· 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;
Advertisement
· 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.
Advertisement
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.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
4 posts so far.