I was born in 1940 when my family lived in the Tooloom region. My grandfather, born in 1876, saw the open eucalyptus forests change. After Aboriginal burning ceased the feral European bees colonized the hollow limbs of old eucalyptus trees, causing the proliferation of eucalyptus saplings. My father moved his family to the foothills of the Bunya Mountains in Queensland and found that young eucalyptus trees were taking over that country too, so went out with a ring-barking axe. I remember not only lighting fires but beating them out. They were manageable fires. Now, thanks to a younger generation of landowners, the land he cleared is overgrown again not only with eucalyptus saplings, but other woody weeds like Lantana and deer have come to spread ticks to cattle herds.

It's well known that many of our ecosystems are well adapted to fire, and controlled burnoffs have been reintroduced in many areas. But it's absolutely ridiculous to claim "Tasmanian devils are diseased because they're starving". None of them survive the facial tumour disease (spread by contact) no matter how well fed they are.

Hi Country Girl,

I've just finished typing up and indexing three Reports (1857-1861) on the NSW/Qld Native Police, covering about 500 pages, and there is a huge amount of information there about that country between Maryborough, the Bunya and the Dawson. Try: www.firstsources.info
on the 'Queensland' page.

If you do, please let me know if you find it fascinating/interesting/of slight interest.

Cheers,

Joe

I agree that devils are doing it tougher because the carrion on which they feed is less abundant. However there could be reasons for that besides the right amount of tree cover. Those reasons include roadkill, shooting of wallabies, habitat fragmentation, use of poison and harassment by dogs.

Whether CO2 uptake is by trees, grass or shrubs I don't think we should rely on it due to the complexity of the issues. OTOH if we shut down a stinker like Hazelwood power station we can be fairly confident of less CO2.

G'day Aidan,
Far from ridiculous, it's well known that malnutrition incites disease epidemics. Sick animals are better food for diseases just as sick trees are better food for phytophthora.

When Aboriginal people arrived in Australia, they did have an immediate impact on the natural environment and local wildlife.

Anything else that occurred before that time, was nature simply taking its course as no humans existed in Australia (before humans arrived here).

Some websites talk down the impacts of Aboriginal people (and particularly relate to plants only and also a politically correct element) in terms of any impact, but re impact, there was no written detail in terms of Aboriginal impact - compared to the very detailed impacts of humans (and the more serious) environmental damage that came through British settlement, and other countries.

I personally am tired of hearing that we are meeting of the lands of the "XYZ" people. These people did not create it (say like a product for example). With humans (in general) having limited respect for the environment of Australia now, the natural world will not improve.

Finally there is no race card to play here as I have Aboriginal relatives (like two direct nephews for example) and was also involved with an Aboriginal art project last year.

We as a human species need a natural environment to survive, or I will not be having something as basic like a clean glass of water in the future.

Thanks Loudmouth for the information. I grew up on the Darling Downs side of the Bunya Mountains. This region also had a lot of Aboriginal history. I attended the Yamsion school, so named because of the wild yams growing in that region. My parents built a new home on Black Camps Hill, where apparently the Aborigines camped at night. Although they harvested the Bunya nuts during daylight hours they came down from the mountains at night for fear of spirits. This region was opened up by the timber cutters and later some of it became part of Jimbour Station. The Myall Creek flowed through my father's land and went on to join the Condamine River near Dalby.

Sorry the minute you use "academic" as a slur you know only rubbish will follow. up there with I'm not racist but....

G'day Little,
I'm well aware of that. But claiming "Tasmanian devils are diseased because they're starving" is completely ridiculous. It's like claiming humans are dying of AIDS because they're starving.

Not at all ridiculous Aidan,
Malnutrition lowers the defences against disease as does AIDS. AIDS victims die of everyday diseases such as pneumonia. Once disease is established, it doesn't matter how much you feed the victim, it can't save them. Your earlier statement about devil disease "None of them survive the facial tumour disease (spread by contact) no matter how well fed they are." reveals a certain naivety. For example, starving koalas are susceptible to chlamydia etc. and can't be saved by feeding. I suggest you reassess your attempts to ridicule people and try to formulate some rational arguments.

Little,
Disbelieving the claim that "None of them survive the facial tumour disease (spread by contact) no matter how well fed they are" is far more naïve than the statemant itself. DFTD is not like chlamydia. It affects tassie devils no matter how healthy they are. It kills in a few months, and none have developed immunity to it yet — probably because there's so little genetic variation between them.

Thanks Aidan,
Your naivety is evident in your assumption that 100% mortality rate of infected individuals, irrespective of food availability, negates the link between general malnutrition and epidemic disease. You should try to think clearly rather than trying to ridicule arguments off the top of your head. Have a look at the book - Firestick Ecology - and improve your mind.

Little,
I'm not denying there's a link between malnutrition and epidemic disease in general. However, the presence of disease is not evidence of malnourishment.

Being well fed will not stop a Tasmanian devil from catching DFTD. At most it will live a bit longer with the disease — which means there's more opportunity to spread it so the species ends up worse off.