I would also remind the city dwellers that prescribed fuel reduction protects the water catchments of the cities. If you remove all vegetation from the catchment by wildfire, all you end up getting as an inflow into the dams is ash and mud with the next rainfall. With the huge problems of erosion within the catchment and the reduced runoff as the bush grows back, city people have a deep interest in the management of water catchments. Since the 2003 fires in the ACT hundreds of thousands of tonnes of soil has been washed into the water supply dams of Canberra in a process called headwall erosion which does not stop until the gully has reached bedrock (Read Barry Starr's reports to ACTWE). This has reduced the holding capcity of the dams and required the construction of a water purification plant to improve the quality of the water.
So rather than complain about the people who wish to live in the bush and make up the numbers in the brigades that go and put out the fires in these city water catchments, I suggest that you read the wealth of reports over the decades from the numerous commissions of inquiry, coronial inquiry's and Royal Commissions. They appear to be unanimous regarding fuel management. To disregard the findings of experts in these reports would be the same as ignoring the concerns of climate scientists.

Fine article, Max. That and the comments by Ken_L and mikk highlight a couple of issues and I'll deal with the commenters first.

These two are probably quite oblivious to the level of mindlessness they display. Ken_L is apparently unable to comprehend the facts and arguments. But that's OK, he doesn't need to bother because he doesn't like the messengers so he just KNOWS they are wrong.

Poor mikk has a problem with arithmetic: who is going to pay for the hazard reduction burning? And the alternative is....? D'oh. Yes, mikk, it's us. Now which is likely to be the cheaper? Pay for hazard reduction burning or pay for massive loss of life and private property and public infrastructure (schools, hospitals, bridges, fire stations, etc., etc.), THEN pay increased insurance premiums and taxes across the board?

The other issue that Max hinted at was via Gavin Jennings "we know better" speech of last December. Note the phrasing from Jennings: "Hectare-based targets are not considered to be the best way of measuring effectiveness of the planned burning program." Note the passive voice of the bureaucrat. Who, exactly, does not consider it the best way? Some faceless public service clerk, that's who.

And that is the problem. Bureaucracies throughout Australia, most notably the environmental bureaucracies, have been ideologically captured by the green left, old fashioned Trotskyite entryism style, where you get a few people in the door and they then hire new recruits in their own image. They are, as a consequence, incompetent to provide unbiassed, objective advice to their ministers. And ministers, who may share those prejudices anyway, are disinclined and ill-equipped to ask the right questions to expose the poor advice. The same failings can be seen in relation to the ETS, waste management, recycling and container deposit legislation. It's all fuzzy wool which hides the fact in each of these areas of policy there is an enormous cost and little benefit.

Ken_L,

1. The truth has not respect for "balance".

2. Better you read and try and understand the issues as outlined by Max, rather than hiding behind your own prejudice and ignorance based on hearsay and claimed associations.

Let's just say KenH that I find attempts by extremist interest groups to push their obsessive ideological and political barrows by exploiting human tragedy to be tasteless and offensive.

The message that we do not learn the lesson of fuel reduction burning seems to be a pattern after all major bush fires.

For example in October 2003, the House of Representatives select committee on Australian Bushfires found in its report “The Nation charred” that 3 elements determine the intensity of a fire: fuel, oxygen and heat. Of these the amount of available fuel is the only factor that can be controlled.

The committee recommended more prescribed burning to reduce fuel loads; yet one MP issued a dissenting report. Perhaps we could guess the colour of his party.

Such a denial continues with this current tragedy, on last night's Sunday Night Program on Channel 7, see http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunday-night/video#fop click on “Questioning the Victorian bushfire disaster” video.

When Fire Expert David Parkham a Fire Management Consultant – and CSIRO Scientist for 18 years, told of three factors contributing to the bushfires including fuel build up he received acknowledgement from many of the victims.

However the audience, nor the host, was not impressed when Gavan McFadzean, The Wilderness Society Victoria’s Campaigns Manager, tried to deny this expert's knowledge. His credibility was questioned and found wanting by the audience.

One victim was so angry by the smooth response from this spin doctor, that he felt compelled to leave the studio rather than listen to “c**p”. The victims concluded “he had no idea at all".

Let’s hope we listen to experts like David Parkham, and adopt Max Rheese’s recommendation to learn from the past.

Max,
I have grave misgiving towards your conclusions and the objectivity of your organization.
Any organization that puts preset limitation/conditions as “cost-benefit analysis” on its conclusions rather than complete independence and has the links it does smacks of “vested interests’” mouth piecing.

The superficiality of your analysis both on your site and in this piece is further emphasizes external influences/interests.

While I agree they have a right to put their opinion cloaking it in under the pretence of implied independence put it in category of other ‘foundations’ like the one that touts a well known brand of shampoo.