Mount Roe prescribed burn and Noongar cultural heritage concerns

Noongar elders on Western Australia’s south coast say they are “deeply concerned” after a prescribed burn went ahead in Mount Roe National Park despite warnings the area contained cultural artefacts.

The Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA) carried out the burn as part of its annual burn options program, with the ABC reporting a 15,108-hectare burn block and initial hand-ignition beginning on 24 September 2025. WA Parliament material described the same FRK 112 Willmott–Quindinillup burn as 15,121 hectares, with the prescribed fire plan approved on 22 September 2025 and ignition commencing on 24 September 2025.

Nine elders and three emerging elders said they wrote to DBCA director general Stuart Smith and Environment Minister Matthew Swinbourn on 13 October 2025, warning of unregistered heritage sites in the burn area. The Denmark Environment Centre also wrote to government warning the large burn posed a high risk to cultural and ecological values, the ABC reported.

Elders said the burn proceeded with aerial ignitions on 4 November 2025, and Merningar Barduk elder Lynette Knapp later visited the site with the ABC. “You didn’t think that we were good enough to talk to before destroying this country,” Ms Knapp said. She also described sites in the burn area as “very sacred”, naming “those lizard traps” and “those gnamma holes”. (gnammas are water-collecting holes that are often naturally formed and then hollowed out by hand.)

DBCA said it met consultation requirements, including presenting its burn options program to Wagyl Kaip Southern Noongar Aboriginal Corporation (WKSN) in August 2025 and searching the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Inquiry System (ACHIS) and seeking advice from the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage. “As part of this process, no registered Aboriginal sites were identified within the FRK 112 prescribed burn,” a DBCA spokesperson said.

WKSN’s cultural and statutory fire coordinator Sean Winter said most sites in the area remained unregistered because they had not been surveyed, and argued that “Just because it’s not on the register, doesn’t mean that there’s not sites in there.” He said the registration process was “really complicated”.