Fuel reduction burns do not make Australia any safer

Burning of native vegetation in efforts to reduce fuel loads does not make Australia any safer from wildfires.The mantra of fuel reduction burns is used as an excuse to get rid of more native vegetation even though in some cases it restricts the spread of fire.Rather than focus on extinguishing fires as quickly as possible, fires are often left to develop into major burns as they present better photo and television opportunities. An issues paper published by the Federal Parliament in 2002 says: Fuel reduction burning should not be applied uniformly, in terms of frequency or extent, across Australia because of the diversity of forests, topography and climates in southern Australia as well as the different priorities that different land managers have in developing specific burning regimes. In order for fuel reduction burning programs to be effective they need to be designed to be applied to specific vegetation types and implemented by properly trained and resourced staff. Proper assessment of these burns need to be carried out to show whether the results meet the objectives of the program. Burning regimes are planned in advance with the knowledge that some fuel reduction burns may not proceed due to poor weather. Politicians have demonstrated that they are not prepared to take effective action.More fires are started deliberately than as a result of lightning,so greater efforts should be spent on preventing arson. Current Issues Brief no. 8 2002-03 https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/CIB/cib0203/03Cib08 Steve Warrington, Chief officer of Victoria's CFA said:"The emotive argument is that fuel reduction burning will fix all our problems. Yes, burning is important but some of the hysteria that this is the solution to all our problems is an emotional load of rubbish.