Could Backburning have helped with the victorian bushfires?

Its hard to say if backburning done months ago or even weeks would have made a difference. Because of the added fuel clearing it out by backburning could have reduced the threat a bit but when you consider the conditions on Saturday here...high 40's and very strong 120km winds its doubtful if anything could have prevented what happened.

Some of the fires were at their worst in isolated areas, heavily treed regions that were not near property but when the wind got hold of the fires they spread quickly to inhabited areas.

I have just heard on the news that 2 people have been arrested under suspicion of arson concerning a couple of the fires here. I would not like to be them if they are convicted.

It may have helped a little, but for very large fires it doesn't really make much of a difference if an area has been backburned or not. After an area has been burnt, it doesn't take long for the vegetation to regrow, thereby creating more fuel. An area would have to be backburnt on a regular basis on order to have an effect on fuel load. However not many plant communities are suited to regular burning and can have more of a harmful effect on biodiverstiy, than any benefit gained from backburning.

Sure fire is a natural part of the australian landscape and the aboriginies did light fires as a type of land management, but the question is how often? Probably not as frequently as is needed to control bushfires.

In this case here, I would say no. I think the wind played a heavy part in the ferocity of the fire and with amber's being pushed via wind it is really a difficult thing to counter. I suppose you would need to consider how much back burning do you do. What distance do you put between each backburn for it to be effective. I do support backburning and do believe that it saves land and lives, but backburning in my view is really effective when it is more of a ground fire, not floating ambers. My view only.

The firefighters gave up backburning because people kept lighting fires behind them. It is only being done in areas that can definitely be prevented

Clearly, as demonstrated in the news today, someone who cleared around their home, the cost to the resident for taking such action $100K in fines and court costs for removing vegetation, his home still stands!! Another, who repeatedly requested council for permission to remove 1 tree that would, in the event of a fire block the only access in an out of his property, which is exactly what happened, he himself survived unfortunately his wife following shortly after did not. The greens and conservationists have a lot to answer for here. It is their policies and influence that have contributed to this tragedy being a whole lot worse than it may otherwise have been.

I would think, with fires of this scale it may have helped a little, but it wouldn't have drastically altered the outcome. All the bigger trees still would have burned, and the leaves that fell after the back burning.