Bushwalk Australia

Posted: **Fri 09 Nov, 2012 4:39 am**

A recent book by Bill Gammage, 'The Biggest Estate on Earth: How Aborigines Made Australia' argues that the term 'wilderness' is a myth, as prior to European arrival the landscape around the nation was carefully managed by the indigenous population using fire. This fire management created a vastly different landscape from the one we today consider natural.

A review of Gammage's book is available from the following link

http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/au ... eners/371/

So is Gammage correct - Is Australian 'wilderness' a myth? That what we see today in 'wilderness' is essentially nothing more than a romantic European construction?

Do we wrongly value trees at the expense of open country and grassland?

Are there now more trees in Australia than there was in 1788?

Is this preference likely to be a threat to the populations of many threatened species by destroying habitat?

And what are the implications for land management and regulation?

Cheers

Posted: **Fri 09 Nov, 2012 5:06 am**

depends on your definition of wilderness.
to me wilderness is a place devoid of man made structures......
the maori's in NZ destroyed most of the south island forests burning them off to flush the moa's out for their dinner, turning the forests into tussock grasslands. its not like they then cultivated the land with crops, whatever is growing there is still wild and native, the areas not managed by humans for farming is wilderness and even a lot of the high country farms feel like wilderness. there's no fences bordering the back of the farms in the mountains....

Posted: **Fri 09 Nov, 2012 5:47 am**

wayno wrote:depends on your definition of wilderness...to me wilderness is a place devoid of man made structures......

Interesting Wayno. This definition would allow logging in 'Wilderness' areas would it not?

It should be noted that Gammage's argument has a Australian perspective. He argues that many landscapes termed 'wilderness' here only exist in their current form due to a modern colonial society prevailing over a traditional indigenous one. That is, we have changed the landscape to suit our own preferences, and then we call it wilderness.

Cheers

Posted: **Fri 09 Nov, 2012 5:54 am**

debateable...
i wouldnt consider somewhere where vehicles have access via roads a wilderness.
given the aborigines don't manage the land with fire anymore through most of aus his argument is becoming more academic with time anyway. does a wilderness area have to be somewhere never altered by humans?

"Wilderness or wildland is a natural environment on Earth that has not been significantly modified by human activity"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderness

Posted: **Fri 09 Nov, 2012 12:00 pm**

Hi Maddog,
Good topic. I hav'nt read the review you linked to but I will later, and have a think about those questions you raised.

But just quickly, I think the concept of Wilderness is a human construct, so whilst Wilderness itself isn't a myth, I do think there are myths surrounding what Wilderness is. This link seems promising for discussion, I'll have a better read of it too later.
http://www.wild.org/main/how-wild-works ... ness-area/

Hopefully we can have a crack at Anthropocentrism later too.

Cheers.

Posted: **Fri 09 Nov, 2012 5:34 pm**

This is an interesting topic and I too have been meaning to read this book but haven’t had the chance yet. When I get some time I will get into it.

I agree that the definition of wilderness is subjective. If one thinks of a wilderness as an area little touched by humans, there is no such place. I think most of us would consider natural bush with few tracks in it a wilderness, and I also think most of us consider this to be a rugged, mountainous regions such as Wollemi NP or perhaps the deeper parts of Lamington NP. I doubt the Simpson, Strezlecki or other deserts would come to most Australian’s mind when asked about what they think of as wilderness. Unless, that is, that was what they were most familiar with.

I think this idea of wilderness comes from the fact that these areas are sometimes the only remaining patches of ‘natural’ vegetation that exist, simply because they were not viable for agriculture. Therefore, most ‘wilderness’ areas and national parks, are an artefact of human settlement and agricultural patterns. Indeed, it is recognised that globally, the current reserve systems only conserve a small percentage of biodiversity, because they are not big enough and/or only cover specific areas, mainly ones that are too difficult to develop.

To answer some of you other questions, as far as what was here pre- and post-European settlement and whether there are more or less trees etc, it comes down to a matter habitat type and scale. There are individual trees and there are vast forests. I have read that several of the first explorers noted how widely spaced Australian trees were on the Cumberland Plain west of Sydney (Watkin Tench perhaps?) and on the Liverpool Plains over the Great Divide. They obviously compared these dry eucalypt forests with European forests with densely packed oaks, elms and pines.

On the question of whether we “wrongly value trees at the expense of open country and grassland?”, from what I have read on what explorers and settlers viewed, the first Europeans in Australia simply viewed our forests on plains country AS grass land, simply because the vegetation was less dense than what they considered as a forest and because grass actually grew under trees. Therefore, what they might have seen as 'open country' or 'grassland' might infact be seen by you or I as a forest! They also talk of impenetrable ‘scrub’, which was the term they used for rainforest. As we know, our rainforests only covers a fraction of what they once did.

Regarding the question “are there now more trees in Australia than there was in 1788” , it depends on the location and context. Vast areas of native vegetation have been cleared for agriculture. Much much more than what was the state of things pre-European. And post second world war when modern mechanical methods for vegetation clearing became available, such as ‘pulling’ scrub with a chain between two bull-dozers, the amount of native forest cover lost has increased exponentially.

This is well documented and the results can be easily be seen in Google Earth. For example, the image I have attached shows southern Qld, covering much of the Brigalow and Mulgalands Bioregions, where there is much more light green and orange-brown (for semi-arid regions) than darker vegetated regions, which only make up a small percentage of the image. If there was a comparable image taken at European settlement, the whole landmass would be different shades of darker green. However, if you were go back in time to pre-European days and enter one of the remaining forests on the ground, such as Barakula SF roughly in the centre of the image, you would likely find the trees much larger but less densely packed than you might today. So the overall forest cover was far greater in pre-European times, but perhaps the vegetation was less dense at scales less than the patch. Still, there was almost certainly more trees at the time of European settlement, by virture of the much greater ammount of forest cover.

: A map

I wonder though, had these regions that have been cleared been left intact, would we consider them wilderness too, or is rugged terrain so deeply imbedded into our psyche as wilderness?

Anyhow, that is my thoughts on a Friday arvo when I should be doing more important things but procrastination and the philosophy of wilderness has gotten the better of me...oh look, its beer o’clock!

Posted: **Fri 09 Nov, 2012 5:37 pm**

Many ways yes.
It makes me laugh when we see land and house for sale in 'wilderness' areas or adjoining such.
Old farm land returned to scrub and bush.

Cradle mountain area (valley) is a consequence of Aboriginal actions in past.
People flock to see the 'untouched wilderness'.

I'd call much of s'west Tasmania that, but then that's cross crossed with tracks and cairns and humans. :roll:

Posted: **Fri 09 Nov, 2012 6:08 pm**

in NZ national parks you have designated "wilderness areas" there are no tracks, bridges, huts or any man mad structures. a lot of them are in virgin rain forest... but the forest is heavily browsed by various animals introduced to the country by humans.... birds in the forest are extremely heavily predated on by introduced animals... so you might argue it's not a wilderness. depends how much of a purist you are,, the few areas where the birdlife is remotely close to flourishing as much as it did pre human days are heavily managed by humans that are controlling the predatory animals.... so to have a chance to experience what the NZ wilderness was like in pre European times, you have to be in a non wilderness area... some species of birds have become extinct in "wilderness areas" others would be extinct if they only existed in wilderness areas.....

Posted: **Fri 09 Nov, 2012 6:49 pm**

Good book. I have been a subscriber to his hypothesis for many years, and anyone who goes walking with me will be well aware of my love of fire!

My initial interest in so called wilderness was spurred by the descriptions by Joseph Banks of the land north of Wollongong where I lived whilst studying at Uni - the description of grass land leading to heath covered hills with occasional large trees and palms did not match the dense wet sclerophyll forest that is there now.
Anyone with a familiarity of plants can see in many areas the original tree growth contrasted to what has developed through recent cataclasmic fire regimes.
Charlie Darwin himself commented there was nowhere a horse couldnt be galloped when he crossed the blue mountain ridges, and that was a good fifty years after the invasion.
NPWS and so their so called wilderness areas are destroying our natural heritage, preserving some geology not ecology. We are already seeing the extinction of saxicoline reptile species in the sydney basin due to forest replacing heath and bush.
Furthermore the use of the word wilderness is an insult to those who lived here for thousands of years.
Burn it clean, and burn it again, and again, and again...

Posted: **Fri 09 Nov, 2012 9:00 pm**

Some talk of wilderness as being a human construct. Of course it is. How can you define the undefinable?

The bush/forest/desert/mountains we venture into are just that, a place described by words invented by us. Those words have different connotations depending on our individual world view.

I have lived in a wilderness and barely seen a tree for days and have wandered through another wilderness for days not seeing anything but the best nature has to offer up.

So yes wilderness is a myth, doesn't mean it's not real

Posted: **Sat 10 Nov, 2012 6:04 am**

to a certain extent for some people wilderness is what they eel is wilderness.
when i was a kid wilderness was the back of my house section in the bush... on a quarter acre.....
then it was the hills behind where i lived. then it was the nearest mountains.... some of the mountains were arguably wilderness, the rest wasnt in the pure sense but a place can feel like wilderness even when it's not by definition,
you can analyse any area in you're in to death and find some small technicality that means it's not a wilderness by exact definition....
I don't see the point, its an academic argument, i walk in places that feel like a wilderness to me and i'm happy with that, i can live with the fact that they may not technically be a wilderness... I can't change that fact, so I don't see the point in dwelling apon it,

Posted: **Sat 10 Nov, 2012 1:57 pm**

While there is no doubt that much of structure of vegetation communities has changed over the past 220 or so years, the communities themselves have often not changed. I think when considering some of the literature of perceived landscapes there is a danger of historical revisionist views that are based on small and/or selected case studies. For example, I take jackhinde’s description of Joseph Banks’ observations north of the Illawarra. And Jack, this is not meant to be a criticism of you or your view, I am just trying to look at it from a different perspective.

I think it is important to consider the context of Banks’descriptions. During the Endeavour’s passage up the coast from first sighting land till the landed and explored Botany Bay (or Stingray Bay as they originally named it), Banks described the land as it was and generally is today. Remember, he was seeing it from a distance out to sea through a telescope, and did not actually see it close up until they landed ashore in the bay. I have taken the relevant descriptions from his journal:

Banks describes a landscape mosaic, with: “sloping hills, coverd in Part with trees or bushes, but interspersd with large tracts of sand and gentle sloping hills which had the appearance of the highest fertility, every hill seemd to be cloth'd with trees of no mean size.”

He described the country around Pigeon House Mtn as: “hilly but rising in gentle slopes and well wooded.”

His description of bare patches in the forest cover compare the land with a ‘lean cow’: “The countrey tho in general well enough clothd appeard in some places bare; it resembled in my imagination the back of a lean Cow coverd in general with long hair, but nevertheless where her scraggy hip bones have stuck out farther than they ought accidental rubbs and knocks have intirely bard them of their share of covering.”

When he describes an area that could only be what is now in the very northern Illawarra to the Royal National Park, where the escarpment joins the sea: “Land today more barren in appearance that we hade before seen it: it consisted cheifly of Chalky cliffs something resembling those of old England; within these it was flat and might be no doubt as fertile.”

This, I think, includes your description of the “...grass land leading to heath covered hills with occasional large trees and palms did not match the dense wet sclerophyll forest that is there now...”
“The Countrey today again made in slopes to the sea coverd with wood of a tolerable growth tho not so large as some we have seen...The trees were not very large and stood seperate from each other without the least underwood; among them we could discern many cabbage trees but nothing else which we could call by any name.
That pretty much describes the region even now, where the forests, dominated by Eucalytpus botrioides, some littoral rainforests, and Lomandra dominated grasslands, are exposed and generally stunted by the prevailing winds along the coast.

When they reached the mouth of Botany Bay:The land this morn appeard Cliffy and barren without wood. An opening appearing like a harbour was seen and we stood directly in for it.”Being quite familiar with the area, I can see how Banks could see the generally treeless heaths on the cliff tops and describe them as “barren without wood.”

Once they landed and discovered the swampy nature of the region and the sanddunes that surround the bay: “...The Soil wherever we saw it consisted of either swamps or light sandy soil on which grew very few species of trees, one which was large yeilding a gum much like sanguis draconis, but every place was coverd with vast quantities of grass... Myself in the woods botanizing as usual... in the afternoon ashore on the NW side of the bay, where we went a good way into the countrey which in this place is very sandy and resembles something our Moors in England, as no trees grow upon it but every thing is coverd with a thin brush of plants about as high as the knees. The hills are low and rise one above another a long way into the countrey by a very gradual ascent, appearing in every respect like those we were upon.”

So Banks describes a number of different ecosystems that occur naturally along the NSW south-coast to this day, from forests to swamps, dunes and heaths. Remember, he was seeing them and recoding them for the first time, mainly from the deck of the Endeavour out at sea, and with a European’s eye.

When Cook and Banks arrived in Botany, Cook wrote of meadows and described the land as similar to “South Wales”, which of course is where New South Wales comes from. When the First Fleet arrived at Botany Bay, Arthur Phillip spent three days looking for the ‘meadows’ and favourable land Cook had described.
I found this which describes:
Phillip found that the best situation that offered [for settlement] was near Point Sutherland where there was a small run of good water but the ground near it was spongy and the ships could not approach this part of the Bay.
He decided to explore Port Jackson to the north, the entrance to which was marked on Cook's chart. In the meantime he ordered Major Ross to have the land cleared on Point Sutherland, in case he did not find a better harbour. Three days were spent clearing before Phillip returned and the fleet re-embarked for the much more suitable Port Jackson. Surgeon White wrote:
Although the spot fixed for the town was the most eligible that could be chosen, yet I think it would never have answered, the ground around it being sandy, poor and swampy, and but very indifferently supplied with water. The fine meadows talked of in Captain Cook's voyage I could never see, though I took some pains to find them out.
There were other denigrators of Cook and Banks' glowing descriptions of the countryside. 'We had passed through the country, which the discoverers of Botany Bay extol as some of the finest meadows in the world. These meadows, instead of grass, are covered with high coarse rushes, growing in a rotten spungy bog, into which we were plunged knee-deep at every step', reported Captain Watkin Tench in December 1790, after his unsuccessful excursion south of the Cooks River near Muddy Creek.
While the location of the good land that Cook and Banks described has remained a mystery ever since, there is no doubt that there were extensive swamps in the lower Cooks Valley.
Were Cook's landscape descriptions naïve?
Cook and Banks both consistently reported that the soils around Botany Bay were in general sandy. Cook's well-quoted descriptions - 'diversified with woods, Lawns and Marshes, and woods are free from under wood' - are likely to have been accurate comments on the appearance of the mosaic of swamp, sedgeland and sclerophyll woodland that would have occurred on the sandy country immediately around Botany Bay. Such areas may have appeared superficially as grassy, particularly if they had been burned several years before. References to a quantity of good grass that grows in tufts could have been sedges or coarse grasses such as Cymbopogon refractus.
Cook's comments appear to be considered and objective, but perhaps there was a touch of landscape romance. After all he was a seaman in a completely new land! Perhaps it was the readers who naively assumed that attractive landscape would be productive landscape.

Royal Marine Captain Watkin Tench went on to describe the trees around Sydney:
The general face of the country is certainly pleasing, being diversified with gentle ascents, and little winding vallies, covered for the most part with large spreading trees, which afford a succession of leaves in all seasons. In those places where trees are scarce, a variety of flowering shrubs abound, most of them entirely new to an European, and surpassing in beauty, fragrance, and number, all I ever saw in an uncultivated state ....Except from the size of the trees, the difficulties of clearing the land are not numerous, underwood being rarely found, though the country is not absolutely without it. Of the natural meadows which Mr. Cook mentions near Botany Bay, we can give no account; none such exist about Port Jackson. Grass, however, grows in every place but the swamps with the greatest vigour and luxuriancy, though it is not of the finest quality, and is found to agree better with horses and cows than sheep.

The explorers recorded what they saw, and at different scales of observation. Banks saw or experienced relatively little from the land and generally accurately describes the natural landscape how it would be seen from the sea if it were untouched today. Tench saw the landscape up close and personal, and also describes the natural landscape it as it generally is in natural areas around Sydney (and a few still exist), minus the weeds etc. Of course the structure of vegetation has changed, but I don’t think that it is so different as some might think.

For a related aside, with a now and then comparison of vegition change, a mate of mine conducted his PhD on historical landscapes in western Queensland, and used explorers journals to compare what they saw with what exists today. Not surprisingly, he found that the landscape had changed very little from the descriptions of the explorers. The main difference out there is that vast areas of native vegetation have been cleared for pasture.

And back to the word “wilderness”. No one has posted up the definition of the word yet, so perhaps people all have a different idea of what a wilderness is, and so it is hard to debate if it is a myth unless there is a commonly agreed definition. Here are some one from the Oxford English Dictionary:

Definition of wilderness
noun
[usually in singular]
• an uncultivated, uninhabited, and inhospitable region.
• a neglected or abandoned area: the garden had become a wilderness of weeds and bushes
• a position of disfavour, especially in a political context: the man who led the Labour Party out of the wilderness [as modifier]: his wilderness years
Origin:
Old English wildēornes 'land inhabited only by wild animals', from wild dēor 'wild deer' + -ness

So is it a myth that there are uncultivated, uninhabitated and inhospitable regions? Possibly, but there are still places that come close enough to this description to be described as wilderness.

What do you think?

Posted: **Sat 10 Nov, 2012 2:17 pm**

I put the wikipedia definition of wilderness up before

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wilderness?s=t

Posted: **Sat 10 Nov, 2012 2:27 pm**

So you did wayno, for some reason I missed that. BTW, you might be interested in the extensive observations of NZ in Joseph Banks' diary.

Posted: **Sat 10 Nov, 2012 2:40 pm**

Pteropus wrote:So you did wayno, for some reason I missed that. BTW, you might be interested in the extensive observations of NZ in Joseph Banks' diary.

kind of but its possibly a bit big to put in a post, they wrote in a long winded way back then, if theres a link to it that might be better

Posted: **Sat 10 Nov, 2012 2:44 pm**

wayno wrote:
Pteropus wrote:So you did wayno, for some reason I missed that. BTW, you might be interested in the extensive observations of NZ in Joseph Banks' diary.

kind of but its possibly a bit big to put in a post, they wrote in a long winded way back then, if theres a link to it that might be better

Joseph Banks' journal:

Posted: **Sat 10 Nov, 2012 5:06 pm**

Pteropus wrote: No one has posted up the definition of the word yet, so perhaps people all have a different idea of what a wilderness is, and so it is hard to debate if it is a myth unless there is a commonly agreed definition.

Definition of wilderness
noun
[usually in singular]
• an uncultivated, uninhabited, and inhospitable region.
• a neglected or abandoned area: the garden had become a wilderness of weeds and bushes
• a position of disfavour, especially in a political context: the man who led the Labour Party out of the wilderness [as modifier]: his wilderness years
Origin:
Old English wildēornes 'land inhabited only by wild animals', from wild dēor 'wild deer' + -ness

What do you think?

This is similar to Gammage's position who suggests that there was no wilderness when Europeans arrived to Australia as the entire continent was carefully managed by the indigenous population using technology (i.e. fire).

However, my back yard would qualify under the Oxford definition. In addition (and unlike Gammage), most modern definitions of wilderness in the environmental context specifically exclude the activities of native inhabitants from consideration, e.g. The Wilderness Society:

http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/ ... whatiswild

However, I agree that it is important for us to accept a common definition, so I suggest as an alternative from Butterworths:

Land that together with its plant and animal communities, is in a state that has not been substantially modified by, and is remote from, the influences of European settlement or is capable of being restored to such a state; is of sufficient size to make its maintenance in such a state feasible; and is capable of providing opportunities for solitude and self-reliant recreation.

But can we agree?

Cheers

Posted: **Sat 10 Nov, 2012 5:13 pm**

The historical context is important but probably raises more confusion.

It is true early explorers described landscapes that we can find at odds with modern science and observations.
So wilderness today by definition may have been influenced by man's activity in past which before then was wilderness.
Some of the slopes of Mt Roland would fit the dictionary definition, but in early 1900's were farmed. Now they have the appearance of 'natural' bush.
Similar areas on west slopes Forth River below Lower Wilmot.

It reminds me of discussions I've had with landowners in lower Midlands about heritage restoration.
They were restricted by heritage status but when it came to actually pinning it down to a definite time, it was obvious there are several time frames in which significant development took place.
So they were unable to ascertain if they could restore to the 1830, 1870, or 1900 style.

Confusing!

Posted: **Sat 10 Nov, 2012 11:52 pm**

Thank you for the reference to this book maddog. I heard an interview with him on my way home on an indigenous radio station and was so interested that when I got home I didn't want to turn the car off. But after the family came out to see what was wrong I thought I'd better go inside. So I didn't get to hear the author's name or the title of the book. Now I can finally track it down.
Cheers
Emma

Posted: **Sun 11 Nov, 2012 8:17 am**

The word wilderness is very hard to define, it originates from wildness. It was first mentioned in the bible as desolate, arid or waste land. Basically wilderness was somewhere to be feared. Over time the word has developed and it really depends on the users cultural, spiritual, religious etc background for their own perceptive of the word. The best definition I could find for a modern day use is; Wilderness areas consist of terrestial and marine environments less affected by activities of our agricultural, industrial and urban society dedicated for the protection, maintenance of biological diversity and productivity and of natural associated cultural resources managed sustainably through either secure legal tenure and administration or other effective means.
To suggest that there are no wilderness areas in the world is saying that humans have influenced the whole world no matter how remote. It is also an opinion which removes humans from the nature, surely we are part of the natural world and not seperate? or a which point through time does this author think we became seperated from nature? and surely if we see ourselves as outside of nature then we also leave ourselves no notion of responsible management in the protection of these areas?
My personal opinion is that there are many great Wilderness areas in the world, I am lucky that I live in Tasmania and I see much of the state as having wilderness values, and I am a firm believer humans are part of nature.

Posted: **Sun 11 Nov, 2012 9:31 am**

The use of the world 'wilderness' seems to have moved on from the wasteland definition, though Gammage has not necessarily, and has typically become more a legal definition that prescribes minimal influence from an advanced colonial or technological society, and an area is of a certain minimum size. Thus, aboriginal hunter gather type lifestyles are generally considered consistent with wilderness, whereas agrarian or other technologically advanced societies are not. Gammage argument is however, that the Australian Aborigines fell into the latter category as they managed the landscape in such a comprehensive manner with fire, that there was no wasteland, and that no area could properly considered to be wilderness by the time Europeans arrived.

If his argument of comprehensive land management were accepted, whether or not we consider what we consider the pre-european landscape wilderness, it would have implications for the management of natural areas. Strategies for the preservation of threatened species, the regulation of land, and what we now consider to be natural (amongst other things), may have to change. Native species that survived aboriginal land management were suited to it, and in many cases probably depend on it.

If we accept the legitimacy of aboriginal land management in the concept of 'wilderness', a dense forest that has emerged only since european times because aboriginal land management has been excluded could not properly be considered wilderness, as it would owe its existence to european influence (by taste or neglect). For example, was Queensland's Brigalow a pre-european remnant or merely post colonial regrowth? On the other hand, a woodland maintained by grazing animals might qualify as 'wilderness' on the basis that it is of the same vegetation quality as pre-european Australia, and be of greater habitat value to many native species. So, is cattle grazing on the Victorian Alps actually perpetuating 'wilderness', and on balance beneficial to native species adapted to a pre-european landscape?

It is also possible that widespread interference (disturbance) has become necessary to maintain forest health, and biodiversity. For example, Gammage claims that pre-european insect plagues were minimal due to frequent aboriginal fire destroying the egg and nymph stages of pests such as locusts. Today, we have extensive areas of 'wilderness' that are suffering from Bell Minor Associated Die Back (BMAD) - a condition alleged to be caused by insects called Lerps being protected from predators by Bell Minors. This condition is often associated with the creation of suitable Bell Minor habitat - a legacy of logging and the subsequent proliferation of noxious weeds such as lantana, but not often with the suppression of a frequent fire regime. Perhaps the re-introduction of a regular fire regime would be more successful in suppressing the Lerp than weed management designed to destroy Bell Minor habitat.

It is quite possible that by leaving large areas in a 'natural' state of 'wilderness', we are killing them - which is why this is not merely an academic question.

Cheers

Posted: **Sun 11 Nov, 2012 10:51 am**

I find it difficult to agree with his definition of wilderness as he has removed aborigines from the natural environment due to their use of fire to manage the landscape. Being an Historian I think he has tried to use a 'purist' opinion of the word to get his point of view across. It has been argued that there are no places left on the Earth that are classified as wilderness as humans have influenced the environment on a global scale.

Posted: **Sun 11 Nov, 2012 1:02 pm**

The argument of is there wilderness or not could go on forever. We could eventually be debating whether the moon ceased being a 'wilderness' or natural area the moment humans landed the luna module and put their first foot prints there? In the same vein, I guess Gammage hypothesises that since the Aboriginal people of had changed the landscape, then it was not wilderness. Arguments about how much the Aboriginal people of Australia actually changed and influenced the landscape continue within scientific and anthropogenic circles. For example, one of the chief arguments is over the role of indigenous people in the extinction of megafauna. While we can hypothesise until the Diprotodons come home, we will never truly know what Australia was like in pre-Aboriginal times. What we do know, however, is that any organism has some impact on its environment and so it follows that they had some impact. We also know that humans have the greatest impact of the environment. Lastly, the impact on the ecosystem since Europeans arrived has caused significant change, particularly on the structure and distribution of plant and animal populations.

This brings me back to the definitions of wilderness. If Butterworth’s definition that maddog posted is used, (Land that together with its plant and animal communities, is in a state that has not been substantially modified by, and is remote from, the influences of European settlement or is capable of being restored to such a state; is of sufficient size to make its maintenance in such a state feasible; and is capable of providing opportunities for solitude and self-reliant recreation.) then all of Australia was a wilderness in pre-European times simply because the plant and animal communities were in a state that had not been substantially modified and was remote from the influence or European settlement.

If the first OED definition is considered, then the only wilderness in Australia, or the world for that matter, existed before humans arrived in those places. If the second definition is considered, then many patches of bush that are neglected and full of weeds could be called wilderness, and yes some people’s backyards might qualify too! So to maddog, the ‘dense forest that emerged only since european times’ would be considered wilderness. You do need to be clear on which dense forest you consider of, simply because there were dense forests, such as rainforests, wet sclerophyll, etc which existed then, as it does today. Dense wet forest has not just appeared since European settlement. The Aboriginals made extensive use of these habitats, which now have been reduced since then, by land clearing. So did the first European settlers, by cutting down the huge trees, such as red cedar, which became Australia's first item of export. There are more than enough instances of 'impenetrable scrub' mentioned by explorers. I believe that John Oxley described the banks of the Brisbane River as a 'jungle' and there are some photographs of the giant trees that once occurred there. As to how much the indigenous population modified rainforests, who knows? Perhaps they could have been the wilderness we are seeking? Whether rainforests or wet sclerophyll was wilderness before Europeans is once again, subjective.

The Bell Miner Associated Dieback you mention often takes place within the wet sclerophyll forests, despite the bell miner being an edge species of these habitats. As you say, BMAD mostly takes place where there has been fragmentation of the forest, such as a road and logging, where weeds got in. But often these habitats are not so adapted to fire and dense Lantana can actually cause fires, and is often one of the first species to recolonise an area post-fire. Just to be a pedant, the lerp is the protective covering of the nymph of sap-sucking psyllid insect. And the Brigalow was pre-European remnant and not regrowth. Nowadays, Brigalow is an endangered vegetation community, but before mechanical ripping, it was almost impossible to clear. It’s clearing has only occurred in the last 50 – 60 years and often it is only found in small patches. It was once the dominant vegetation community of the bioregion that is named for it, which covered a large area of Queensland and NSW.

Lastly, I find the wording of your last question interesting maddog.

maddog wrote:It is quite possible that by leaving large areas in a 'natural' state of 'wilderness', we are killing them - which is why this is not merely an academic question.

I think you need to clarify what you mean by ‘killing them’. Do you mean, that they will no longer exist and there will be a barren moonscape? Or that the ecosystem will no longer be functional? Perhaps some ecosystems will change, a little. Perhaps they will begin to revert back to what they were like pre-Aboriginal times? After all, ecological/biological systems are always changing and adapting. Some species, like bell and noisy miners, take advantage, others, will not. While management of natural areas might not necessarily be optimal, I think our native plant and animal communities are, by many magnitudes, more likely to be killed off though the change caused by landscape clearing rather than by leaving them in a 'natural state'.

Posted: **Sun 11 Nov, 2012 1:30 pm**

In a round-a-bout way, my point is, there is a lot of uncertainty on what the landscapes were like and if there were differences in ecosystem function between pre-European arrival in Australia and now. Without a clear definition of what a wilderness is, it is hard to argue if it is a myth or not. And it is certainly difficult, or impossible to say whether the areas we have left in a ‘natural’ state are wilderness or not. But since these regions are our best representations of what Australia was like pre-European times, they are the closest thing we have to most people’s definition of wilderness. And they are in a much healthier ecological state than a treeless paddock or a city block.

Posted: **Sun 11 Nov, 2012 10:20 pm**

Pteropus wrote:then all of Australia was a wilderness in pre-European times simply because the plant and animal communities were in a state that had not been substantially modified and was remote from the influence or European settlement.

The definitions of wilderness provided by Butterworths, the Wilderness Society and Wikipedia, do not view indigenous peoples leading traditional lifestyles as separate from the surrounding environment. So I agree, under any of these definitions pre-European Australia would properly be considered wilderness. In the modern context, an indigenous tribe living a traditional lifestyle in the jungles of the Amazon or Borneo would not preclude an area from classification as wilderness, but a logging camp that contained indigenous inhabitants would not be so classified. Nor would my backyard.

Pteropus wrote:The Bell Miner Associated Dieback you mention often takes place within the wet sclerophyll forests, despite the bell miner being an edge species of these habitats. As you say, BMAD mostly takes place where there has been fragmentation of the forest, such as a road and logging, where weeds got in. But often these habitats are not so adapted to fire and dense Lantana can actually cause fires, and is often one of the first species to recolonise an area post-fire.

Both wet and dry sclerophyll are evidence of past fire, as without it they would be rainforest. The point here was not whether or not lantana is adapted to fire, it was whether or not it is really the principle cause of BMAD. As you would be aware, we don’t really know what the cause of BMAD is, but an association between the aggressive and territorial Bellbird, Lantana, and a sap sucking psyllid insect has certainly been suggested. No doubt we find it consoling that even if our campaign to control Lantana is ineffective in reversing BMAD, the removal of Lantana is probably a good thing in its own right. Though if, as Gammage suggests, insect plagues were rare due to frequent aboriginal burning – this would be a line of enquiry worth following as an alternative management strategy for BMAD. Lantana may be well adapted to fire, but are the sap sucking psyllid insects so well adapted? (a genuine question)

NSW National Parks have certainly entertained the possibility that absence of fire contributes to dieback:

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/deter ... inerfd.htm

And in relation to extensive Flooded gum decline and another sap sucking insect, the Perthida leafminer, Katherine Edwards of the Centre of Excellence for Climate Change, Woodlands, and Forest Health, noted:

An important factor of the history between Flooded Gum and the Flooded Gum species of the Perthida leafminer, is that the abundance and distribution of the leafminer seem to have increased since their first records in the late 1800’s according to a study of herbarium collections. The authors of that study suggested that the increases were linked to the governmental changes to Aboriginal fire regimes around that were in place since the 1850’s, the hypothesis being that Aboriginal burning regimes produced more crown scorch which would kill larvae and abscise the leaves that would have been their food source, and the change to the European burning regime reduced this population control mechanism. The Aboriginal fire regime, compared to the European regime, involved frequent burning of bushland areas with intensity sufficient to reach and scorch the crowns. The European burning regime involved an era (1856-1920) of uncontrolled, intense fires caused by settlers, followed by an era (1921-1965) of fire suppression, followed by the current era (1966-present) of wildfire suppression and prescribed burning.

Pteropus wrote: Just to be a pedant, the lerp is the protective covering of the nymph of sap-sucking psyllid insect.

Not at all. I am generally very slack, was caught out, and am happy to be corrected.

Pteropus wrote: And the Brigalow was pre-European remnant and not regrowth. Nowadays, Brigalow is an endangered vegetation community, but before mechanical ripping, it was almost impossible to clear. It’s clearing has only occurred in the last 50 – 60 years and often it is only found in small patches. It was once the dominant vegetation community of the bioregion that is named for it, which covered a large area of Queensland and NSW.

The prominent Queenslander Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen and his famous chain and bulldozer clearing technique, no doubt greatly decreased the coverage of this vegetation community. That Brigalow covered such a large area in pre-European times is not so clear. Gammage doubts it, and offers historical descriptions to suggest otherwise. Bundaleer Station near the Warrego is offered as one example (pp 85-87):

In 1858 the country was dry, sandy ‘grassy forest, with ridges of dense brigalow scrub…'

A farm manager named Rothery mapped Bundaleer Station in 1877-8. His illustrations showed:

Brigalow and Gidgee…in clumps and belts; grass and scrub are alternate…

However this patterned landscape was to disappear:

An 1886 report stated, ‘brigalow is spreading very much and taking possession of most black soil flats…a great portion of the country that is now open, will be dense brigalow scrub in five or six years and…the pasture will deteriate [sic] considerably. Brigalow was also invading the Gidgee plains, Mulga had appeared, and False Sandlewood (Budda) was now common…[An] inspector lamented in 1910, ‘the best grasses, cotton and saltbush have been almost destroyed by drought, heavy stocking and rabbits’, yet even in wet times grass and saltbush decreased and scrub increased. After 1866 a century of ringbarking, pulling and burning controlled Gidgee, Mulga and pine, but not Brigalow or False Sandalwood. On the contrary, ‘Attempts to clear…have invariably resulted in its thick regeneration.’ By 1985 a ground survey on Bundaleer…found almost all of the saltbush gone, much less grass, much more Brigalow and Gidgee, and dense False Sandlewood, even though the station pulled and burnt extensively in the 1960’s and 1980’s…
Observers have concluded that firing scrub only makes it thicker, yet people burnt it clear in 1788. They knew what fire regime worked. We don’t.

Gammage provides other examples (pp 204):

Climbing a ridge to Cunningham’s Gap (Qld), Allan Cunningham saw ‘Patches of brush’ on its slopes and in ‘the gullies falling from it, leaving its back clear of wood, open and grassy’. Leichhardt praised country as ‘most beautiful, presenting detached Bricklow groves…surrounded by lawns of the richest grass and herbage’. And of the Dawson Valley John Gilbert wrote,

‘One of the most picturesque and extensive scenes met our anxious gaze. The immediate vicinity of the hills was like park scenery – clear undulating grassy hills, with here and their small clumps of Brigalow, while the sides of many of the hills were dotted with single scrubs, as if picked out by hand.’

Thus, the historical record as provided by Gammage is not particularly supportive of your description of pre-European Brigalow as a dominant and impenetrable scrub community, but more a community that was widely dispersed amongst woods and grasslands (the same applies of sclerophyll communities more generally). Nor was it impossible to clear - the problem was that in the absence of correct management it regrew. If Gammage is correct, this makes much of the Brigalow cleared under Sir Joe Bjelke-Petersen post-European regrowth.

Gammage offers many similar examples and convincingly argues that this pattern was widespread across the nation. That such communities came to dominate the landscape is a legacy of the loss of aboriginal influence, and the poor land management of the European settlers.

Pteropus wrote:Lastly, I find the wording of your last question interesting maddog.
maddog wrote:It is quite possible that by leaving large areas in a 'natural' state of 'wilderness', we are killing them - which is why this is not merely an academic question.

By managing areas consistent with an imported philosophy of wilderness we are in danger of greatly reducing the biodiversity of the Australian bush. Whether people like it or not, Aboriginal land management changed the face of this nation. Those plants and animals that survived, did so because they were suited to the landscape that was created. Yes, ecological systems are always changing, but if we chose to indulge a preference for a heavily wooded scrub at the expense of the natural variety and beauty of a true Australian wilderness, we should not necessarily expect this management by neglect to suit the nations surviving biota.

Cheers

Posted: **Mon 12 Nov, 2012 9:30 pm**

maddog wrote: On the other hand, a woodland maintained by grazing animals might qualify as 'wilderness' on the basis that it is of the same vegetation quality as pre-european Australia, and be of greater habitat value to many native species. So, is cattle grazing on the Victorian Alps actually perpetuating 'wilderness', and on balance beneficial to native species adapted to a pre-european landscape?

Apart from the erosion, spread of weeds and parasites, loss or substantial reduction of native plant species, degradation of water sources (just for starters), sure. If you define 'wilderness' to suit your argument, you can claim pretty well anything perpetuates it.

Posted: **Tue 13 Nov, 2012 2:06 am**

maddog wrote:Both wet and dry sclerophyll are evidence of past fire, as without it they would be rainforest.

Not true. While the presence of eucalypts in a rainforest can indicate the presence of a previous fire, the absence of fire doesn't mean there will be a rainforest. Fire occurs in both wet and dry, but more so in dry sclerophyll. While understory in wet sclerophyll is often full of rainforest species, dry sclerophyll does not normally support rainforest species. It is widely accepted that many of our flora evolved in wetter regions and that Australia drifted north into drier climes and the flora had to adapt. This is why many of the dry land plant species in Australia are actually from families that have their rainforest counterparts: Mytaceae, Proteaceae, Fabaceae, Sapindaceae etc. The presence of Aboriginal people using fire did not change this in the 40,000 – 100,000 years they have been here. Our flora adapted to a drier, hotter and possibly fire-prone environment over millions of years, before humans arrived here. Aboriginal people just took advantage of the properties of the vegetation, to burn and survive fire. And yes, in many areas they encouraged fire and changed vegetation structure. But A dry sclerophyll forest is unlikely to convert to a wet sclerophyll or rainforest unless it suddenly gets a favourable amount of rainfall.

maddog wrote:The point here was not whether or not lantana is adapted to fire, it was whether or not it is really the principle cause of BMAD. As you would be aware, we don’t really know what the cause of BMAD is, but an association between the aggressive and territorial Bellbird, Lantana, and a sap sucking psyllid insect has certainly been suggested. No doubt we find it consoling that even if our campaign to control Lantana is ineffective in reversing BMAD, the removal of Lantana is probably a good thing in its own right. Though if, as Gammage suggests, insect plagues were rare due to frequent aboriginal burning – this would be a line of enquiry worth following as an alternative management strategy for BMAD. Lantana may be well adapted to fire, but are the sap sucking psyllid insects so well adapted? (a genuine question)
NSW National Parks have certainly entertained the possibility that absence of fire contributes to dieback:
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/deter ... inerfd.htm

Yeah it is not necessarily the lantana that causes bell miners to take over an area, but that is a symptom of fragmentation. As to whether the absence of fire contributes to dieback, perhaps that is so. There is no doubt we have altered fire regimes, and often so called 'ecological burns' are conducted at the wrong time of year, or with incorrect frequency. Actually, in addition to the examples you give regarding insects and altered fire regimes, I have heard arguments that many beneficial insects are killed in the larvae and nymph stage by so called ecological burns. The point here is, and I think you will agree since it is part of your arguments, that many fire regimes used for management do not even represent what the Aboriginals were doing in pre-European times.

maddog wrote:Thus, the historical record as provided by Gammage is not particularly supportive of your description of pre-European Brigalow as a dominant and impenetrable scrub community, but more a community that was widely dispersed amongst woods and grasslands (the same applies of sclerophyll communities more generally). Nor was it impossible to clear - the problem was that in the absence of correct management it regrew. If Gammage is correct, this makes much of the Brigalow cleared under Sir Joe Bjelke-Petersen post-European regrowth.

I don’t think i mentioned brigalow as a “pre-European Brigalow as a dominant and impenetrable scrub community”. I just mentioned it was a remnant. Your description from Gammage does describe some brigalow as thus:

maddog wrote:In 1858 the country was dry, sandy ‘grassy forest, with ridges of dense brigalow scrub…'

To this I will add something on Brigalow and the settlement of western Queensland. Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla) suckers readily when disturbed. The first settlers to the brigalow areas had a lot of troubles trying to clear it. One method first settlers used to clear land (anywhere in Australia) was ringbarking trees. I have met graziers in western Qld who told me their fathers would habitually ring bark 20 or so trees every day. Thats how they did it before bulldozers. Ringbarking just promotes brigalow to sucker. So does fire, which is another way the first settlers tried to clear land. Actually, graziers still use fire. But like I said, it wasn’t until mechanical ripping became available, were graziers able to control and then ‘defeat’ brigalow. Brigalow, and false sandle wood (Eremophila mitchellii) are both considered weeds by graziers, that compete with pasture. They still speak of brigalow as a weed, despite its threatened community status, so I do not doubt that “After 1866 a century of ringbarking, pulling and burning controlled Gidgee, Mulga and pine, but not Brigalow or False Sandalwood” claim, and “Attempts to clear…have invariably resulted in its thick regeneration.” So I am not sure what you mean by 'in the absence of correct management it regrew', unless you mean that brigalow regrew in the attempts to manage it. Which is what occured when they tried to clear it in pre-dozer days. Thus, it was generally impossible to clear over large areas. (general edit: I read the sentence about the struggles of clearing brigalow incorrectly in my tiredness last night, but it is consistent with what I have said, and I just changed one or two words)

Then this “Observers have concluded that firing scrub only makes it thicker, yet people burnt it clear in 1788. They knew what fire regime worked. We don’t.” is completely contradictory. Were the people who ‘burnt it clear in 1788’ the Aboriginals? Were they talking of the brigalow? No white men entered the brigalow till Leichardt was there in the mid 1800s. So what fire regime worked? I find this an odd observation.

In the mulga (Acacia aneura) the graziers used this as supplementary fodder for livestock in drought. The Mulgalands were overstocked simply because of the access to this supplementary resource. By the ‘20s or ‘30s, there were some concerns that the mulga was disappearing. Vegetation was denuded and erosion was a big problem. Nowadays, graziers would rather push it, considering it a weed. Back in first settler times there were records of extensive eucalypt and Acacia woodlands and cypress (Callitris glaucophylla). These woodlands were not regrowth at the time of settlement, they were remnant. The large trees they pulled out of that country are testament to that too. There were sawmills in western NSW and Qld (look at the Pilliga Scrub for further example). Of course these woodlands still exist to some extent, but their extents are greatly reduced from what they were. Much of the wood land is gone, and the landscape resembles nothing like it was pre-European.

I’m not against Gammage and his points of view, and like I said, I haven’t got around to reading his book and I strongly desire to do so. But I am wary of research based on single or a small number of selective case studies. Perhaps I am a little biased before I read his work. I am sure there is much merit to his research. I am most wary because there does seem to be a lot of historical revisionism where people like to fit their own interpretation to historical observations that don’t necessarily follow research based evidence. But then again, a hypothesis is just a hypothesis and he is just putting forward some ideas. As we do on this forum.

maddog wrote:By managing areas consistent with an imported philosophy of wilderness we are in danger of greatly reducing the biodiversity of the Australian bush.

As far as managing natural areas and the possibility of “of greatly reducing the biodiversity of the Australian bush”, studies show that biodiversity is higher in remnant vegetation, and that species richness also increases where there is regrowth.

maddog wrote:Whether people like it or not, Aboriginal land management changed the face of this nation. Those plants and animals that survived, did so because they were suited to the landscape that was created.

Finally, I totally agree, that Aboriginals changed much of the vegetation structure. But we need to remember, their influence, especially their fire regime, was not consistent over all of the continent, and that what one explorer or settler observed one thing in one area, isn’t transferable to other areas. And the vegetation of Australia was adapted to a hot, dry, climate and was combustible long before Aboriginals arrived. Fire is a part of our landscape, and perhaps some vegetation requires a fire every now and then. But we need to be careful how that is applied. For the wilderness' sake :wink:

Perhaps the question should not be “is wilderness a myth”, but “what does the word wilderness mean to you”.

Posted: **Tue 13 Nov, 2012 11:19 am**

Is Wilderness a myth?

That's a most interesting question ... over the traditional Bramina, Bimberi, Bogong Peaks, Goobarragandra/Bobbys Plains, Jagungal, Western Fall, Indi, Pilot, possibly Byadbo and Main Range Wilderness Regions two Saturdays ago, it looked like a total myth.

I do remember correctly, in the good old days, before the profusion of phone towers seen everywhere nowadays, when the Main Range Wilderness was called Kosciuszko Main Range (Wilderness Classification in Winter only). I still haven't worked out how in some NSW NPWS posts the Main Range is a wilderness and in other NSW NPWS posts it isn't.

... and, when Wilderness Regions were still found outside of NP Boundaries. It is kind of strange when a Wilderness within a traditional wilderness is determined by many boundary lines with right angles or a boundary that looks like the wanderings of a lost ant.

About 3 years ago, I rang Morton NP and asked about riding my bike along a fire trail and the person told me that I couldn't ride in the NEW Wilderness. I told the counter person that I didn't want to ride in a NEW Wilderness, and that I'll only ride in the 800 million year old one. I then immediately hung up the phone and went riding. I saw no NEW Wilderness at all.

I read Prof Gammage's book The Biggest Estate ... last Christmas. An excellent book to follow Prof Gammage's work is Allan EJ Andrews, Hume and Hovell 1824 Expedition. The way Hume and Hovell describe the landscape as they journeyed from Appin to Corio Bay is an eye opener ... many times they referred to the landscape as being perfect, "Fine grassy open woodlands, with much easy going. Like a gentleman's park."

Many national parks some consider, myself included, have been so mismanaged that here in the SE they're nothing more than an overgrown tangle of weeds ... totally unlike how the regions were described when whites first arrived and started to survey the landscape. I'm old enough to have walked freely along the escarpment east of the Clyde River in the day's when there weren't tracks just massive concentric rock pavements with wet herb gardens and low coastal heath. The tracks that walkers complain that they can't find nowadays out there because they're so overgrown are a recent addition. It's all overgrown.

30 years ago I walked into the Blue Gum Forest and camped. The fine weed free understory is not my forgotten story.

Warren.

Posted: **Tue 13 Nov, 2012 5:55 pm**

Pteropus wrote:
maddog wrote:Both wet and dry sclerophyll are evidence of past fire, as without it they would be rainforest.

Not true... A dry sclerophyll forest is unlikely to convert to a wet sclerophyll or rainforest unless it suddenly gets a favourable amount of rainfall.

On the issue of rainfall, the requirements for Dry Rainforest are as little as 600mm p.a. (Alex Floyd). The dry rainforests of the western slopes of NSW are an example, and discussed in this paper:

http://www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/__data/*&%$#! ... 381Cur.pdf

Equally problematic for your argument is the fact that Dry Rainforest can be found surrounded by Dry Sclerophyll. For example, there is a pocket in the Border Ranges NP – close to the Border Loop on Lions Rd. The two communities, side by side, and the same rainfall.

In the absence of fire it is very well accepted conversion from rainforest to sclerophyll can take place, and often the boundaries between the two were created by fire:

It has long been recognised by foresters, botanists and ecologists that under appropriate fire regimes in south eastern Australia, sclerophyll forests would replace rainforests and that, in the absence of fire, rainforests on many sites would replace adjacent sclerophyll vegetation (Casson 1952, Gilbert 1959, Cremer 1960, Cremer and Mount 1965, Webb 1968, Howard 1973a,b, Ashton and Frankenberg 1976, Ashton 1981a, Brown and Podger 1982, Smith and Guyer 1983, Hill and Read 1984, Ellis 1985, McMahon 1987, Ash 1988)…Cameron (1992) suggested that fires normally function to stabilise and maintain sharp boundaries between rainforest and sclerophyll vegetation…

Source: http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/forests/publi ... re-ecology

Assuming an adequate rainfall (600mm +), rainforest will creep well beyond its boundaries if fire does not stop it, and conditions are otherwise favourable. I concede the spread of rainforest will be influenced by other factors such as topography, aspect, soil type, and proximity to propagules. However a sudden downpour will not be required.

Pteropus wrote: Actually, in addition to the examples you give regarding insects and altered fire regimes, I have heard arguments that many beneficial insects are killed in the larvae and nymph stage by so called ecological burns. The point here is, and I think you will agree since it is part of your arguments, that many fire regimes used for management do not even represent what the Aboriginals were doing in pre-European times.

I agree. And given that the aboriginals did not leave written records, even more difficult than trying to change a tree-hugger's ideology, will be trying to work out what fire regimes work and where.

Pteropus wrote: I don’t think i mentioned brigalow as a “pre-European Brigalow as a dominant and impenetrable scrub community”. I just mentioned it was a remnant. Your description from Gammage does describe some brigalow as thus:
maddog wrote:In 1858 the country was dry, sandy ‘grassy forest, with ridges of dense brigalow scrub…'

Yes, but the Brigalow was described as being in pockets surrounded by a grassy landscape (grasses don't do to well in the scrub). If Sir Joe and others needed two bulldozers and a chain he was doing a bit more than clearing a few ridges and gullies. Quite possibly it was largely post-settlement regrowth (even if it looked like remnant vegetation).

Interestingly, the protected ecological community you have referred to may include regrowth greater than 15 years old (under the EPBC Act (Cth)). The rationale given for the protection is the degree to which the area of Brigalow has been reduced by clearing:

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodivers ... growth.pdf

However, if Gammage is correct about post-settlement regowth, the ecological merit of such protection is dubious. As is the protection of regrowth more generally (for example, s 9 of Native Vegetation Act NSW - where remnant vegetation is defined as any native vegetation that has regrown before the 1 Jan 1990 or 1983 out West).

Pteropus wrote: I have met graziers in western Qld who told me their fathers would habitually ring bark 20 or so trees every day. Thats how they did it before bulldozers. Ringbarking just promotes brigalow to sucker. So does fire, which is another way the first settlers tried to clear land. Actually, graziers still use fire. But like I said, it wasn’t until mechanical ripping became available, were graziers able to control and then ‘defeat’ brigalow. Brigalow, and false sandle wood (Eremophila mitchellii) are both considered weeds by graziers, that compete with pasture.

I agree. Acacias are very difficult to 'defeat'. Frequent herbicide application and / or fire will do the trick, but if it is not frequent then both are futile (and in the case of the latter will make the problem worse). Generally, the same goes for bulldozers, which will only be of assistance if there is follow-up treatment (because they disturb the soil creating an opportunity for the seed of weeds and pioneers like Acacias - even if they remove the roots).

Pteropus wrote: So I am not sure what you mean by 'in the absence of correct management it regrew...“Observers have concluded that firing scrub only makes it thicker, yet people burnt it clear in 1788".

Were the people who ‘burnt it clear in 1788’ the Aboriginals? Were they talking of the brigalow? No white men entered the brigalow till Leichardt was there in the mid 1800s.

Gammage asserts that the Australian Aborigines knew how to burn (what and when) to provide a balance between the scrub and grasslands. Europeans didn't so when they cleared the Brigalow (and other scrub) it grew back thicker than ever. It also invaded areas where it was not found before. Gammage compares the observations of Leichardt and others with later records including the current landscape to come to this conclusion, making the reasonable assumption that Aboriginal land management continued until displaced by European settlement of an area.

Pteropus wrote: So what fire regime worked?

According to Gammage, the Aboriginal one.

Pteropus wrote:There were sawmills in western NSW and Qld (look at the Pilliga Scrub for further example). Of course these woodlands still exist to some extent, but their extents are greatly reduced from what they were. Much of the wood land is gone, and the landscape resembles nothing like it was pre-European.

I don't think that anyone is arguing there was no scrub, or millable timber pre 1788. The argument is to what extent it existed.

Pteropus wrote:I’m not against Gammage and his points of view...I am most wary because there does seem to be a lot of historical revisionism where people like to fit their own interpretation to historical observations that don’t necessarily follow research based evidence. But then again, a hypothesis is just a hypothesis and he is just putting forward some ideas. As we do on this forum.

Regarding historical revisionism I very much agree there is a danger that his work will be abused. What better reason to understand it?

It should be noted that Gammage compares historical records with the present landscape in many locations, thus providing convincing evidence of a pattern of post-European regrowth.

Pteropus wrote:Fire is a part of our landscape, and perhaps some vegetation requires a fire every now and then. But we need to be careful how that is applied. For the wilderness' sake

I agree it will not be applicable in all circumstances.

Pteropus wrote:Perhaps the question should not be “is wilderness a myth”, but “what does the word wilderness mean to you”.

I Disagree. It would encourage the wrong type of debate. Too subjective

Posted: **Wed 14 Nov, 2012 10:45 am**

Just quickly, in many cases schlerophyll and rainforest (or any vegetation community) occur next to each other, simply because of soil type and local geology, aspect and topography. Not necessarily because of fire.

On brigalow, it occurs mainly on fertile black soils and cracking clays, which happens to be most suitable for cropping. That is why such an effort was put in to remove it, and which initially failed because it caused brigalow to sucker and proliferate when disturbed.

In 1884, then Queensland Premier Sir Samuel Griffith stated that, “I think it is impossible for any man to go through the country between Dalby and Roma, to pass through the horrible brigalow, and say it is not a good object to get rid of that curse. I say it would pay the country handsomely to give that land away to any person who would cut down the scrub and let the grass grow on it.”

When he said that, much of the region had only been settled for 20 years and was only was only lightly so, with little clearing or influence by settlement (hence, Griffith stating that “it would pay to give the land away”). Estimates in the vicinity of >7 million ha of brigalow existed before clearing, and remnant brigalow vegetation has been reduced by >90%. As we both stated, fire can help brigalow expand its extent, through suckering, so it is doubtful that it was being constantly burnt. The region supports >100 other Acacia and ~90 Eucalypt species in a number of different communities. Sure, there were grasslands, but the region was more a continuous mosaic of different woodlands than open grasslands with the odd tree here and there in pre-settlement times.

The extent of many of these forests was far greater than today. Another example is the Big Scrub, a unbroken subtropical rainforest that occurred in northern NSW. To this day, only small patches, a tiny percentage (<1%) of what was there pre-clearing, exist. Much of the regrowth is sclerophyll forest. Some of these sclerophyll forests are subject to serious bell miner associated dieback.

Does Gammage use a small number of focused case studies to make his points? My worry is there is some danger of making conclusions about the extent and state of pre-European vegetation over large areas, from a small number of case studies. Your original question, on the nature of wilderness, and whether the indigenous influence on the landscape was such that natural areas we see today are not representative of what was around in pre-European times, but were more influenced by Aboriginal use of fire that promoted large amounts of open grassland, is a fair question. But I wonder if, on the other hand, some of the influence by Aboriginals is over stated too. Aboriginals most definitely have had their influence on much of the landscape, as all people do, I am not disputing that. But since you and Gammage, and any of us really, asks the question about the extent of vegetation in pre-European times, it follows that we do not know exactly how much influence the Aboriginal people had on the vegetation structure in more than just a few case studies. I think it would be a mistake to think that that “we wrongly value trees at the expense of open country and grassland” or that there are more trees in Australia now than pre-European times or that areas we might consider wilderness now need some form of thinning. Sure, current management practices are not always optimal, but I don’t think there will be wholesale extinctions in natural bush regions simply because or ‘wilderness’ is not being managed in a traditional way. And this is why people research things, to gain an understanding and learn the most optimal method of management of our environment. There could be a PhD in it for you maddog, if you have not already thought about that :wink:

And here is another thought. Could it be that, in some (limited) areas, such as what we now class as 'wilderness', that have escaped clearing and other development activities, are for the first time in 40,000 years or so able to reach their full potential? Just a thought....

On a final note, I am curious to read Gammage even more so now. Finding the time is the tough part...

Bushwalk Australia

Is Wilderness a Myth?

Is Wilderness a Myth?

Re: Is Wilderness a Myth?

Re: Is Wilderness a Myth?

Re: Is Wilderness a Myth?

Re: Is Wilderness a Myth?

Re: Is Wilderness a Myth?

Re: Is Wilderness a Myth?

Re: Is Wilderness a Myth?

Re: Is Wilderness a Myth?

Re: Is Wilderness a Myth?

Re: Is Wilderness a Myth?

Re: Is Wilderness a Myth?

Re: Is Wilderness a Myth?

Re: Is Wilderness a Myth?

Re: Is Wilderness a Myth?

Re: Is Wilderness a Myth?

Re: Is Wilderness a Myth?

Re: Is Wilderness a Myth?

Re: Is Wilderness a Myth?

Re: Is Wilderness a Myth?

Re: Is Wilderness a Myth?

Re: Is Wilderness a Myth?

Re: Is Wilderness a Myth?

Re: Is Wilderness a Myth?

Re: Is Wilderness a Myth?

Re: Is Wilderness a Myth?

Re: Is Wilderness a Myth?

Re: Is Wilderness a Myth?

Re: Is Wilderness a Myth?

Re: Is Wilderness a Myth?