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;

· An unjustifiable extrapolation of the fuel and fire characteristics of non-fuel reduced wet forests which rarely burn, to drier forest types that are naturally adapted to more frequent fire.

· A tendency to imply that there is no difference between the environmental impacts inflicted by unplanned summer bushfires under hot, dry conditions and those of planned low intensity burning undertaken in mild autumn or spring conditions;

· Condemning fuel reduction burning as being responsible for severe biodiversity impacts in the absence of any direct comparison against the biodiversity impacts associated with heavy fuel build-up in long unburnt forests, and especially after such forests have been subjected to a hot summer wildfire;

· A lauding of indigenous cultural burning over conventional fuel reduction burning without acknowledging that both methods are based on the same principle of using low intensity fire during cooler times of the year;

· A context-free faith in small scale indigenous cultural burning (Driscoll refers to it as 'right-way burning') as a superior alternative to conventional broadscale fuel reduction burning despite it being more responsive to the huge scale of Australia's forests and the bushfire threat;

· Advocacy of a shift to a more streamlined 'wildfire response only' fire management regime based on unproven technology and a demonstrably poor understanding of the requirements for effective wildfire suppression, including misconceptions about the respective importance of aerial and ground-based fire-fighting operations on the containment and control of remote area wildfires;

· A greater reliance on theoretical modelling over real world observations in relation to forest fuel build-up and fire behaviour; and

· A lack of acknowledgement of the 60+ years of applied and academic forest fire research, practical operational experience and observation that underpins conventional fuel reduction burning practice and effectiveness in mitigating the wildfire threat.

Science is a contest of ideas. Traditionally, the contest played out in the background where conceptual or factual research flaws were debated and, if necessary, rejected on the way to shaping a scientific consensus to inform sensible government policy.

Nowadays, the publication of scientific research papers about trendy environmental causes is often a public spectacle, promoted by its authors and eagerly appropriated by lobby groups to help push eco-activist agendas. If such papers have conceptual and factual flaws, they are simply overlooked in the rush to publicise and shape their findings into an influential but superficial message; and by the time these errors are unearthed, the minds of the interested public and politicians have already been made-up.

This somewhat exemplifies the course of ecologically-based opposition to fuel reduction burning whereby media outlets – the ABC, The Guardian, The Age and SMH – seemingly in thrall of the academic credentials of high-profile ecologists, are eager to promote any of their commentary, especially if it advances an anti-forestry ideology. The question of whether these ecologists have the real-life fire management expertise to credibly recommend over-hauling time-worn land management paradigms and practices, is seemingly never even considered. Given the reach and influence of mass media, this creates a strong prospect of non-experts inordinately shaping political decision-making on how to manage the forest fire threat– which is scary given fire's potential to disastrously effect rural Australia and its inhabitants.

In an ideal world, these ecologists and their media boosters would be more cognisant and respectful of the many past Australian bushfire inquiries, including Royal Commissions from as far back as 1939. Consistently these have, on the basis of expert advice, reiterated support for fuel reduction burning and recommended far more of it to optimise its benefit. This includes the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission (following the 'Black Saturday' disaster) which recommended a tripling of the state's annual fuel reduction burning program to 5% per annum of the public forest estate.

This recommendation was inspired by the example of Western Australia's southern forests which had, until then, avoided large, damaging forest fires for around 50-years by fuel reducing at least 6% of their area per annum. Unfortunately for Victoria, the newly elected Andrews Labor Government quietly dropped its commitment to more fuel reduction burning in 2014, and the annual rate has hovered for the last decade at just 1.5% of public forest per annum – as it had done prior to 'Black Saturday'. The result of this backflip are evident in more common large campaign fires.

Perhaps of greater relevance to those advocating a 'no-burning' fire management approach, is the American experience where, after a fierce political debate, the US Forest Service adopted the so-called 'Smoky Bear' policy in the mid-1920s. Under this policy, no 'light burning' (ie. fuel reduction) was permitted in the forests, and any wildfires were to be immediately extinguished. This is essentially what Australia's anti-burning ecologists and like-minded eco-activists are campaigning for.

However, as the years passed, it become abundantly clear that the consequences of the 'Smoky Bear' policy were disastrous as wildfires ignited in the heavy fuels of long-unburnt forests soon grew into large, high-intensity conflagrations that are exceedingly damaging and virtually impossible to control without the intervention of significant rain. This remains the case despite the high-tech fire-fighting methods now available. These days there is little formal support for the policy of total fire exclusion, and efforts are being made through-out the USA to reintroduce fuel reduction burning to mimic the former light burning culture of the Native Americans.

While Australia's anti-burning ecologists seem to be in denial about the past history of our fire-adapted forests and are clearly determined to ignore the expertise of a century of public land forest and fire management; they could learn much from the abject failure of the 'no-burn' fire exclusion proposal that was previously introduced in the USA. If they remain unmoved in their support for a 'no-burning' fire management approach, they are effectively, albeit inadvertently, advocating ecological destruction of Australian forests.