Not sure if you have seen the whole article (I expect you need to pay / whatever on the website). I subscribe to [the paper version of] New Scientist and I thought it was an interesting article - the "teaser" on their web site may suggest differently though.
"it's an interesting although a not well timed thought..."
Not sure I agree. New Scientist is a weekly journal, and as such addresses current news issues (30% at a guess) as well as having more general science (70% say). (Its a well respected journal over here)
Its description of the plight of the people is sympathetic, but puts forward some historical reasoning as to how widespread fires were before the more recent large-scale human inhabitation of the area and considers the nature of the decisions taken since large-scale human habitation, compared to other strategies of fire-management.
Having said that, I'm not in favour of heading-grabbing for-the-sake-if-it, but equally I don;t know if the "teaser" is just taking the first "N-characters", or is actually a human-edited sample of the article.