This week’s prescribed burn in Western Australia has run into unprecedented backlash from environmentalists and scientists. They are especially incensed by the planned chopping down of 114 trees, including 95 rare iconic red tingle trees. These mighty trees are capable of reaching heights of 80 meters and can live for 500 years. Sadly, global leaders today recognize them as being in danger. The burns were conducted in December within the Giants Block of Walpole-Nornalup National Park. Yet, they have raised legitimate alarms on what they mean for the health of local plant and animal species.
The severe blaze razed a rare 400-year-old tingle tree. This loss has led to a new, and very public, call to reconsider our current burning practices. Files concerning the burns demonstrate that 99 percent of the stated field experienced higher intensity. This represents a major change from the last comparable mitigation burn at the same site nearly 30 years ago. Conservationists are concerned that this unprecedented level of destruction will have long-term effects on the fragile desert ecosystem.
Concerns Over Ecological Impact
Bart Lebbing, a prominent conservationist, has voiced alarm over the repercussions of prescribed burns on the flora and fauna of the region. He drove home the reality that these destructive practices are not just a bad day of drilling, but rather methods that could poison the ecosystem for generations.
“That’s what we’ve recommended consistently to the government, and as yet, they haven’t responded in a way that indicates a change is afoot,” remarked an unnamed source involved in conservation efforts. This announcement reiterates the school year disappointment that many climate advocates are experiencing.
Nathan Anderson is a Research Fellow in ecology at the University of Tasmania. After five years of studying the ecology of red tingle trees in the southwest, this sentiment strikes a chord with me. He recently shared with us his research showing that no two trees react the same to prescribed burning. This leads to critical questions about how impactful these practices actually are.
“The previous burn that was in there, there were 30 trees that collapsed,” noted Anderson. “That was a concerning loss of trees and we’re at more than three times that amount for the same area.” Yet his judgment seems to indicate that further burning could weaken the trees that remain, making them more likely to collapse.
Review of Prescribed Burning Practices
The identified prescribed burning program has repeatedly faced public criticism as opponents point out how the program doesn’t align with scientific best practices. In light of these recent losses, Professor Stephen Hopper made a very appropriate call to arms. He disclosed that the Leeuwin Group have developed counter strategies to prescribed burns and presented these to the DBCA (Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions).
The minister’s solution has been to park it for 10 years, and he’s given the department a bit of money for new research to be done,” Hopper stated. This nuanced approach has been received with skepticism by those who believe the situation requires urgent action.
DBCA claims it adheres to specific operational guidelines designed to protect large hollow trees and prevent canopy fires during prescribed burns. They stated, “DBCA follows specific operational guidelines that include scrub rolling, clearing, hosing, and applying fire retardant to the base of tingle trees.” Even with these extra precautions, the burns have recently gone horribly wrong, raising doubts on their effectiveness.
The Future of Red Tingle Forests
Scientists and conservationists are starting to speak up about what worries them. As they burn, government leaders are under mounting pressure to re-examine their resistance to prescribed burns. The ramifications are huge for red tingle trees. They go beyond the giants themselves, to the whole ecosystem surrounding these majestic trees.
We’re looking at a concern that was raised in the 1990s, and it’s still a concern today, Anderson stated. “If we don’t address that, then it’s only going to get worse.” His alarmed tone cuts to the heart of what is alarming many conservationists right now. Without a radical departure from business as usual, they’re concerned that we’re doomed to repeat further ecological destruction.
