We are glad that Brown et al.[1] and Douglas et al.[2] agree that there is a need to move forward in the debate regarding the use of fire as a management tool in the UK uplands and appreciate their robust responses to some of the issues we identified. We may not agree, but discussing these problems and balancing the current debate from an ecological viewpoint is important. Our recent paper [3] contained a critique of certain aspects of two recent papers they published [4] and [5]. We believe this critique was important, because we believe the interpretations they provided sometimes lacked adequate engagement with existing research on peatland fire ecology, had the potential for damaging misinterpretation, and occasionally appeared to have an unintentional lack of balance. In the case of Brown et al.[4], this concern was exacerbated by the fact it was a review paper and such publications aim to provide an authoritative overview of knowledge in a certain area. We believe there were several respects in which that standard was not met. We also critiqued media outreach and coverage associated with their papers and, in the case of Brown et al.[3], the publication protocol associated with a research report they issued [6]. Here, we briefly address Brown et al. and Douglas et al.’s main concerns regarding our recent paper. Many of the issues raised by Brown et al. are associated with a particular interpretation of our language. While our original paper emphasized the importance of precision of language, for reasons of brevity, we are not able to engage with all such criticisms here and do not feel it is productive to get into a prolonged debate about how we or they may have phrased things better. We will simply state that where we offered a critique of their tone or interpretation, we did so having carefully read their research, corresponded with co-workers about it, and then raised specific concerns about how it could be perceived. We remain willing to clarify our concerns in correspondence should the authors wish. Brown et al. were concerned over our criticism of their statement that ‘burning is considered particularly detrimental to peat-forming Sphagnum species’.