To Mark J
I think that the whole FRB "debate" has been difficult for the environmental movement. I agree that they have never campaigned directly against FRB in the manner with which they have opposed logging.

Instead, they have simply ignored fire, which is in itself rather an indictment given that they have been told for decades that fire, rather than logging, is the infinitely greater threat to Australia's forests. But of course, the foresters who have tried to tell them that are seen as part of the 'logging lobby' so are not to be trusted!

The criticism levelled against the "greens" in the aftermath of Black Saturday really reflects the forest management consequences that have arisen from their political success in expanding parks and reserves as a tool for closing timber industries. These consequences may not have been intended so understandably the environmental movement is feeling that it is being unfairly maligned.

However much most 'greens' dislike deliberate human disturbance in nature, I agree that many have felt as though they can't totally oppose FRB, and so they say they support it with the rider about being done scientifically etc. If pressed this translates into supporting occassional, tiny burns for ecological purposes which is nowhere near enough to offer any significant value for mitigating the effects of bushfire. On that basis, I think it is playing with words to say they support FRB.

FRB opposition by green groups is total rubbish! The fact is the greenies want unfettered power over us all. You cannot do anything unless it is "approved" by some green nazi or other.
More of Victoria was lost to fires in the last few years than was ever lost to logging but there is no reasoning with the greens. If they are wrong they say they did not say that or they said something else.
They are the most accomplished political group just like their predecessors The National Socialist Party (NAZI).

Thanks for those comments Mark,

I think that you have hit the nail on the head - that there is a lack of trust between environmental groups and foresters when discussing the issue of FRB's. The forestry profession has a very proud emergence into Australia as the 'first conservationists', where they successfully prevented large areas of forest being cleared under the authorization of the then powerful lands department, and regulated relentless tree cutting by the settlers, graziers and miners of the time. Ironically, it was the foresters (forestry commission) who were subject to media scorn following the 1939 fires, very similar to how the some of the media portrayed environmental groups following Black Saturday. In 1939, Justice Stretton was very critical of the campaign to demonise the forestry commission and its foresters. We need to move past the culture of blaming sectors of the community who are clearly not at fault for the severity of these fires. People expressing environmental concerns following the fires have been subject to intimidation, threats, vilification, abuse, being referred to as 'Nazis', and slander. This only deepens the trench in the community, causing stressful division where there need to be unity. Environment groups, along with foresters and other people involved in the community on fire management, need to establish trust.

To Mark J
Whilst I mostly agree with you, the notion of engendering trust between foresters and the environmental movement is sadly probably impossible. For example, I posted this article initially on the "ABC Unleashed" site and have also previously posted an earlier article on that site. If you care to look you will see amongst the hundreds of comments the raw emotion and hatred reserved for someone like me whose thoughts are generally simply ignored - its all about who I represent, not what I may have to say. Even acknowledged government facts and statistics are just dismissed as lies if they challenge the beliefs of many of these people.

Undoubtedly there are more thoughtful people amongst the ranks of the environmental movement, but I suspect their influence is marginalised by those more militant voices and the over-riding need for the movement to remain relevant - which of course needs ongoing crisis to attract attention and support, including financial.

Forests are one of those issues where it is easiest to create controversy and support, but only in relation to logging which is something tangible that can be opposed and directly attacked. Forest and fire management is (in a protest-sense) an intangible that offers fewer opportunities. Indeed, as we have seen, fire creates more opportunities for disaffected rural people wishing to fight-back against the "greens" who they have come to hate for their influence over their lifestyles and livelihoods.

So there is realistically little hope for trust to develop between these groups and hoping that this will change is a mistake that has already been repeated in the past, and will probably be again.

Sarnian,

Everyone considers that their view points are "reasonable". The policy of touching nothing except that around human habitation and relying on survival bunkers is the other ridiculous extreme from burning all the forests. People will not just be in their houses.

Perhaps I am from a bygone era where human safety was the highest priority.

Letting fuel build up does nothing for GW as it will go up in flames sooner or later. Carbon capture requires that it stored in perpetuity.

The greens theme should be "burn baby burn."