Fire has a singular point of difference from other natural disasters in that it can be created, influenced and, with effort, smothered. Fire can by sparked by humankind if you can pardon the pun.

Aside from the human-induced climate change argument, you won’t hear locals on the street following a cyclone for example question who’s to blame for the destruction of their homes or business; the victims of a earthquake wonder where it started or what infrastructure was in place to prevent it from happening.

In all instances of course we have the incredible human response and our emergency services and volunteers from all walks of life rightly celebrated for their efforts in the aftermath.

But with fire we are left with more questions than answers. Is above-ground electrical infrastructure somehow party to the fire starting? Were proper protocols on clearing around power lines adhered to? Would it even have mattered given we had 75kmh-plus winds sending tree limbs flying and power lines slapping?

Would further clearing of vegetation and additional controlled burns have prevented the extensive damage done? Are “those Greenies” to blame for hindering efforts to reduce fuel loads prior to our Aussie summers?

The back burning question is one on the lips of many Bega Valley locals following the events of March 18-19. We aren’t here to apportion blame. There is an independent inquiry underway looking at possible causes and recommendations. 

However, there is an intriguing disconnect here. In a region bounded by stunning beaches, tree-covered escarpments, national parks and state forest one could assume people live here for the lifestyle afforded by the “Beautifully Uncivilised Sapphire Coast”, the “Unspoilt South Coast” or indeed  “Australia’s Coastal Wilderness”.

Then again, there’s little love lost for perceived failings in vegetation management and any hampering of efforts to remove plenty of that same wilderness.

While we may love the natural beauty of our surrounds, we are also tragically aware of its limitations – and consequences.

But is it a matter of not seeing the forest for the trees?