<< Luddy old mate, I have to disagree. Preserving this snapshot of evolution we call today is just arrogance to me. Why is this moment better than any other? >>

Hazza, there are a few good reasons to try and preserve the anthropogenic ecosystems of this continent:

1. In the absence of Aboriginal burning practices or the modern approximation of them, large areas have become much less grassy and more woody. The species balance has changed. Very few if any threatened native species are helped by this but many are potentially further disadvantaged. So where this hasn’t happened yet or has happened to a reversible extent, we should be striving to keep it as it is or reverse it respectively.

2. We would end up with more uniformity and less biodiversity. The Aboriginal mosaic burning practices of low intensity, which left a pattern of burnt and unburnt and different seral-staged areas, allow species impacted by fire to regroup and build up their populations, whereas hot wildfires could wipe them out of large areas, especially in environmental reserves that are surrounded by cleared land.

3. We would get hotter fires that are out of control, with devastating consequences for the natural environment and human activities alike. In fact, prescribed burning programs undertaken for the purposes of protecting human life and property are much the same as for maintaining natural ecosystems as they have been for thousands of years.

4. Without controlled burning, we would get declining productivity from our enormous rangelands, savannah country and grasslands, which are predominantly used for cattle grazing.

Dear Poirot,

We know of at least two actions in the middle east causing desertification. Deforestation to turn forest into agricultural land was the biggie. Top soil blew away as it is doing in Australia. More localised was the Roman action after the Jewish revolts when they poured salt water over the land to destroy it as punishment for the revolt. The government of Israel is still trying to reverse the effects of that.

Actually Luddy I agree with you, with my heart, but my head says all you really want to do is turn the clock back a couple of hundred years to a different snapshot, call that perfect, & preserve that as our museum piece.

Sounds like the beautiful countryside of my youth, from the blue mountains westward, except for the dreadful gully erosion the sheep tracks generated.

Yes woody thickets are a greenie thing. They are useless to man & beast, native of introduced. They even seen devoid of bird & reptile life, no wonder the aboriginals put the fire stick to them.

Actually if we left landholders alone they would do this for us. It is damn fool green activists that have made regular burning of paddocks to keep woody weeds down, a thing of the past. That & requiring a clearing permit to get rid of regrowth, in previously developed pasture.

We make farming so expensive that it is not worth doing. I learnt years ago that you must not do anything useful. Grow food, & the greenies are out to get you.

That is why I grew advanced pretty shrubs, for the Gold Coast developers to make their developments look like something than a bulldozer scar. Much more profitable, & the greenies somehow can't see you.

The idea of human encraochment of pristine nature is discussed here in the context of Gammage's thesis about aboriginal land management:

http://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/11/how-aborigines-made-australia-bill-gammage/?cp=all

What an interesting article - this certainly made my Friday!

In a way, it's quite affirming. While it doesn't quite argue for apathy, it does indicate that the changes we see - and the changes we cause - may not all be devastating. As demonstrated by Hasbeen's post (regarding the WWII sites absorbed by the jungle), ecosystems are resilient things. Perhaps we have focused for too long on preserving things as they are and, in fact, hindering natural processes of change and possibly improvement.

I see where Ludwig is coming from as well, though - and perhaps what we can do with this article and the studies cited by it is use them as sources of information to inform future policy. Regardless of direction, it offers some further insight into the workings of our planet. And further insight is usually a good thing.

That reminds me of a scene at Ravenshoe Nth Qld many years ago. Whilst on a Labor election campaign Senator Graham Richardson stood on a flat top truck with his arms out like an overweighted, spectacled Jesus. "this is what we have to protect" he told the curious locals. He was standing in front of a re-planted forest !