Ken_L,

You deny any role of the green left ideologues? Check these links:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25070342-661,00.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/15/2491979.htm

From the second link:

"A Victorian man who borrowed a bulldozer to help create a firebreak during the bushfires could be charged over the incident.

Victoria's Department of Sustainability and Environment owns the bulldozer which Buxton pub owner Eric Notley used to create firebreaks to save houses and other buildings in the tiny town."

That is on top of the prosecution of Mr Sheahan for removing trees which threatened the safety of his house, resulting in a fine and costs of $100,000.

These are not the results of a green left agenda? It doesn't have to be a conspiracy, just the application of an ideology.

And check the Wilderness Society's visiting genius, MacFadzean, (visiting from inner city Melbourne, where he lives safely in isolation from bushfires) in this week's Sunday Night on Channel 7: http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunday-night/video#fop

The lunacy of the green-dominated local councils has been well documented.

On top of that there have been various media statements by Bob Brown, Tim Flannery, Freya Matthews and a raft of ABC presenters all trying to blame the fires on CO2 emissions.

So, please, don't try to deny the role of the greens, or the pervasiveness of green ideology in the state and local bureaucracies. It's all on the record. And with the most obvious of results.

Oh, and mikk, you NOW think costs are not important, that it's all about "asthma sufferers and little old ladies with bronchitis...about the safety aspects of burnoffs"?

Asthma suffers are harmed by fuel reduction burns, but not, apparently, by massive bushfires? The relatively low risk of back burn escapes in cool, still weather offsets ACTUAL massive destruction, such as we have seen? Good grief.

And it might have been much worse. Fran Bailey, the federal MP whose electorate covers much of the area affected by the bushfires, has pointed out that "if Saturday's fires had broken out on a week day, thousands of children would have been in the schools and kindergartens that were destroyed."

So Ken_L thinks that membership of a group critical of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis somehow means a person can't speak about bushfires. AGW has very little if anything to do with this disaster. The attempt to link the two is disingenuous, and a disgraceful exploitation of the tragedy for political purposes. Clownfish points out the regular bushfire cycle in Australia, which is much more to the point. You could also look at recent weather patterns in the Indian Ocean for clues.

He implies that I am an "extremist", pushing "obsessive ideological and political barrows" apparently because I agree with Max and not with him. And at the same time he has the gall to talk about "mindless personal abuse." What self-righteous hypocrisy! God help our democracy if his attitude gets a foothold.

The reality is that three key factors contribute to fire - oxygen, heat and fuel. Control any one of them and you control the fire. Guess which one you can control?

The heavier the fuel load the more intense the fire. So while it is perfectly true that fire can cross a paddock that has been grazed to the ground, how much more intense and difficult to control it would be if the grass is unmanaged?

The same applies to the bush. A fuel load reaching 8 tonnes per hectare is considered to be dangerous by bushfire authorities. The load in in some of the destroyed areas had been allowed to reach 30-50 tonnes per hectare, exponentially increasing the fire intensity.

Those who deliberately allowed that to happen, against the advice of every enquiry into major bushfires, should be charged with criminal negligence.

For those who continue to assert that the green left has never opposed prescribed burning, Miranda Devine's column in today's Sydney Morning Herald sources statements by WWF, the WA Forests Alliance, NSW Greens, and the NSW Conservation Council proving that they do indeed oppose that sensible tactic: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/this-burning-issue-of-life-and-death-20090218-8bee.html

She also points out that "In NSW, already, the Department of Environment and Conservation has listed 'too frequent fire' as a 'key threatening process to biodiversity'". An example of bureaucratic capture by ideologues, if any more examples were needed after the numerous instances given in relation to the recent Victorian bushfires.

Terrific photo , Aerial , 1/2 Page , on the front page of the Bendigo Advertiser , caption , "THE FIRE THAT SAVED MALMSBURY" .

Apparantly DSE's state fire and training investigation co-ordinator Les Vearing had something to do with this back burn , now known as a Dai Gun San ? No matter what it's called the photo is explicit ! Mr Vearing said at least 50 houses were saved .

The pic was courtesy CFA .

The phone for the Addy is 54344470 , internet www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au

KenH, with regard to the bulldozer story, I'd be guessing that it's a total beat-up by the media concerned.

Note the key phrase: "Could be charged". Not "WILL be charged". In other words, yes, technically, the DSE could level charges. Nothing in that article indicates to me that they intend to. The DSE says the matter will be investigated - one suspects that the journos, fishing for a story, have brought the matter to the DSE.

As for the Sheahan story, I would suggest that if someone wants to live on a cleared block - buy a cleared block. Don't by a forested block in a green belt zone, and then expect to be allowed to clear it.

If you bought a block in a residential zone, and then put up a factory, you'd get pretty short shrift.

Likewise, people who build next to an airport, then complaint about noise ... well, duh.

At some stage, people are just going to have to accept that there are risks that come with living in certain environments.

Clownfish, you are being a bit simplistic. For example people have been living in the Blue Mountains, one of Australia's most bushfire-prone areas, almost since settlement. All of the "green zones" or equivalent in the Blue Mountains have been imposed after development, not before.

Are you suggesting that we now close down the Blue Mountains, where more than 80% of residences are within 150 metres of the 1,000,000+ hectares of National Park, but where we are no longer allowed to manage risks from trees in our own backyards? The same sort of thing has happened in many, many places across Australia.

What about rural farming communities - should they now drive to the big smoke for kid's school and their supplies so businesses and their owners won't have to locate near the bush?

Somehow I don't think that's going to happen. If, as you correctly point out, there is a risk in living in a bush environment, then people need to do risk management. Let's have a look at the options for householders and small businesses in rural areas:
1. Risk avoidance. This means living somewhere else. Covered above - it's not going to happen.
2. Risk transfer. Being insured helps the recovery process, but it doesn't prevent loss of life and personal effects that can never be replaced.
3. Risk reduction. Realistically the only option. Create an asset protection zone. Clear trees that are too close. Cut or graze grass. Most importantly, manage rather than abandon the bush and reduce bushfire hazards. All need to be done and more besides (e.g evacuation plans, tanks and pumps, etc.) Not rocket science. For goodness' sake, why aren't we allowed to just do it?

You want people to live on cleared blocks, but we are not allowed to clear them! Where is the logic behind deliberately exacerbating a major risk to life and property? Doing so is dangerously negligent in my book.