Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Wilderness: its not the name, its the management that counts

By Roger Underwood - posted Friday, 5 March 2010


Well do I remember Judy Edwards, the then-Minister for the Environment, proudly announcing the creation of Western Australia’s first official wilderness area. It was 2004, and the area in question was an extensive hectarage of forest in the deep south near the small towns of Walpole and Denmark. It was not a “green-fields” reservation, but a cobbling together of existing reserves, mostly national parks, but also including some State forests.

The great thing about this new wilderness area, Minister Edwards explained, was that it would “protect biodiversity and ecological processes in the long term”.

She did not explain why biodiversity and ecological processes were not being protected in the existing reserves. This would be to admit mismanagement by her department.

Advertisement

But she did indicate how the new reserve would be managed in the future so as to achieve her lofty aims. Mostly this focused on human use, not ecological processes. The area would only be accessible to the public by foot, she said, and there would be no walk trails, signs, or track markers. No “ground-disturbing” activities associated with bushfire management (such as fire trail construction) would be permitted; prescribed burning buffers would be located outside the wilderness area. Internal roads would be closed, or allowed to grow over, and road signs removed.

The Minister said the aim would be to manage the wilderness area for its “intrinsic values” and “to provide unique recreational opportunities”. This “island of natural beauty” would be protected because it had been “relatively untouched by modern society”.

Well do I also remember the incredulity with which this announcement was greeted by the round-table of retired foresters with whom I occasionally share a yarn and reminisce. All of us had worked in this area at some time in the distant past, and had experienced its unique recreational opportunities at close quarters.

What are the “intrinsic values” of wilderness, we wondered, and why cannot they be provided in a national park? The only unique attribute of a wilderness area appears to be a lack of access for vehicles, or of formed walk trails for walkers. Protection of landscape beauty and biodiversity is clearly the first objective in national parks. Moreover, most national parks contain trackless areas, especially those in the remoter parts of the Pilbara or Kimberley.

It is true that closing roads and banning vehicular traffic has some environmental benefits (vehicles can spread dieback disease and grading can lead to sediment washing into streams), but these threats can be minimised or avoided by responsible management. Vehicles are also noisy, especially the detested trail bikes, and occasionally a native animal will be run over. However, none of these impacts is likely to be significant in terms of the biodiversity of a large national park. The two big threats to biodiversity in WA are feral predators/herbivores, and large intense wildfires. Neither can be reduced by merely closing roads.

At first glance I saw several ironies with the creation in WA’s southern forests of the sort of wilderness area envisaged by Minister Edwards.

Advertisement

First, the vegetation in this area is karri and southern jarrah forest, interspersed by swampland. These ecotypes naturally have a very prickly, dense (often almost impenetrable) understorey. I spent a fair proportion of my early days as a forester fighting my way through it when carrying out survey and inventory work, and I can remember how I would come home from the day’s work with my trousers shredded and my hands cut and bleeding from battling sword grass and spiny wattles. In the tangled ti-tree and bottlebrush swamps, walking was actually impossible. The trick was to find a runnel used by wallabies and crawl along it.

In winter, the southern forests are cold and sodden; it is either raining or dripping off the trees. One of the most ubiquitous shrub species is known to bushmen as “waterbush” because it collects water on its foliage until you brush against it, and then it drenches you. The cheering billy fire, of course, is not permitted in a wilderness area.

In summer, the bush is warm, humid and sticky, almost sub-tropical, and is rich with mosquitoes, march flies and tiger snakes. Yes, the trees, birdlife and wildflowers are beautiful, but these are more easily appreciated from a walking track, not from deep within a thicket of head-high karri wattle or the aptly-named “buggery bush”.

My second concern was more critical. By downgrading bushfire management, including closure of roads and fire trails, and by imposing constraints on the use of earth-moving equipment, the Minister has unwittingly written a death warrant for this reserve. Lightning strikes are common in the southern forests, and seriously bad fire weather occurs every summer. Sooner or later a ferocious wildfire will rip through the wilderness and it will be devastated. What then of this “island of beauty”? What then of its untouched biodiversity? Both will be cooked to a cinder. A smaller, informal wilderness area established within the Walpole-Nornalup National Park some years earlier has already been subjected to this fate. It was left unburnt for many years and then finally was incinerated in a wildfire.

Any failure to provide effective fuel reduction burning in this area may well also write the death warrant for local firefighters, forced to deal with a wildfire tearing out of the wilderness area towards towns, farms and other conservation reserves, or of bushwalkers caught in the middle of the wilderness area with no means of escape.

I do not object to governments declaring wilderness areas. This is their right, and in the case of the Walpole Wilderness Area, I know why they did it (Minister Edwards happily acknowledged the assistance of The Wilderness Society in developing her policy). What I do object to is a failure to apply the sort of responsible management that will protect the beauty and biological resources of the area, and maintain regional standards of bushfire protection.

Luckily, there is nearly always a difference between what a Minister announces in a press release, and then what actually happens on the ground. The processes of strategic and operational planning expose departmental staff to the real world, including the views of local communities. People who only operate through the political system lose ground at this point.

Because of these factors, the Walpole Wilderness Area is managed much more responsibly than I feared might happen. Not all the internal roads were closed, thus allowing access for emergency services. The area is crossed by a major walking trail (the Bibbulmun Track), and the restrictions on fire suppression have been watered down. Earth moving equipment can now be used, so long as approved by the department’s Executive Director, and it is hard to imagine him refusing a request to take a bulldozer in to attack a fire on a bad day. Some prescribed burning is also carried out; it is described as “mosaic habitat creation” rather than “fuel reduction burning”, but fuel reduction occurs nevertheless. The Indigenous rightful owners are allowed unrestricted access, and can hunt and fish without restraint.

The net effect is that while an official wilderness area has been designated, and is shown proudly on maps, little has changed on the ground. From what I can determine, however, the re-badging has satisfied everyone. This includes those city-based green-sympathisers who like the philosophical concept of wilderness, and are pleased to see a wilderness area declared, but who have not the slightest intention of ever sampling its challenges on the ground.

The WA government is currently considering the declaration of a second, very large Wilderness Area in the Goldfields south of Coolgardie. This beautiful inland forest is far from being untouched by human hands - it has over a century of use by sandalwooders, prospectors, mining timber and firewood cutters and more recently, 4WD enthusiasts, and has incurred many large, intense bushfires in recent years. But there is a romance about the area, and few West Australians have ever been there. A management strategy is being prepared and it will be interesting to see how issues like recreational use and fire management are handled. Even more interesting will be to see how the strategy is later implemented.

Fire management is extremely complex in woodland ecosystems, and since it is virtually impossible to close roads, the policing of 4WD drivers and trail bikers will require a large, permanent and well-resourced staff. Yet again, I can see no on-ground advantage in declaring this a “Wilderness Area” rather than a national park, and I doubt that it will become a true wilderness in anything but name.

To the Western Australian public-at-large, this will not matter. Wilderness is a political and an urban concept; more about ideas and ideology than about what happens on the ground. The demand for wilderness areas, like the demand for national parks, is largely satisfied by the fact of their dedication and naming, and the splash they make on the map. The reality is that if you want to sustain critical values in the long term, the critical thing is not what a piece of land is called, but how it is managed.

Personally, I regard wilderness as a phony concept, and believe that we should stick to national parks, and then manage them responsibly. Management can include the dedication of trackless areas, but most importantly it must tackle the real threats to biodiversity and landscape, i.e., feral animals and large high intensity wildfires.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

17 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Roger Underwood is a former General Manager of CALM in Western Australia, a regional and district manager, a research manager and bushfire specialist. Roger currently directs a consultancy practice with a focus on bushfire management. He lives in Perth, Western Australia.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Roger Underwood

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 17 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy