brumby wants another multi-million dollar inquiry when the recommendations are already there for him to read. What a waste of money. But hey, Brumby's political behind is worth the money. Or is it?

While it won't help those who have already lost their lives, finding and punishing those who in spite of all the reports from the last fires, continued to impose their idealogical beliefs on those that knew better.

The farmer who was fined $50 000 dollars by a municipality for clearing his land, but had the only house left standing, is a prime example. The others who lost their homes and family have a prime facie case to sue the municipality and state for millions.

Only when the officials responsible for pandering to the greens have financially lost their shirts will they review their negligent behaviour.

The website I administer has attracted a considerable number of visitors and articles concerning the Victorian bush fires. They concern the conservation and land-use planning implications of the bush fires. They pose questions about what are the best long-term solution to the problem and challenge many mainstream views about the bush fires. The articles can be found at http://candobetter.org/VictorianFires2009

The bush fires further confirm the views of those who have been arguing for years that runaway population growth, particularly when urban planning is as abysmal as it is in Australia (largely thanks to Malcolm Fraser having abolished Whitlam's Department of Urban and Regional Development) is unsustainable.

An article, which I therefore consider related to this tragedy is "How the growth lobby threatens Australia’s future" at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8485 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8485&page=0

(Cross-posted to http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2009/02/08/fire-and-flood/comment-page-2/#comment-228814 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/02/13/more-fire-updates/#comment-635151)

"The really sad part is the landowners, cattlemen, family forest industry, green movement, governments, etc. all want to see the native forest maintained. None of us want to see it destroyed, but we are vigorously working against each other. Why?"

Maurie Killeen, CFA Captain, Maffra, Victoria (2003, p. 4).

daggett: "The bush fires further confirm the views of those who have been arguing for years that runaway population growth, particularly when urban planning is as abysmal as it is in Australia (largely thanks to Malcolm Fraser having abolished Whitlam's Department of Urban and Regional Development) is unsustainable".

The above claim's "out" is implied in the conditional emphasis on urban planning and the parenthesized comment on the Fraser government's abolition of "Whitlam's Department of Urban and Regional Development". That clause apparently poses a confusing distraction from daggett's essential (and repeatedly Malthusian) argument against people reproducing towards a demographic balance sheet in the black, as it were.

A minor problem, or other distraction, in daggett's claim is its assumption that such growth is "runaway". Running away from what? An innate population "stasis" figure, or a preferred target of degeneracy by say 1-2 million a year? How many as an ultimate population target? Say a million or so as in pre-white settlement? 3 million of early C20th? How many human beings can daggett and fellow Malthusians tolerate for populating this continent?

But the claim's most apparent problem to me is its principle of opposition to population growth in the first place. Does this mean that more people somehow create bushfires or make them more devastating and lethal? If the burning bushland is almost entirely "unproductive" by normal civilized human definitions, and green-inspired policies and laws all but prohibit clearance and burn-off, how can more people be causal here?

Of course, more people in such unmanaged bushfire conditions mean greater likelihood of more human fatalities and other casualties - a situation that seems to please other Malthusians like dickie, who seemingly trumpets "it appears innovative man to whom you refer is no match for Mother Nature" (see: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8409#134490) - the superstitious bile of a primordial Gaia cult.

And you're the guys claiming to be conscientiously mindful of my kids' future?

Fires require dry fuel, wind and ignition. The only part of that list that can be reliably managed is the fuel load. This has been the fundamental tenant of fire management for centuries.

To see daggert and other people challenge this leads me to doubt Victoria's success in preventing a repeat of this disaster.

The guidelines for levels of fuel load necessary to prevent devastating fire have changed little in 40 years and it is patently obvious that the fuel loads in the areas worst affected by the fires where not within a bulls roar of the guidelines.

The red herrings (such as, residential development,endangered species, global warming, wet forests, access roads, "its nature", arsonists, etc) are being trotted out to conceal the fundamental problem of high fuel loads.

I personally have heard all the green rhetoric when trying to organise controlled burns both from local residents and the bureaucracy. These people are not always card carrying greens but often have other motives as simple as not changing their washing day, discomfort from the smell of smoke, or didn't want to work this weekend.

The reason for sheeting it home to the broad group "greens" in their multitudinous guises is they treat their pronouncements as a mantra their are never doubts or an if or but. If you decide to discuss the issue with them they never have a good grasp of the science yet they have heavily resourced the publicity campaign.

The level of doubt and fear in the only achievement in the community no attempt is made to foster understanding.

I wish we didn't need to push these issues so soon, but many people quickly move on from these issues and fuel loads far above the guidelines have been reported as a fundamental problem in every major fire in the last 30 years. After every major fire we set out the manage the fuel load but quickly find hundreds of reasons not to.