Are you still working as the Resource Manager for Gunns woodchipping operation in Tasmania?

I have done my best to simplify everything for you Robert so that my case can be falsified. To change my mind all you need to do is come up with a study that refutes Richard’s work and shows Snowgums cannot get scarred by low intensity or frequent fires. You clearly don’t have any such evidence.

My opinions don’t come from my employer and I’m not part of a secret greenie plot. I am nothing more than a fire practitioner who wants to do the job properly but would prefer to make his decisions based on evidence – whatever that evidence says is right. You can twist my words, call me a bureaucrat and throw in all the red herrings you like, but reality isn’t decided by who can beat their chest the hardest. I look forward to the day when fire management isn’t either.

But what galls me is that Phil, using his historical narrative as some form of scientific certitude attacks me with, “When you can address…that all the evidence says that Aboriginal people didn’t do it (burning in the Alps)…Until then you’re welcome to your opinion but you need to accept that all you have is personal dogma and very limited observation in the face of solid, consistent evidence. Just be careful, you want to have something more if you’re going to blame people for 210 deaths”.

You see Phil is a bureaucrat working for the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (or their equivalent these days). He is part of a cadre of employees in that organisation that have very strong philosophical views against broadscale prescribed burning which I have experienced first hand. One of their own, who is now at the University of Wollongong, has just published a paper with others, to argue a case that the regular occurrence of very large high intensity fires is actually good for the environment. It is an interesting paper as it supports its case by using the very same environmental arguments foresters have used to justify their broadscale low intensity programs for many years. Being a peer reviewed paper makes a compellingly strong case in support of the forester’s burning practices. Other papers were published by the cadre after the 2003 Alps fires with similar themes using limited data to justify their argument.

So I think Phil’s report needs a bit of a peer review since Prof Poongschtok failed to do it before providing us with his polemic against broadscale low intensity burning.

Now the thesis of Phil’s report is predicated on the assertion that there has not been any “direct observational records indicating that aboriginal burning took place in the Snowy River corridor or how often the burning was conducted.” He cites Pulsford’s PhD thesis when stating this assertion on page 23. Yet in Pulsford’s published paper on his thesis (with others) they state “as to the (pre-European) fire regime we can only speculate that it must have been benign, removing litter, stimulating plant growth but inflicting upon the tree strata” when they describe the structure of the pre-European Snowy River valley woodland. Therefore contrary to Phil’s claim, there is recognition by Pulsford et al that low intensity burning must have occurred in order to maintain stands “dominated by old rather than young trees” where the understorey was “composed of predominantly dense grasses and forbs with scattered shrubs”. It defies current ecological knowledge to suggest that such open woodlands with “scattered shrubs” could be maintained without fire, unless of course there were herbivorous mega-fauna roaming the valleys or other forms of ‘lawmowers’ particularly during the climatically benign Holocene.

It is also bizarre that Phil describes a eucalypt community as a climax community on page 24 when trying to dispute the claim “that decreasing fire frequency caused the regrowth is unlikely to be the case”. Eucalypts are a classic disclimax community as they do not reach a stabilising community that can regenerate and persist without disturbance. Even the oldest eucalypt forests called ‘mixed forests’ eventually become the true climax rainforest communities once the eucalypts die and the rainforest emergents take over.

Phil also claims that “low intensity fire would effectively expose the soil and make it vulnerable to erosion.” He cites a paper from Alec Costin 60 years ago. Perhaps Phil would be better to cite more recent and relevant studies. For example a recent report by Patrick Lane and his associates, published in February 2009, looked at two long term catchments burnt by the 2003 alpine fires. They found that only the near stream area delivers sediment to the stream after a major wildfire. The remainder of the catchment is ‘disconnected’ during most storm events due to the highly macroporous soils combined with their strong water repellence. I am not sure how under low intensity fires, where the humus is protected by the ashes of the litter burnt, the soil can reach the waterways, if under the 2003 high intensity fires they didn’t.

On page 25 Phil attacks the integrity of Howitt as an astute observer of the environment. He claims he was not present in Australia to observe the forests in their original state and yet in Howitt’s 1890 paper he discusses in detail the description of the landscape in the early 1860s which was very early in the European settlement of that area and he saw a very close representation to the original forests. In fact his paper laments the significant changes 30 years on.

The interpretation of Lotsky’s quote on page 22 is bizarre and certainly unsubstantiated. Trying to interpret someone’s description of ‘large timber’ as representing a forest instead of woodland is noble but not convincing.

No references are given to support the statement on page 24 “An increase in low intensity fires would therefore be magnified in its effects on the landscape”. This is pure speculation.

On page 25 Phil again offers us his considered opinion when he claims that since Snowgums are sensitive to fire scarring because of their thin bark then the fire-free intervals as high as 91 years, prior to Europeans “almost certainly represent nearly all fire events”. He goes on to state on the next page that “this evidence strongly refutes the claims that burning frequency has decreased from Aboriginal times”. Yet he doesn’t acknowledge in the report the limitations that dendrochronological work has in identifying low intensity fire events. Although it has not been properly studied, Phil claims “that dendrochronological work done by Banks, Pryor & others on Snowgums is rock solid – frequent broadscale burning was not part of Aboriginal fire management in the Snowies”. I put it that, even though snowgum may have thinner bark, the scarring would only occur when there is an accumulation of decorticating bark at the base of the tree to allow scarring under a low intensity fire. If there is a study to show otherwise, why was this not referred to in the report?

Not satisfied to restrict the report to his own opinions, Phil takes the liberty of sharing Costin’s opinion from 1954 on page 28, that “many species” have declined “as a result of increased fire frequency”.

Phil then summarises by saying his case is “very convincing”. If he means that he presents a well articulated argument based on his opinions and interpretations of other work, then yes he may well be right but in terms of a scientific case, he falls well short of the mark. In its present form Phil’s report can not be regarded as objective or authoritative. It argues a certain point of view, and the evidence presented appears to be selected to support that point of view. In its present form, therefore, the report contributes little to scientific knowledge. One has the impression that the overall message the report is intended to give has been decided in advance. In fact I think his report represents the “personal dogma” of the bureaucratic cadre in environmental management in NSW who show a strong defensive mind-set after each large conflagration rips through their managed areas.

“Studies to date have established a general pattern showing a marked increase in fire frequencies with the arrival of European pastoralists and prospectors and recent decline with the ascendancy of the conservationist and recreationist period.”

Let’s lay that one to rest ok – John Banks believed from the study of Snowgum rings that settlers burnt the mountains more often than the Aboriginal people had. Furthermore, he makes it clear that since the “ascendancy of the conservationist and recreationist period”, the rate of scarring looks once again much closer to the Aboriginal frequency. Not my interpretation, it’s John Banks’. Either find a direct published quote from John Banks saying the opposite or leave it be.

Please quote to me where Pulsford says that the Callitris were only scarred by high intensity fire. I am only aware of him allowing for the possibility but I’m happy to be corrected. In the absence of a definite finding that Callitris cannot be scarred by low intensity fire, we are left with the fact that fire scars occurred about 4 years apart (whether from high or low-intensity fire), exactly as the Rogers described for that country. My assertion was that 4-yearly burns were more frequent than the Aboriginal pattern – either make a valid objection or leave it be.

Yes, I agree that the settlers, both miners and pastoralists burnt differently to the mountain nations – I’ve been at pains to make that point. Completely in contradiction to our fire myth, settlers did not continue the Aboriginal burning practices. They did burn on the hottest days whereas the Aboriginal people burnt under conditions that produced low intensity fires. In other timber types perhaps their burns may not have scarred the trees, but as Richards has shown, even the lowest intensity fires scar Snowgums. The current state of knowledge on Snowgums says that they are scarred by low intensity fire. Find another study that says differently or let it go.

As for how the forests changed, what more information do you need me to give you? You have the Roger’s 1st hand account of how they changed. I assume that you also have some level of fire ecology and would know that many Australian plants are germinated by fire, that fire provides a flush of nutrients that encourage quick growth in the first few years etc. Snowgums respond to fire by resprouting from a lignotuber so that a single trunk is replaced by many trunks, all springing from the year they were burnt and therefore all the same age. To make this as clear as possible: the reason some mountain areas have changed from open woodland to dense shrubby forest is, according to basic fire ecology, eyewitness account and every available piece of scientific evidence available because settlers burnt more often and at higher intensity than Aboriginal people.

My comment was not malicious, I don’t hate the settlers. The fact however that settlers did through the use of massacres, kidnappings and the spread of disease wipe out the vast majority of a race of people for whom I have great respect does make me angry. Settlers treated Aboriginal people with disdain. They did not sit at their feet and learn, they stole their daughters. Are you going to argue with this part of history as well? Yes, there were exceptions but the idea that the settlers as a whole carried on the chain of knowledge is just absurd.

In summary, the only evidence on the table so far is:
1) Snowgums scar from low intensity fire
2) Snowgum scars were infrequent before Europeans came, very frequent after they took the Aboriginal land, then infrequent after NPWS started managing the land.
3) Graziers record that they burnt at the same rate given by the Snowgum scars, and that as they did so open woodland areas turned into dense, shrubby forest.

Rather than offering even a shred of evidence to the contrary, you look at this evidence and say “The only conclusion from this logic is that the European burning practices were exactly the same as Aboriginal…”. Sorry Robert, I really don’t what to say to that.

You claim that Banks did not acknowledge that the increased scarring was due to high intensity fires. The fact is he didn’t distinguish between low and high intensity fires but Pulsford certainly did even as you admit. So you are being deliberately deceptive.

Your example of high fire frequencies from 1860 relate to a burning pattern different to that practiced by Aborigines. The post-European settlement fires quoted were started by prospectors keen to expose the mineral earth in search for gold and copper etc (not my thoughts Phil, but based on others who wrote on this such such as Blainey, Banks and Pryor) and pastoralists burning in very warm and dry conditions to promote green pick (as you quoted from cocky farmer Franklin). But these burning practices were different to the Aborigines. But you now think Aborigines didn’t burn often in the Alps and yet to fail to explain how the snow gum structure changed from open woodland prior to European settlement to more even-aged stands of forests after the 1860s which Banks showed.

So on one hand you make a malicious statement in your first post to point out that European fire practices are different to Aboriginal burning (“With complete disdain for Aboriginal knowledge, the settlers assume that they understand the vast complexities of Aboriginal fire management because they saw someone light a fire once, but their approach to fire management is all based on the idea that anything native is inferior”). Then you argue that the fire studies in the Alps show a much lower fire frequency than post settlement, and hence Aborigines didn’t burn as often as claimed in those areas. The only conclusion from this logic is that the European burning practices were exactly the same as Aboriginal as the fire scars are supposed to represent a record of all fires. You can’t have your cake and it it as well.

Nothing can change the fact your argument is based on a form of study which has major limitations when it comes to ageing trees and their fire scars. Studying growth rings is very difficult. Difficulties arise between some of the rings as they often dispay a sharp break between early and latewood and a diffuse boundary between the late and early wood which raises the question of where new seasons spring growth begins. Therefore dendro studies roughly ESTIMATE the growth rings. Also ring widths do not always relate to seasonal conditions with respect to rainfall. For example Banks found in studying Yellow Box that more recent known drought years (eg 1982/83) can show the widest rings. This suggests errors in defining the seasonal ring (Banks’ words not mine). There is also the problem of doubtful rings and narrow indistinct rings which means that tree ageing using tree rings is far from precise.

Phil I think it is more relevant that you provide the study that shows that the fire-scarring of Snow Gums was due to low intensity fires.

That the increase in scarring was due to more high intensity fires in Pulsford & Bank’s studies is your theory. While Pulsford allows for it as a possibility since the sensitivity of Callitris to scarring is not well studied, Banks did not and you are presenting the wrong picture to suggest that he did.

In the late 19th C record, Pulsford found the trees near Scotchie’s Old Yards scarred in 1870-71, 1875-76, 1878-79, 1882-83 etc. Are you suggesting that the average 4 years between fires here was so infrequent compared to the Aboriginal burning that the fuel loads had built up to sufficient proportions to cause high intensity fire naturally? The 4 years here sound to me more like the nearby Roger’s record of 4-yearly burning. We see similar intervals in the Brindabella & Upper Tooma Snowgums and have to ask ourselves the same questions, especially as we have the same testimony from Brindabella graziers such as the Franklins.

Saying that the long pre-European break between scars could not have been natural as the forests are “fire prone” is circular logic – if they didn’t burn then perhaps they’re just not as “fire prone” as you think?

You have also ignored Richard’s study that found Snowgums scarred from every low intensity fire they were subjected to at Picadilly circus (individual trees had a hit rate of about 80%, but every ‘cool’ fire scarred some trees in each plot).

Robert, I have been forced to answer again because you have misrepresented the findings of these studies. You say “…the transition from Aboriginal to European land use resulted in the sudden occurrence of fire-damaged tree rings thought to reflect a shift from low intensity to high intensity fires”, but you don’t mention that the “thought” is yours, not the author’s. It suggests to me that I am witnessing first hand the way in which this folklore has survived –

1) rational thinking has been suspended (eg the 4 year frequency and the circular reasoning),
2) observable reality has been discarded in preference for personal dogma (eg ignoring Richard’s clear observation without providing any evidence to the contrary)

In saying this I am not attacking you, I am pointing out that you are stuck in a paradigm. This means that rather than changing your views with new evidence, you try to reinterpret the evidence to fit your existing view. You’re not the only one in that boat and I’m sure I have plenty of my own cases. If David Bowman (or anyone else) does have a study showing that only high intensity fires can scar Snowgums, please post it here as I will be very interested to read it.

Prior to the study you refer to, the main dendro research on the impacts of the frequency of intense fires were Pulsford et al (1993) on the effects of burning, cattle grazing & rabbits on Callitris in the Snowy River Valley. They demonstrated that the transition from Aboriginal to European land use resulted in the sudden occurrence of fire-damaged tree rings thought to reflect a shift from low intensity to high intensity fires. A similar change in fire regime was inferred from dendro studies in Jarrah forests in SW WA by Burrows et al (1995) and Snow Gums in the Brindabella Ranges by Banks (1988).

In all those studies it was acknowledged that low intensity fires are not registered by dendro analyses (this is confirmed in a discussion with David Bowman yesterday, who is at the forefront on studying landscape change in Australia).

But given the fire-prone environments in which Callitris, Jarrah and Snow Gums occur, the absence of fire scars cannot reasonably be interpreted as an absence of fires.

It is interesting to note that Burrows et al (1995) showed that prior to European settlement the mean time interval between fires that produced fire-damaged tree rings was about 80 years. Following European colonisation, especially after the 1847 Bushfire Ordinance, which sanctioned the flogging of minors and Aborigines who lit fires, the frequency of injurious fires increased to a mean of less than 20 years. I strongly believe that this is due to increased fuel levels, unless of course you can give other plausible explanations.

Therefore the arguments about the Feb 7 disaster should not focus on throwing our hands in the air and saying there was nothing that could be done to stop it, but rather we should focus on what damage can be done to large contiguous areas of forest on bad fire weather days that occur on a more regularly basis each fire season, instead of Feb 7 conditions which occur infrequently. And broadscale fuel reduction burning has a role in finding solutions.

It is unfortunate that at the same time that bushfire fuels are accumulating and drying and fires are becoming more intense, there has been a dismantling of the fire institutions who should be providing leadership. Instead what we see is today’s lead emergency agencies opting out of a pre-emptive approach in favour of a suppression approach. We have no national bushfire policy, nor do I detect the states having any. I only know of Bush Fire Acts and yet one wonders whether there will be legal action taken under those Acts against the state agencies who are failing to meet their common law responsibilities in respect of minimising bushfire risk in the wake of this recent disaster.