Rosy apples,

No one is claiming that fuel load was the main cause of the fire, or the behaviour of the fire.

Fuel load increases the temperature and ferocity of the fire at that particular point. Reducing fuel load near populated areas will not stop all damage as seat belts in a car do not stop all fatalities.

However, it would save many lives as the previously mentioned royal commissions have found.

Will a third RC find any different? I doubt it. Gavan McFadzean's campaign is another example of an armchair city dwelling eco warrior pushing his own agenda in spite of the harm it has caused in the past.

Shadow Minister, Democritus.

If you were better informed with environmental planning you would know that the sentence SM highlighted was enviro speak for the same thing only more accurately/diplomatically expressed. This was to exclude environmentally ignorant individuals with a chainsaw, bulldozer and burner doing more long term damage. (See CSIRO report on warming). And in the final analysis not achieving any more safety.

As the ranger from the affected area said he hasn’t seen an environmental management plan that doesn’t stipulate including firebreaks, burning off, clearing (reducing fire loads) etc. It is impossible to maintain species habitats without the above.

I repeat you show me the scientific based group that says no clearing (of fire load etc) it is monumentally ill informed to lump all environmentally concerned individuals into some pejorative title ‘greens or greenies’.

The article alludes to a number of other causes to the intensity of the blaze.
Including to drying because of loss of green covering in the south of the continent.
As is the authors’ clear intention is that the issue is far too complex for prejudicial knee jerk reactions….”the green(ies) are to blame” simply because there were many factors. This includes a public who want everything but doesn't want to pay thus ham stringing the government's spending priorities, relevant depts etc.

Your simplistic approach is myopic, selfish, uninformed and as such INSULTING to those who are responsible, thoughtful and environmently aware. To make my point how much environmental hands on work have you done? courses? etc.

I think there are enough facts out now to end the "greenie bashing" since the tragedy.
Have any of the greenie bashers been out to the fire site or spoken to the locals? Crown fires fanned by 100kph winds don't mess around with undergrowth, they vaporise the crown leaves and jump hundreds of meters. It does work, but not for 100% of fires 100% of the time.
"environment for everyone" raises excellent points: Fuel reduction burning is *not* a panacea, and actually has risks, not least being loss of life caused by reduction burning.
OK, some councils stuffed up by not allowing clearing. I'd suggest this is the usual council bullying and incompetance rather then the impact of true "green" influence.
So to reiterate: this is not a case of Left/Right, Business vs Greenies. This is complex governance issue and the Wilderness society is one of the *expert* contributors. The "all greenies are bad" brigade should stick to economics where everyone is a hack.

This is a considered and softly measured article from an organisation seemingly shell-shocked and fearful that the community may at last recognise that it has long been conned by the core message that 'saving' forests is as simple as closing down the hardwood timber industry.

Given this, it is surprising [and disappointing] that Gavan would continue to appeal to his organisation's core constituency by using the fires as a lever to sustain the irrelevant anti-logging stance. I refer to the sixth point of the Wilderness Society's bushfire action plan, and the appeal to prevent timber salvage.

It is also curious that Gavan believes 'the debates of the past about how to prepare for and manage bushfire .... are debates of the past' given that almost every 'green' spokesperson since the fires has been at pains to say that they have never opposed activities such as fuel reduction burning. Where is the debate?

In truth, there has never been much debate about fire because the 'green' groups have been so obsessed by logging, despite being constantly told that fire is overwhelming a more important issue. It seems that this is set to continue with only minor dilution.

Gavan has in fact constructed a fairly good argument for increased fuel reduction burning as reducing the intensity of summer fires is one of the few actions that will benefit the environment. Instead though, he implies (without ever stating the dreaded "FRB" phrase) that this would be like 'declaring war on the forest'. Go figure!

The article's primary message is that "the rules we all understood about fire management have now changed and a new approach is necessary" Not withstanding that the Wilderness Society have not understood or cared much about fire in the past, it seems that this pronouncement is a precursor to an "its all about climate change" campaign. If this succeeds in stymeing long overdue revisions to the approach and resources for public land fire management it will indeed be like declaring war on biodiversity and water.

The simple point is that we can not exclude fire from the South East corner of Australia. The sooner that one fact is burned into everyone's mind the better.
On Sunday 22nd of March (last Sunday) a electrical storm passed across the northern Monaro and started many fires, some of which are still burning behind containment lines today.
Mother Nature started these fires so we better learn to live with her capricious acts and accept fire as a part of our day to day environment, both the good and the bad aspects of a fire in the Australian bush.

Suggested reading
http://www.abc.net.au/blackfriday/aftermath/dpackham.htm

I would also opine that less fuel on the forest floor would result in less fires caused by lightning strikes as well as reducing the ability of a fire to reach the crowns. David Packham and his fellow scientists have been researching fires for several decades and they seem to have got a very good handle on what is required but most of the recommendations of these very experienced fire scientists have gone unheeded because the opposition from the environmental movement has got the governments of all persuasions scared of losing their vote.

A few comments about salvaging the burnt timber are also in order. The "greenies" are making it sound as though all that will happen is that this timber will be cut and the area left to become a bare wilderness. The truth of the matter is that within a short period of time, all sorts of plants will spring up and without doubt, whoever is responsible will be spreading seeds of the species of trees which have been destroyed, so that in twenty years time, a vibrant forest will again be growing. This is exactly what happens as the result of planned logging, except that in the latter environment, old stags are left as habitat for the wild life, such as the revered Leadbeaters Possum, which then has a superabundance of young gum leaves to eat.

David