Dr Tony Bartlett, Latrobe Valley Express, 14 May 2025

The claims in my critique of research published by academics David Lindenmayer, Philip Zylstra and others are not demonstrably false and do not misrepresent scientific evidence. They are based on my own very considerable experience in forest management as well as careful consideration of both their research and the much wider body of Australian bushfire science.

Published peer-reviewed research referred to by these academics does not necessarily correlate with undeniable facts or logic when it comes to establishing sensible fores fire management policies. There is a very strong body of existing knowledge about forest fire management in Australia, much of which is based on decades of on-ground research trials and the analysis of outcomes from major bushfires.

A few new research papers, none of which have been published in recognised fire science journals, should not be the sole determinant of radical changes in forest fire management in Australia. To do so would put both communities and the environment at serious risk of major harm from future intense bushfires that will ravage through unmanaged forest landscapes.

Experienced forest firefighters will tell you that ‘lived experience’ is very important in determining how to reduce risks of bushfires and how to be more successful in putting them out when they occur. For example, a research paper might show that a prescribed burn conducted 8.5km away from houses only had a limited effect on reducing the risk to those houses being destroyed by a bushfire burning under catastrophic fire weather conditions.

However, lived experience will tell you that the same prescribed burn could be very effective in enabling a large scale backburn to be conducted safely and thereby in reducing the spread of a bushfire burning under more moderate conditions that could have otherwise impacted on houses when conditions worsen.

Lived experience also deserves to be considered in situations where it contradicts the findings of published research. For instance, in the 2003 Canberra bushfires, the relatively small lightning caused bushfires burning in a large National Park, where no logging had occurred, could not be controlled at relatively moderate levels of fire danger, because of the excessive fuel loads in those forests as a result of prescribed burning being excluded for decades. Those bushfires went on to claim four lives and destroy more than 500 houses in and around Canberra.

There are significant flaws in the logic and analysis of some of the published research that is used by these academics to lobby for radical changes in forest and fire management strategies. Many of these flaws have been raised in published critiques of the original research papers.

Nevertheless, these academics just dismiss these criticisms and continue to publish inaccurate findngs from their own research. For instance, in their response to my critique of their research, they again state that “logged forests burning under moderate fire weather conditions still burnt at greater severity than intact forests burning under extreme conditions” quoting their research (Lindenmayer et al. 2022b).

However, that quoted article was a short response to a critique of their claims made in an earlier two-page published article. In neither of these two articles did the academics publish their own empirical data to justify their often-repeated claim about the impact of logging on bushfire severity.

Strategically implementing more active management of native forests is the only feasible way to reduce the impacts of the increasing occurrence of severe bushfires. I strongly believe that it would be unreasonable for governments to make important bushfire policy decisions on the basis of a few new published research articles without a proper consideration of the alternative evidence.

About the author: Dr Tony Bartlett AFSM has worked in Australian and international forestry for close to 50 years, and has worked in various forestry roles for the Commonwealth, ACT and Victorian government.

Related stories: Burning off the key to intensity; Disturbance and fire risks: the science clearly shows logging and burning makes forests more flammable: David Lindenmayer, Philip Zylstra