Why experts disagree about logging and bushfires

Summary

Experts disagree about logging and bushfire risk because bushfire behaviour is influenced by multiple interacting factors, including weather, drought, fuel conditions, vegetation structure, and topography. While some studies associate younger regrowth forests with higher fire severity under certain conditions, others find extreme weather is the dominant driver. Understanding these interacting influences is essential for effective bushfire management and early wildfire detection.

Australia’s debate over logging and bushfire risk has become deeply polarised. Questions about timber harvesting, fuel management, climate change, and forest condition often attract strong opinions from researchers, policymakers, industry groups, environmental organisations, and the broader community. Some researchers argue timber harvesting can influence fire severity in certain forests, while others contend that extreme weather and drought remain the dominant drivers of major bushfires.

The evidence shows wildfire behaviour depends on complex interactions between climate, vegetation, topography, fuel conditions, and management history.

As bushfire conditions intensify and containment windows shrink, firefighters and land managers are placing greater focus on technologies that improve early situational awareness and support faster response decisions. This is one reason why technologies such as exci’s AI-powered wildfire detection platform are becoming part of broader discussions about wildfire preparedness and operational resilience.

Why the logging and bushfire debate has become so contested

Public discussions about bushfires often seek simple explanations. However, wildfire science rarely produces simple answers.

In recent years, some researchers and environmental groups have argued that timber harvesting increases bushfire severity, particularly in wet eucalypt forests in south eastern Australia. Other researchers, foresters, and fire scientists dispute whether these findings apply broadly across Australia’s diverse landscapes.

Part of the disagreement comes from the way fire terminology is defined, interpreted, and compared across different studies. Terms such as fire severity, flammability, fire intensity, and bushfire risk describe different aspects of fire behaviour, yet findings are sometimes interpreted as though they measure the same phenomenon.

Studies also differ in:

• Forest type
• Spatial scale
• Climate conditions
• Fire weather
• Topography
• Modelling assumptions
• Variables being analysed

As a result, studies can produce substantially different conclusions when examining similar fire events.

This disagreement naturally leads to the question at the centre of the public debate: does logging itself increase bushfire risk?

Logging: Image by Reijo Telaranta from Pixabay

Does logging increase bushfire risk?

The scientific evidence remains contested.

Some studies in tall wet eucalypt forests found associations between younger regrowth forests and higher fire severity under certain conditions. Researchers have proposed several explanations for these findings.

One explanation relates to forest structure.

Younger regrowth forests are often:

• Denser
• Shorter
• More uniform in height
• Richer in ladder fuels that can carry flames into the canopy

Under certain weather conditions, these characteristics may increase canopy damage and crown fire activity.

Several studies have suggested that these structural differences may help explain why some younger disturbed forests experience greater crown burn or canopy damage during bushfires.

However, other landscape-scale analyses have found that severe fire weather often played a larger role in determining fire severity outcomes during major bushfires. Analyses of the 2019–2020 Black Summer bushfires, for example, found that drought, weather conditions, and landscape-scale fire behaviour strongly influenced fire severity outcomes, sometimes outweighing the influence of land tenure or previous harvesting history.

As a result, researchers continue to debate the relative importance of forest structure, disturbance history, and extreme weather in shaping bushfire behaviour. The evidence remains an active area of scientific discussion.

To understand why this debate persists, it is important to examine the broader drivers of extreme bushfire behaviour.

Which factors most influence extreme bushfires in Australia?

Multiple studies across Australia and internationally have found that during severe fire weather, fire spread and fire severity are often driven primarily by drought, high temperatures, strong winds, atmospheric instability, fuel dryness, slope and topography.

While forest structure and fuel arrangement can influence fire behaviour locally, extreme weather often drives large-scale bushfire outcomes.

This helps explain why major bushfires can burn intensely across landscapes with very different management histories. During the 2019–2020 Black Summer bushfires, many fires burned under conditions so extreme that suppression became extraordinarily difficult regardless of land tenure or forest age.

Importantly, severe fires also occurred in:

• National parks
• Conservation reserves
• Old-growth forests
• Areas where timber harvesting had not occurred

This does not mean forest management is irrelevant. Rather, it highlights that bushfire behaviour is shaped by multiple interacting factors rather than a single cause.

One common misconception that emerges from this debate is the belief that older forests are inherently resistant to severe fire. The historical record suggests the reality is more complex.

Can old growth forests burn at high severity?

Yes. Multiple major bushfires in Australia have burned significant areas of old growth forest at high severity, including forests located inside conservation reserves and national parks where timber harvesting is excluded.

Importantly, fire behaviour varies substantially between ecosystems. Forest types differ in vegetation structure, species composition, fuel characteristics, climate, and fire regimes. Consequently, findings from one ecosystem do not necessarily apply to another.

Australian wet eucalypt forests such as Mountain Ash forests differ ecologically from many North American dry forests and have historically experienced major high-severity fires. This distinction is important because comparisons between ecosystems can sometimes obscure fundamental differences in how forests burn and recover.

Large areas of old growth forest burned at high severity during major Australian bushfires. For example, an exceptionally high percentage of old-growth forest, particularly vulnerable Mountain Ash ecosystems in the Central Highlands, was killed during the 2009 Victorian (Black Saturday) bushfires. The extreme intensity of the fires caused widespread canopy scorch, canopy consumption, and mortality across extensive areas of mature forest.

During the unprecedented 2019/20 Black Summer bushfires, approximately 62,126 hectares of old-growth forest in Eastern Victoria burned under high-severity conditions.

These events demonstrate that no single characteristic, including forest age, determines bushfire behaviour. Fire outcomes emerge from interactions between weather, fuel moisture, vegetation structure, topography, ignition source, suppression capability, and management history.

Yet despite the many factors that influence bushfire behaviour, public discussions often reduce bushfire science to simple explanations and definitive claims.

Old growth forest Image by Sabrina Eickhoff from Pixabay

Why simple explanations can misrepresent bushfire science

The challenge is not simply that scientists disagree. The challenge is that scientific findings are often reduced to slogans that overstate certainty.

Statements such as:

“Logging always increases bushfire risk”
“Logging has no impact on bushfires”
“Old-growth forests do not burn severely”
“Fuel reduction alone prevents catastrophic fires”,

oversimplify the science.

For firefighters, land managers, and emergency planners, operational reality is far more complex.

Bushfires are influenced by interacting variables including:

• Fuel dryness
• Weather
• Wind
• Humidity
• Vegetation structure
• Terrain
• Ignition timing
• Suppression response
• Atmospheric conditions

These interactions can vary significantly from one landscape to another and from one fire event to the next.

Part of the challenge is methodological. Many bushfire studies rely on observational data, statistical modelling, and remotely sensed fire severity analysis rather than controlled experiments. Their conclusions can therefore be influenced by modelling assumptions, variable selection, spatial scale, forest type, and the specific fire events examined.

Scale also matters. Findings observed at stand level do not always translate directly to broader landscape-scale bushfire behaviour.

For this reason, many fire scientists caution against broad universal claims about any single management approach.

While scientific debates about forest management will continue, firefighters and emergency managers must still respond to fires under increasingly challenging conditions.

Why firefighters are facing increasingly difficult conditions

Firefighters: Image by kalhh from Pixabay

Australia’s fire seasons are lengthening and containment windows are shrinking.

In many regions:

• Vegetation dries earlier
• Drought periods are intensifying
• Heat extremes are increasing
• Severe fire weather events are becoming more frequent

As a result, firefighters are confronting:

• Faster-moving fires
• Larger fire fronts
• Increased spotting behaviour
• Rapidly changing wind conditions
• Reduced opportunities for containment

Under these conditions, the earliest stages of a fire become critically important.

A fire that is detected quickly may still be controllable before weather conditions deteriorate, before it reaches difficult terrain, or before suppression resources become overwhelmed.

Once fires escape initial attack capability, suppression becomes significantly more dangerous, costly, and uncertain.

These shrinking containment windows are one reason why many forestry operators, utilities, parks agencies, and emergency management organisations are investing more heavily in technologies that improve early situational awareness and operational decision-making.

As containment opportunities become smaller and fire behaviour becomes more volatile, the ability to detect and verify incidents during the earliest stages of ignition is becoming increasingly important.

Why early wildfire detection is becoming important

As bushfire conditions intensify, earlier wildfire smoke detection is becoming essential for improving situational awareness and enabling faster operational decisions.

Regardless of how landscapes are

• managed,
• harvested,
• conserved,
• regenerated,
• subject to prescribed burning,
• unmanaged,
• or protected in national parks,

extreme bushfires remain a growing operational challenge.

Using elevated cameras and AI-assisted smoke analysis, exci helps organisations:

• detect wildfire smoke within minutes
• improve situational awareness
• verify incidents faster
• support earlier response decisions
• maintain operational visibility during rapidly evolving fire conditions

exci’s AI platform is used across:

• forestry and plantations
• utilities and critical infrastructure
• agriculture
• parks and wildlife areas
• waste recycling
• land development
• mining
• solar and wind farms
• tourism
• other high-risk environments where rapid visibility may improve the opportunity for containment before fires escalate

Importantly, early wildfire detection is not a replacement for broader land management strategies.

Bushfire risk cannot be eliminated in Australia, only mitigated.

However, reducing uncertainty during the earliest stages of a fire can help improve:

• initial attack opportunities
• firefighter safety
• operational coordination
• response speed
• and the protection of communities, infrastructure, and ecosystems

As fire behaviour becomes increasingly volatile, many organisations are recognising that detecting fires as early as possible and responding rapidly may become just as important as suppression capability itself.

Frequently asked questions about logging and bushfire risk

Does logging always increase bushfire risk?

No. Scientific findings vary between forest ecosystems, management practices, and fire conditions. Some studies found associations between younger regrowth forests and higher fire severity, while other studies found weather and drought were the dominant drivers during extreme bushfires.

Can national parks and old growth forests burn severely?

Yes. Multiple severe bushfires in Australia, including the 2009 and 2019–2020 fires, burned substantial areas of old growth forest at high severity, including forests located inside conservation reserves and national parks.

Why is wildfire science often contested?

Bushfires are influenced by many interacting variables, including weather, drought, fuel moisture, topography, vegetation structure, ignition timing, and suppression response. Different studies also measure different aspects of fire behaviour, such as fire severity, flammability, or fire intensity.

Why is early wildfire detection becoming important?

As fire weather becomes extreme, containment windows are shrinking. AI-powered wildfire detection systems such as exci’s platform help organisations identify smoke within minutes and support faster operational decision-making during the critical early stages of a fire.

The debate over logging and bushfires will likely continue as new research emerges. However, several broader lessons already stand out.

What the logging and bushfire debate teaches us about wildfire management

Australia’s bushfire challenge is becoming more complex.

Climate change, prolonged drought, changing vegetation patterns, expanding development, and extreme fire weather are interacting across landscapes already shaped by decades of management decisions.

This reality means simplistic narratives are unlikely to help communities, firefighters, policymakers, or land managers prepare for the future.

The evidence suggests that wildfire resilience will require:

• better scientific literacy
• ecosystem-specific management
• improved situational awareness
• stronger operational coordination
• faster detection and response
• and a willingness to engage honestly with uncertainty

Because bushfires are not driven by a single cause.

And Australia’s response cannot rely on a single answer either.

Further reading

The relationship between logging, forest structure, fire severity, fuel management, drought, climate, and bushfire behaviour remains the subject of ongoing scientific discussion. The following publications provide additional perspectives for readers who wish to explore the debate in greater depth.

Reviews and evidence summaries

• Queensland Fire & Biodiversity Consortium. (2023). Literature Review: Notes on Rainforest and Wet Sclerophyll Responses to Fire.
• Forestry Australia. (2026). Contested Evidence About Timber Harvesting and Bushfire Risk in Australian Landscapes.

Perspectives on logging and bushfire severity

• Attiwill, P. M., Ryan, M. F., Burrows, N., Cheney, N. P., McCaw, L., Neyland, M., & Read, S. (2014). Timber harvesting does not increase fire risk and severity in wet eucalypt forests of southern Australia. Conservation Letters, 7(4), 341–354.
• Keenan, R. J., Kanowski, P., Baker, P. J., Brack, C., Bartlett, T., & Tolhurst, K. (2021). No evidence that timber harvesting increased the scale or severity of the 2019/20 bushfires in southeastern Australia. Australian Forestry, 84, 133–138.

Fuel management and wildfire mitigation

Hislop, S., Stone, C., Haywood, A., & Skidmore, A. (2020). The effectiveness of fuel reduction burning for wildfire mitigation in sclerophyll forests. Australian Forestry, 83(4), 255–264.

Scientific debate and responses

• Lindenmayer, D., & Zylstra, P. (2024). Identifying and managing disturbance-stimulated flammability in woody ecosystems. Biological Reviews, 99(3), 699–714.
• McCaw, L. (2024). Mechanisms by which growth and succession limit the impact of fire: A comment on Zylstra et al.’s model. Functional Ecology, 38(11), 2320–2322.
• Miller, B. P., Fontaine, J. B., Tangney, R., McCaw, L., Cruz, M. G., & Hollis, J. J. (2024). Comment on “Self-thinning forest understoreys reduce wildfire risk, even in a warming climate”. Environmental Research Letters, 19, 068001.
• Fletcher, M.-S. (2026). Failed Scientific Advocacy, Misappropriation and Erosion of Public Trust: Generalisations About Burning From Tall Wet Eucalypt Forests. Ecological Management & Restoration.

Additional studies on forest age and wildfire behaviour

• Lindenmayer, D. B., Taylor, C., & Blanchard, W. (2021). Empirical analyses of the factors influencing fire severity in south-eastern Australia. Ecosphere, 12(8), e03721.
• Zylstra, P. J., Bradshaw, S. D., & Lindenmayer, D. B. (2022). Self-thinning forest understoreys reduce wildfire risk, even in a warming climate. Environmental Research Letters, 17(4), 044022.
• Zylstra, P. J., Wardell-Johnson, G. W., Falster, D. S., Howe, M., McQuoid, N., & Neville, S. (2023). Mechanisms by which growth and succession limit the impact of fire in a south-western Australian forested ecosystem. Functional Ecology, 37, 1350–1365.

by Gabrielle Tylor

exci – Early AI Wildfire & Bushfire Detection

8 June 2026