Ecologists effectively advocating destruction of Australian forests

In 1890, noted bushman and early explorer, Alfred Howitt, recounted his observations of the changing nature of eastern Victoria's eucalypt forests to the Royal Society of Victoria.

He noted that prior to the mid-1860s, these forests had been regularly "burnt off by aborigines, either incidentally or intentionally. These annual bushfires tended to keep the forests open, and to prevent them from being overgrown, for they not only consumed much of the standing or fallen timber, but in a great measure destroyed the seedlings that had sprung up since former conflagrations".

In just 25 years, the beginnings of European settlement – including cattle and sheep grazing – had largely over-turned this delicate balance. Regular burning declined as indigenous communities were displaced and as the new settlers sought "to lessen and keep within bounds bushfires which might otherwise be very destructive to their improvements".

According to Howitt, the reduced annual burning allowed forests to quickly became choked with small trees and scrubby understories, thereby making them more flammable. When summer bushfires inevitably occurred, they burned with a greater and more damaging ferocity than before.

Howitt's observations of regularly fired and more open pre-European forests aligned with similar accounts from explorers and early settlers elsewhere in Australia. In 2011, the publication of Bill Gammage's book, The Biggest Estate on Earth, strengthened a consensus that indigenous burning, in conjunction with fires naturally ignited by lightning, maintained most of Australia's pre-European forests in a far more open and less flammable condition than they are today.

There are exceptions to this general rule, such as the tall, ash-type eucalypt forests growing on the wettest parts of the southern ranges. They were reportedly just as dense prior to European settlement as they are today. Being inherently wet, they were far less affected by indigenous burning or lightning-ignited fires. However, they would periodically dry-out during prolonged droughts and could then burn with a ferocity that would generally kill most trees and stimulate a replacement regrowth event.

Cognisant of such relatively minor exceptions, Australia's land managers now widely accept that fire was far more prevalent in most of our forested landscapes during pre-European times, and that it was generally of moderate to low intensity because its frequency generally prevented the build-up of heavy fuel loads. After tens of thousands of years of indigenous occupancy, all but the wettest Australian forests and woodlands had become adapted to regular, relatively low impact fire.

In southern Australia, the premise of approximating nature by maintaining low fuel loads has, since the 1950s, underpinned organised forest fire management based around fuel reduction burning undertaken during cooler seasons either side of summer. While these burns can replicate the low to moderate fuel state to which most forests and their ecology are naturally adapted, the necessity to control them due to neighbouring property and safety concerns makes it nigh-on impossible to match the full extent of annual pre-European burning. Despite this, if there is sufficient annually fuel reduced area, it can lessen the extent and environmental impact of most summer wildfires by both reducing their intensity, and making them easier and quicker to control.

In view of this, one would expect support for fuel reduction burning to be high amongst Australian ecologists, but recent public commentary by some academics suggests otherwise. For several years now, Lindenmayer and Zylstra, have strongly advocated the cessation of fuel reduction burning in lieu of leaving southern Australian forests unburnt indefinitely. According to their theory, long unburnt forests will naturally evolve into a low-flammable state, thereby removing the need for fuel reduction burning which they claim to be increasing, rather than mitigating, the bushfire threat.

More recently, senior ecologist Don Driscoll has added his voice to the anti-fuel reduction burning chorus based on research purportedly showing that previously burnt forests suffer worse ecological impacts (compared to long unburnt forests) when subject to major wildfires. In a recent article on The Conversation website promoting this research, Driscoll noted that: "Clearly, fire management and policy needs a big rethink. Alternative approaches to large-scale prescribed burning are required". Given that Driscoll's research involved over 120 co-contributors, it may be reasonable to conclude that his views on fire management are widespread within the fraternity of ecology academics.

The opposition to fuel reduction burning being led by some of these ecologists, represents an astounding denial of the historical record of past fire and how it has shaped Australia's forested ecosystems. Furthermore, the published ecological research papers collectively advocating a no-burning fire management approach, displays a disturbing lack of practical understanding and experience of both fuel reduction burning and wildfire suppression, exemplified by misconceptions such as:

· Assuming that all forest types are targeted for fuel reduction burning when there are significant areas that are not targeted, such as, for example, the wet ash-type forests;