Recently, a troubling narrative has emerged that native forest logging in Australia contributes significantly to increased bushfire risk. Some academics championed this idea, purporting to follow the scientific method, but often their work lacks scientific rigour. These claims have misled the public, skewing the debate around forest management, fire prevention, and the ecological role of logging. In reality, the area logged annually in Australia is so small that attributing the increased bushfire risk solely to this practice is scientifically flawed and dangerously misleading.
According to the Australian Forest Products Association, the proposition that timber harvesting is to blame for catastrophic bushfires is no more than anti-forest activism by academics masquerading as science.
The origins of the myth
To understand how these claims have taken root, we must look at Australia’s broader context of forest management. Native forest logging, for some, has been a contentious issue for decades, with environmentalists often positioning it as destructive and unnecessary. However, the shift towards the argument that logging increases bushfire risk has gained traction in the wake of catastrophic fire seasons such as those witnessed this century. The tragic loss of lives, property, and biodiversity during these fire events provided fertile ground for anti-logging activists to further their cause by linking it to fire danger.
Some academics have contributed to this narrative by producing studies that suggest logged forests are more susceptible to bushfires due to changes in fuel load, canopy structure, and microclimates. These studies often receive media attention, with sensational headlines that galvanise public opinion against the logging industry.
It all started with a brief international literature review in 2009 that posed the question – does logging reduce the fire proneness of forests? The paper suggested that logging might increase fire risk without presenting any actual data. The paper focused on tropical forests, not Australian ecosystems, and only four of the 50 references cited were related to Australia. Despite this, the media unit at the Australian National University pumped out press releases that led to stories here, here, and here.
The press statements were released in the lead up to the 2009 Victorian Bushfire Royal Commission and the Tasmanian state election. The timing wasn’t a coincidence – it was strategically aimed at amplifying its impact. Suddenly, this modest paper was treated as gospel despite solely relying on the authors’ experiences and a search of 650 published articles. The media elevated it into a platform claiming that industrial logging in Australia’s wet forests made them more fire prone.
At first glance, the argument may seem plausible. Logging operations remove trees, which theoretically could alter forest structure and fuel load. However, a deeper examination of the paper revealed significant flaws. First and foremost, the area of native forest logged each year in Australia is minuscule compared to the vast expanses of untouched bushland. According to figures from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES), native forest logging accounts for less than 0.1 per cent of Australia’s total forested area annually. The idea that such a small fraction of forest could significantly impact bushfire risk across the continent defies logic.
A paper published in August 2011 followed on the same topic as did another in December 2012, another published in September 2014 and another in March 2018. They tried to link anthropogenic disturbance (that is, logging) to fire severity in the mountain ash forests in Victoria. A flurry of press releases with alarmist headlines again followed the release of the papers here, here, here and here. The 2011 paper also introduced the theory that logging created “fire traps”.
Interestingly, in the ten years between late 2002 and early 2013, about 2.5 million hectares of mountainous forests in Victoria burnt in varying intensities. Some areas, like the Harrietville region, hadn’t burnt since 1939, yet the alpine ash country in national parks burnt fiercely in 2003, 2007, and 2013 in stands that were not subject to logging.
In between were the 2009 fires that were predominantly devastating in the Central Highlands of Victoria, among other areas. They burnt the Wallaby Creek catchment, an area botanist David Ashton maintained was deserving of National Monument status as the fullest expression of an “untouched” mountain ash forest. It was over 300 years old and was reserved from logging and grazing at the earliest years of European settlement, yet it still burned with intense fury.
It turns out that logging isn’t the fire hazard many claim it to be. The 2009 fires in Victoria (and the devastating fires on the Tasman Peninsular in January 2013) showed that young regrowth forests following logging operations were highly influential in slowing down and even stopping rampant wildfires, contrary to misguided claims that logging created dangerous fire hazards.
Former chief of bushfire research at CSIRO and Australia’s premier bushfire scientist, Phil Cheney, along with Professor Ian Ferguson, argued that the dominance of younger mountain ash forests is not caused by logging but by large wildfires (like those in 1939 and 2009) driven by the ecosystem’s high fuel loads. These wildfires can occur under extreme weather and drought conditions, regardless of whether the forests have been logged.
They criticised claims by academics that stopping logging will prevent “landscape traps,” explaining that it did not protect fire-regrowth forests from further fire damage for about 20 years. What matters at the landscape level is whether an area regenerates properly after a large wildfire and how intense any subsequent fires are within that vulnerable 20-year window before eucalypts produce seed again. Logging, including slash burning, mimics the effects of wildfire but on a smaller, manageable scale. Ultimately, wildfires under extreme conditions are the biggest threat to the landscape, whether the area has been logged or not.
A flawed argument
Despite the evidence questioning the premise that logging increased bushfire risks, a further series of papers and reports were published after the 2019-20 bushfires, still arguing that logging increased bushfire threats here, here, and here.
These papers failed to account for the complexities of forest ecosystems and fire dynamics. The assumption that logging inherently increases fire risk oversimplifies a multifaceted issue. Yet, conclusions have been based on selective, local-scale observations where the only variable considered was time since harvesting. This neglects the role of other factors.
Here’s what the public isn’t told – bushfire risk in Australia is primarily driven by fuel accumulation and a lack of proper active land management. Agencies that manage national parks and other reserves, where logging and controlled burns are restricted, do not address these risks and hence those areas can often become susceptible to repeated high intensity bushfires.
Many forest scientists disagreed with the unproven theory that logging increases bushfire risk.
Professor Rod Keenan and colleagues highlighted that thinning can help reduce fuel loads, lower fire intensity, and enhance forest resilience to fires. They also noted that thinning combined with prescribed burning was most effective in reducing bushfire risk.
In another paper, Keenan and colleagues examined the relationship between timber harvesting and fire severity in south-eastern Australia’s forests, particularly in the context of the devastating 2019-20 bushfires. Their study highlighted that the primary drivers of fire severity were topography and fire weather, with limited evidence suggesting that past timber harvesting had a significant influence on the scale or intensity of those fires.
Another paper examined the causes of the massive 2019-20 wildfires. Professor David Bowman and colleagues found past logging and wildfire disturbance in natural forests had a very low effect on severe canopy damage, reflecting the limited extent logged in the last 25 years (4.5 per cent in eastern Victoria, 5.3 per cent in southern New South Wales and 7.8 per cent in northern New South Wales). The most significant variables determining severe canopy damage were broad spatial factors, mostly topographic, followed by fire weather.
A study published in 2016 by experienced fire managers Kevin Tolhurst and Greg McCarthy examined over one million hectares burnt by the 2003 wildfires in Victoria. They also found that fire severity across the landscape was driven by weather conditions, slope, aspect, fuel levels, atmospheric stability and the scale of the fires. The study found no discernible impact of logging on fire severity at the landscape level.
Experienced professional forester Mark Poynter has written many articles and a few books about the debates on forestry management in Australia, including weighing in on the bushfire and logging imbroglio. He believes the claims that logging increases the risk of high severity fires and thinning makes fires worse are largely false and highly contestable. He says:
Largely they have a basis in flawed research featuring the omission of important context, a reliance on wrong or misplaced assumptions, selective use of evidence, or misinterpretation of source references.
The federal, Victoria and New South Wales governments conducted major inquiries into the 2019-20 fires. While some of these inquiries referred to land management, none linked harvesting and other forest management practices to fire risk. However, they noted that suspending land management practices could increase risk.
Melbourne University botanist Professor Peter Attiwell and colleagues highlighted the methodological flaws in the studies that advocated that logging heightened bushfire risk in a detailed rebuttal. They argued that other factors, such as landscape and forest management, play a greater role. They showed that young regrowth forests, up to eight years old, were the least likely to burn during the 2009 Black Saturday fires, contradicting the increased fire risk narrative.
Former chief research scientist at the CSIRO, Dr John Raison recently published a paper reviewing the impacts of sustainable harvesting, non-harvest management and wildfire on net carbon emissions from Australian native forests. He found at the landscape scale, there is no evidence that harvesting leads to increased area burnt, fire severity or carbon emissions caused by wildfires.
An excellent practical example of the efficacy of forest thinning in mitigating the risk of wildfires is shown in the photos below. The state forest was subject to a post-logging fuel reduction burn in May 2017 and was in the path of the devastating Border Fire on 4 January 2020. The wildfire reduced its intensity as it moved through the thinned and recently burnt forest, with some patches not burning. Compare this to the entirely scorched forest in the nearby national park that was not subject to any recent logging, in the photo below it.
Foresters have known for many years the ideal structure for a healthy forest includes coarse debris on the ground, an open understorey not clogged with shrubs and small trees that prevent small birds flying around, and a healthy crown. This type of forest structure was present when fires occurred in the first two centuries of European occupation and is overlooked by academics.
The scientific method—in name only
At its core, the scientific method is about objectivity, repeatability, and rigour. Yet many studies purporting to show a direct link between logging and increased bushfire risk fail to meet these criteria. For instance, correlation is often mistaken for causation, with studies showing that areas logged in the past have experienced fire while ignoring that large unlogged areas also burnt over larger areas. In some cases, studies cherry-pick data or rely on computer models or a basic literature review with assumptions not grounded in the complexities of real-world forest dynamics.
A closer look at the methodology of these studies often reveals serious gaps. For example, many fail to differentiate between various types of logging practices. Clear-felling, selective logging, and thinning operations impact forest structure and fire risk differently. Lumping them all together under the broad term “logging” does a disservice to both the public and the scientific community.
Moreover, these studies frequently disregard historical data. Indigenous Australians managed the land with controlled burns for thousands of years, reducing fuel loads and preventing catastrophic fires. When European settlers arrived and suppressed this practice, fuel loads built up, leading to the intense fires we see today. Logging operations, especially when done sustainably, can mimic some of these traditional practices by reducing fuel loads and creating firebreaks. Yet this perspective is often missing from studies claiming that logging increases fire risk.
A recycled report was also released in 2021 based on an “expert” review by academics from the Australian National University and Griffith University. It strongly claimed a link between native forestry operations and increased bushfire intensity. They reviewed 51 previously published papers that offered no new research on the topic, and in most cases, the authors merely attempted to synthesise articles from a diverse range of forests with varying flammability and response mechanisms to disturbance. I could find no studies cited in the report that relied on empirical data collected in the field.
The report highlights the inherent bias problems associated with a literature review using keyword searches, such as logging and fire. A search using both terms does not locate reports or studies where a fire did not follow a logging operation, nor does it provide reports on the occurrence of fires in the absence of logging.
Their summary attributed logging to increasing the severity of bushfires using the words “probable” and “likely”.
I wrote to one of the report’s authors to find out what empirical evidence they relied on to justify their strong claim. I posed several questions about their experimental design to see if it followed the scientific method. The response admitted their conclusion relied simply on a literature review only and:
Of course, other experts could well review the same literature and perhaps draw other conclusions.
Hardly a strong endorsement for their “scientific” claims.
Experienced forest ecologist, Vic Jurskis, outlined that the premise in the above report was misguided. He criticised the current preservation approach to land management that encourages overgrown scrub, which is difficult to burn in mild conditions, but becomes highly flammable under extreme bushfire weather conditions. Contrary to the view that logging increases fire risk by opening the canopy, he suggests that healthy, managed forests – where the canopy allows sunlight and air – are easier to maintain with controlled burns.
In another critique, Jurskis argued that while logging together with fuel management makes it much easier to maintain fire safety, this was largely irrelevant these days because only a small proportion of the landscape is logged each year.
In fact, Jurskis quite rightly points out that academics on both sides of the bushfire and logging debate didn’t follow the scientific method by failing to construct and test hypotheses about the impacts of logging on fire intensities and rely too often on models rather than empirical data. He firmly believes this debate is a dangerous distraction for the real environmental issue – sustainable fire management via ecological maintenance using mild fire.
Given these deficiencies, it is surprising such papers passed peer review and were published. Thankfully, the flaws in one of the papers was exposed.
In 2016, another study that made a similar claim that logging increased fire severity was exposed as being authored by an anti-forestry campaigner employed by the University of Tasmania and the Bob Brown Foundation, whose principal aim was to shut down Tasmania’s forestry industry. The journal had to retract the paper because its methodology was flawed.
The university was forced to investigate the publication of the flawed study, and it confirmed shortcomings in the academic process. Academics and staff had to undergo “research integrity” training to learn the rigour needed to review data and research methods. Other universities should also carry out similar training to ensure their work is scientifically sound.
The Australian Senate passed a motion condemning the flawed study and its misuse by the Australian Greens. The motion noted:
“That the withdrawal of this paper was required because of the number of significant errors and wrong conclusions and that it did not meet the standard for ‘high-quality scientific works as required by the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)”.
The real drivers of bushfire risk
If logging isn’t to blame, what are Australia’s real drivers of increased bushfire risk? The answer is complex and multifaceted, but several factors stand out.
- Fuel Accumulation: The buildup of dry vegetation, particularly in national parks and conservation areas where logging and controlled burns are prohibited or heavily restricted, has created tinderbox conditions. The longer forests go without disturbance, the more fuel accumulates, increasing the likelihood of catastrophic fires. In contrast, logged and subsequently managed areas often have lower fuel loads, reducing the risk of intense fires.
- Fire Suppression Policies: Australia’s fire management strategies are now focused on suppression rather than prevention. This has resulted in larger and more intense fires when they break out. Controlled burns and fuel reduction measures, such as those that can be integrated into sustainable logging practices, are crucial for reducing bushfire risk, but have now become a very minor component of land management across the landscape.
- Urban Expansion: As more Australians move into bushland areas, the potential for human-caused fires increases. This urban expansion into fire-prone regions complicates firefighting efforts and raises the stakes when fires occur.
Misleading the public
The danger of the false narrative linking logging to bushfire risk is that it misleads the public and policymakers alike. Instead of focusing on effective fire management strategies, the debate becomes polarised around an oversimplified cause-and-effect scenario. This diverts attention away from the real issues—fuel management, climate adaptation, and the need for integrated land management practices.
By demonising the logging industry, these studies create a false dichotomy between preservation and forest management. In reality, the two can and should work hand in hand. Well-managed logging operations, particularly those that follow sustainable practices, can reduce fire risk while preserving biodiversity and the long-term health of forests. Yet this nuanced view is often ignored by the academics and rarely makes headlines.
The consequences of inaction
Instead of doubling down on misguided claims about logging, it’s time to re-evaluate forest management practices and focus on evidence-based strategies for reducing bushfire risk. This includes logging, controlled burns, fuel reduction programs, and better firebreak management.
The consequences are dire if the current trajectory continues, with public opinion swayed by false claims and policymakers hesitant to embrace proactive land management. The outcomes are more intense fires, more loss of life and property, and further degradation of Australia’s unique ecosystems.
What’s worse, academics that push for policies that lead to these threatening outcomes, and the bureaucrats that support them, are never held accountable. Their refusal to accept that logging, when done sustainably, can be part of the solution is not just misguided—it is dangerous.
Moving forward: a balanced approach to forest management
To reduce bushfire risk, Australia needs a balanced approach to forest management that integrates scientific evidence with practical, on-the-ground knowledge. Logging, particularly selective and sustainable practices, should be seen as part of the broader toolkit for managing fire risk. These practices can reduce fuel loads, create firebreaks, and ensure that forests are healthy and resilient in the face of a changing climate. They also provide an opportunity for a rapid response to fire outbreaks.
At the same time, we must be cautious of academics or organisations that present selective or misleading data to further a particular agenda that only serves to scare the public. The scientific method is about discovery, not confirmation bias. We must demand higher standards of scientific rigour, particularly in published papers that have the potential to influence public policy and impact lives.
Ultimately, managing bushfire risk in Australia will require a more nuanced and informed approach to forest management. It’s time to embrace strategies that work, even if they don’t fit neatly into popular, but misguided environmental rhetoric. By doing so, we can protect both the community and our ecosystems from damaging fires.
Absolutely superb work here. The misleading of the public through these papers has been disgraceful, and the cherry-picked data has been repeated over and over again by particular academics. These claims have been peer-reviewed over and over by the same academics; this is not science. This has been a carefully constructed takedown of the timber industry that has included ‘environmentalists’ involving themselves directly by infiltrating forestry compliance organisations such as the FSC.
The whole thing is a scam and needs to be called out – thank you for doing just that with this beautifully written article!
Well said Carly. This is superb work. It is hardly surprising that FSC is full of environmentalists as it, along with certification schemes across many industries, came out of the WWF stable.
It’s so wrong that these people have been able to be so destructive towards an industry from within… there needs to be serious investigations considered into these people – especially the ones that were caught out writing letters to companies they dealt with as directors of the FSC, in the capacity of their ‘environmental activist’ group, to which those involved have now ‘left their positions’ after global scrutiny… but no consequences for their actions! Also wondering where that $1.2 mil is that was owed to VicForests after a failed legal battle almost a decade ago (imagine the interest owed on that now), that the government decided to pardon. WHAT A JOKE!
A most important article, excellently argued!
This is one of our continent’s most serious environmental problems, if not our greatest. The over zealous locking up of native vegetation by virtue signalling activists and politicians without any resources to manage it or knowledge about Australia’s unique circumstances has created a situation that’s almost intractable. The cost of overcoming it and the political will to make it happen are now massive barriers but for any forward thinking person, it’s an obvious investment that must be made. Because ultimately the cost of inaction will be far greater.
Sadly our academic institutions (particularly my Alma Mater in the Canberra bubble) are now virtually bereft of critical thinking so captured are they by corrupt (Marxist) ideology.
A good article, Robert, well-argued on the basis of evidence. Thank you!
Robert Onfray, this is one of your best among many good ones. Well researched and well written.
A great article Robert.
While there is no doubt healthy discussions around the management of native forests (read selective harvesting/thinning) should inform decision-making at all levels, it is a distraction from the continuing loss of unique native fauna and the biodiverse ecosystems as a result of unnatural high intensity wildfires.
TMS comment is so true.
Well written. It’s time the public was told the facts. Too often today, all we hear is from so-called academic experts, who have never worked a day in the real world. You only have to look at Canberra and our so-called leaders.
Well done Robert Onfray.
This article counters the ridiculous pamphlet published by The South-west Forests Defence Foundation Inc. see https://southwestforestsdefence.org/prescribed-burning/
In an article in the Sydney Morning Herald (https://www.smh.com.au/national/western-australia/war-of-words-erupts-over-western-australia-s-prescribed-burning-program-20250107-p5l2kq.html), I was fascinated by the following quotes as follows:
“WA Forest Alliance convenor Carole Peters said bland statements from the DBCA and the Bushfire Front, such as ‘informed by the best available science’ were meaningless unless backed by up-to-date, published, peer-reviewed research”.
“It’s straight out of the Donald Trump-style political playbook to repeat the same old messages, inspired by retired foresters who support logging, thinning and burning, with claims that their on-the-ground experience amounts to hundreds of years of expertise”.
“Repeated claims that ‘fuel reduction burning will keep us safe from catastrophic wildfires’, ‘cool burns’ and ‘mosaic burns’ are good for biodiversity, Indigenous people burnt for thousands of years, presented as standalone statements. None of this stands up to scrutiny”.
A rally will be held in Nornalup on January 18 over a burn scheduled for the famous tingle forests.
I hope they read your article before they go to the rally.
As always, a well researched, balanced article not just one-sided criticism, as we are inundated with from our disingenuous media.
Unfortunately, activism in Australia is incentivised. To the point that it is a major non-productive industry that is seriously disrupting Australia’s ability to sustainable productivity as a country.
Do those claiming moral superiority actually have good intentions, or are they driven by the incentives as is indicative of human behaviour?
The KISS principle, ( Keep It Simple Stupid) is all that is needed to find the apparent omissions in many so-called expert’s papers. Ten kg of fuel will burn hotter and longer than one kg of fuel and the former is harder to extinguish, yet this apparently obvious basic scientific fact seems missed.
Omission is deceit…Ian Plimer..
How fuel reduction is now to be tackled in areas with massive fuel loads will take experience and the true will of our governments to succeed. Perhaps good intentions need to outweigh incentives and negative outcomes for a change.
A well written report.
We need the nation’s education ministers to be better informed by the facts rather than feelings and get this back into the schooling curriculum.
It is more important than ever now, given that our children grow up in cities and don’t learn about our unique Australian environment hands-on, as past generations of both Europeans and Aborigines have done for tens of thousands of years. The loss of that knowledge and experience of forest management, coupled with the growing feeling of locking it up, is the greatest threat, bar none, to the environment.