Bushwalk Australia

north-north-west wrote:Anyways, my take is that the only flora and fauna that belong in NPs are those that are inherent aspects of the local natural ecosystem.

What are your thoughts on eastern grey kangaroos, Bennett's wallabies, Tassie Devils and Cape Barren geese on Maria Island - all introduced species?

Hughmac wrote:The only way exotics fit this definition is if they have cultural significance, which would be a very rare and limited circumstance.

Here's an extract from the Ku-ring-gai Chase Plan of Management (my bold). There would be similar cases in other national parks.

The general 1930’s character of the Bobbin Head picnic areas will be retained. A walking path from opposite the Bobbin Inn to the pavilion will be re-established and replacement plantings of selected introduced trees will be undertaken in Orchard Park. However no attempt will be made to replicate all
the 1930’s plantings or to reconstruct all picnic shelters, pathways or other landscape features of the 1930s.

The Norfolk Island pines defining the edge of the Bobbin Head picnic areas and The Basin will be retained and replacement planting undertaken as necessary.

Though I'd note elsewhere in the document:

The introduced plants outside the house gardens on Barrenjoey Head will be removed.

So it's approached on a case by case basis.

Not thrilled at the idea of replanting exotics in NPs, but it does fit the cultural heritage definition.
MickyB - Was in the Flinders Ranges last year, and the indigenous rangers were absolutely filthy about western grey kangaroos displacing the euros from the environment. Just being native to Australia doesn't mean it should be okay anywhere.

Hughmac wrote:MickyB - Was in the Flinders Ranges last year, and the indigenous rangers were absolutely filthy about western grey kangaroos displacing the euros from the environment. Just being native to Australia doesn't mean it should be okay anywhere.

I have already stated that I think indigenous plants are the only plants that belong in NPs. I have the same thoughts about animals.

So you are against re-establishment?

MickyB wrote:

north-north-west wrote:Anyways, my take is that the only flora and fauna that belong in NPs are those that are inherent aspects of the local natural ecosystem.

What are your thoughts on eastern grey kangaroos, Bennett's wallabies, Tassie Devils and Cape Barren geese on Maria Island - all introduced species?

The Devils are there as part of the attempt to save the species. Ii can live with that.

Many are starting to reconsider their previous assumptions regarding native and introduced vegetation and animals. It is now increasingly recognised that introduced flora can provide much needed habitat and food for native critters.

Lantana, as one example:

But what if, despite all the negative influences of this species on floral diversity, the removal of Lantana actually harms native fauna? Our research at the University of New England’s Avian Behavioural Ecology Lab shows that this might indeed be the case in forested areas in NSW.

When Lantana in this area began dying after an eradication program, we noticed a fall in the numbers of certain species such as Antechinus and bush rats. It turns out that this weed provides invaluable habitat for these small native mammals.

So it seems that at least some native species are starting to adapt to, and even rely on, weeds as a food source and habitat. What would happen if, in the name of conservation, we completely removed them from these areas and even our own backyards?

As we’ve seen, the answers aren’t always straightforward, and there’s a chance it could end up doing more harm than good.

https://theconversation.com/hold-the-sp ... life-47848

Also worth remembering that most of these weeds are 'edge' species. There is not really an issue deeper within an undisturbed forest.

Its not just Lantana and those previous little small to medium sized mammals though. Frugivorous birds are known to be particularly fond of Privet and Camphor laurel, in some cases developing a dependency. Cockatoos have discovered a taste for the cones of the Radiata / Slash Pine and the nuts of the Pecan. And bats, well they are truly flying rats are they not?

Our new nature just refuses to conform to ideology. Quite amusing really.

Cheers,

Maddog.

And of course there is no consideration that these animals use invasive species where those species can assist them, because of the lack of their usual habitat due to destruction/degradation by human inhabitants.

There is more to science than saying "take away this invasive plant and certain species will suffer in the short term". Sure, they might. But restoring a broader area of the original vegetation will be better for all the animals that depend on it, and over a longer period of time, not just one or two species for a while.

If it's a national park I do mind non native species. I come to national parks to experience the local species of plants and animals. For example, if one day Australia managed to exterminate all but a few hundred of the feral camels they have in the outback, and created a national park to save the rest, I would disagree.

But outside national parks I don't mind as much. For example, in the Aussie Alps you see a lot of European deciduous trees, I don't remember if it's in Bright or Myrtleford, but in autumn it's quite beautiful. They're not native, but it's fine. I would mind though if there were only European species in a public park though. But all the parks I've visited usually had a mix of natives and imported species. Reading Angus books, it's apparently a rather recent trend, and 30 years ago most public parks and private gardens only had non-native species, because they didn't really cultivate natives, didn't see the benefits. Nowadays it has changed. Natives are better adapted to the soil, need a lot less rain, and are just as pretty. I love them myself, and even though I'm back in France after 3 years in Melbourne, I fell in love with Aussie natives. I do feel a nostalgic tug in my stomach when I see eucalypts, whether in Europe, or on TV. However they're not always used properly in Europe. Last year Portugal had terrible wildfires, in part because they plant too many gum trees, as they're low maintenance and high profit, selling the wood. It's funny that in Australia you see so many European pine plantations, like the ugly one near Lower Glenelg National Park. Why don't the Aussies plant eucalypts here and the Portuguese pines there ? It's crazy.

Hallu wrote:It's funny that in Australia you see so many European pine plantations, like the ugly one near Lower Glenelg National Park. Why don't the Aussies plant eucalypts here and the Portuguese pines there ? It's crazy.

Pine is faster growing, which means more profit and quicker turnaround. Of course, it also depletes the soil much faster but, hey, who cares about that when there's money to be made?
Eucalypts are hardwoods, which are prefered for certain applications as they tend to be longer lasting. (Yes, I know some pine - such as produced by Tasmanian rainforest species - lasts only slightly short of forever, but they're not the sort of trees we see in plantations as they're far too slow growing and usually far pickier about their growing conditions.) Because of their generally slower growth and the increasing pressure to industrialise timber production, where eucalypt plantations are established here it's mostly the fastest growing species such as E globulus (blue gum).

The spread of wide-scale monoculture is as big a threat as invasive species. Perhaps bigger. But that's a whole different argument.

It's not about individual trees, or individual species. It's about the integrity of the ecosystems as a whole. We still don't know enough about how minor changes impact systems yet we're running around buggerising everything we can so the few can make more and more profit.
I've reached the stage where nuclear Armageddon seems the best chance for the planet. There may only be a few grasses and cockroaches left at the end of it, but the odds are that, given enough time, they'll evolve into a species with more sense than shown by homo supposedly *&%$#! sapiens.

deleted