Australia Lesson Activities - ESD

ESD - Camels

Today a bunch of us went for a camel ride and interviewed Henry the
camel handler. He told us a number of interesting things about the
200,000 'feral' camels* that are now in Australia, including what
positive or negative effect they have had on people and the environment
since being introduced in the mid 1800's.

"Camels in general are quite gently on the environment because they
don't have a hoof like a cow or a horse that cuts up the ground. You
can go 'out bush' and see tracks that have been washed down to 2m or even
more in places. Feral horses or donkeys have been walking up and down
the track and all that soil gets washed away with the next rains. After
while you have a canyon there! Camels are good because they have flat
feet and don't cause much erosion.

Also, if you have a mob of cattle around a bore (water hole) in a dry
year they might do 15km from the nearest water before having to turn
around to get a drink. Of course after a while the whole country is
washed out and turned into a bull-dust hole. Camels come in once a
week, have a big drink (100-200 litres), then wander right out in to the
middle of the desert.

Camels will also go along picking at trees - pruning them more than
destroying them. They don't keep eating at one tree for very long.
They'll just pick off the best bits and then continue along and go to
the next tree. Of course if you have large numbers of camels in an area
they can become a problem because they have favourite plants they keep
feeding on over and over again and therefore eventually destroy the
tree.

Some aborigines actually took to camels quite well, using them to shift
their camps. You see old photos with aboriginal women loaded up with
all their gear on a camel's back. On the other hand where camels turned to
native rock-holes and had a drink they may have depleted the tribe's
water supply for the next 6-months until the next rains come. If the
water didn't get replaced in a native well or a soak the tribe would
have had to move on."

Suggested learning activities: start a discussion on whether the feral
camel population in Australia could be said to be sustainable.

Identify a feral species in your country/local area and draw
comparisons with the effect it has on the environment and/or people to the feral
camel population in Australia.

*Feral means non-indigenous, or not originating from the country the
species is resident in.

Jason

2001 September 12, Wednesday. Larapinta Drive, between Alice Springs and Hermannsburg.

Once again exchanging cockcrow for the rich metallic trilling of a songlark, we escaped the noisy town; taking with us the knowledge which during our stay we’d gathered from local residents, the public library, the tourist information centre, and the Arid Lands Environment Centre.

At Arid Lands, we spoke with Colleen, who told us about some of the land management programs which are being co-ordinated through the centre. She has an interesting job because she has to deal with station owners, aborigines and town dwellers, who all have different ideas on how the land should be managed.
Regular burning off, the protection of native animals, the control of introduced species, and the re-vegetation of abused land, all need to be managed to protect bio-diversity in the dry and fragile ecosystem.

YALIA stands for Young Aboriginal Landcare In Action, and is a community project designed to help young aborigines learn land management skills by encouraging the passing on of traditional knowledge, and augmenting this with modern western farming methods.

The Tangentyere Land Care Council began YALIA in 1997, with funding from the National Heritage Trust. Tangentyere was originally a community health care facility for aborigines in town settlements. It has since expanded to work with rural communities.

YALIA programs are interactive and hands-on because English is a second language for most of the participants. Their students come from all age groups (so that older members can help the younger ones) and they take trips in the country and learn things like:

* Seed collection and propagation
* Habitat Studys
* Animal Watch
* Tree planting
* The uses of plants as food and bush medicine.

Find an organisation working toward sustainability in your home area. What is their eventual goal? What are they trying to achieve? What problems do they face?

bel

2001 September 17, Monday. North of Ace Bore.

Today we saw first hand the extent to which fire has become a natural part of this landscape, and how little impact small and regular fires can have on the dominant ecosystem here. Less than one minute after the fire burnt across the ground where we were watching, I walked into the burnt area beyond the fire’s front without danger. Git picked up the ash of a spinifex clump we had just been watching burn, and let the soft grey-black fibre dissolve through her fingers, and float away with the breeze.

Small regular fires benefit the ecosystem simply because they prevent raging wildfires, which no small creature can endure, as they have to travel too far to find food and shelter from predators. Dingoes, and feral predatory animals, such as cats and foxes, are deterred by the spiky form of spinifex. This makes the grasslands an excellent home for lizards, and an important tool for the protection of endangered species such as the great desert skink.

Over forty thousand years ago, aborigines came to Australia and began burning the country to find food and to make crossing the land easier. Many species would have found this difficult to live with, and for some it would have meant extinction. Since that time, both plants and animals have adapted to regular burning, and a new balance was formed. It was not until last century that a drastic change occurred again in the way the land was being managed, and lack of burning caused problems with uncontrollably large fires, and introduced species like buffel grass, which spread hot fires rapidly.

Many aboriginal people moved into settlements in the early 1900's, and today, without the guidance of people who have inhabited the country for generations, there is little method to the fires that occur in out of the way desert landscapes, such as the ones we have seen today.

The World Wildlife Fund and the Threatened Species Network now work with central Australian indigenous communities to try to reinstate patch burning – the regular burning of small areas of bush to protect biodiversity. They are taught the importance of their traditional landcare, and of protecting the once-common animals which are disappearing from neglected and abused bush areas.

Have you ever seen ‘burning off’ on roadsides or in agricultural land? If you have, you might also have noticed the lush green of the first new growth after the burning. Think about the benefits of supporting young growth in such a harsh environment, and some of the animals which would gather to feed on the new growth which follows fire.

bel

2001 September 24. Rabbit Flat Roadhouse.

Soon after rabbits and foxes were introduced to Australia in the mid 1800s, it became apparent that a terrible mistake had been made. By the time the spread of rabbits became uncontrollable, European settlement had not yet had the time to have a great direct impact on the remoter parts of the country. Rabbits, however, rapidly spread into areas which cattle stations had not yet pioneered, and had a devastating impact on the landscape, and on native animals and vegetation.

In just a few years, a major contributor to desertification had established itself, seemingly irreversibly. A dismally small proportion of the original biodiversity remains. Rodents are self-destructive in that they will breed in times of plenty, and eat everything until not only other species suffer, but the land they destroy can no longer support them, and they die from starvation.

Rabbits also compete with farm animals, especially sheep, for grazing land. Large numbers of rabbits in an area will cause an increase in the number of foxes, cats, and dingoes – all of which prey upon them. When the rabbits are all eaten, or have exhausted their food supply and starved, dingoes will hunt sheep, foxes will hunt poultry, and cats will hunt native birds and marsupials.

All across the country, farmers work alongside local Landcare/Catchment Management Authorities running rodent eradication programs. These are subsidised by the government, and include:
* 1080 Poisoning: Livestock are mustered and removed from area, and poisoned carrot is laid as bait.
* Warren ripping: Bulldozers are used to demolish burrows, and rabbits are shot as they escape the destruction.
* Hunting: Shooters are encouraged to hunt pest animals on private property with the permission of the landowners. This method has been successful in the past with water buffalo in the Top End.
* Re-vegetation: Tree planting to counteract erosion is carried out within rabbit-proof fencing.
* Biological means: ‘Mixa’ and the more recent Calicivirus are diseases which are specific to European grey rabbits, and have been developed and released to try to reduce the numbers of feral animals, and to control the spread.

Suggested learning activities: find out what programs are used in agricultural areas in your country for the control / management of any of the following:
* Feral animals
* Salinity
* Erosion
* Overuse of land.
* Reintroduction of native species.
Why do you think it’s important for neighbouring landowners to work together on these projects?

bel

Snakes and ESD (Education for Sustainable Development)

Even since the story of Adam and Eve in the book of Genesis, snakes have taken a bad rap. A recent example when we were in Yuendumu was the kids finding a baby King Brown and burning it alive in a metal can partly filled with gasoline. We only got to see the charred result hanging from a chain ring fence – a very sorry looking affair. But apart from not wanting such a venomous variety near human habitation, is there any legitimate reason for maiming or even killing snakes just for the sake of it?

In Australia only 12 people die each year from snake bites as opposed over 10,000 from car accidents. And yet for all their bad reputation and creepy crawly nature, snakes are actually crucial cogs in the wheels of local ecosystems, without which the finely tuned balance of the food chain would be severely and detrimentally affected.

In the tussock grasslands of northern Australia, snakes feast on the abundant mammal fauna which these fertile grasslands support. Cracks in the ground, into which snakes –such as the Speckled Brown Snake - happily slither, provide ready-made refuges for the Plague Rat, Planigales, other carnivorous marsupials, and also bats. Succulent green vegetation, insets and seeds in turn form the diet of Plague Rats and as these are in abundance, so are the rats. Because snakes eat rats, they are common too.

Snakes also eat lizards. The Death Adder, for example, will use its tail to lure an unsuspecting lizard to within striking distance. But if the lizard happens to be a goanna, the snake had better watch out! Goannas (like Spencer’s monitor) eat snakes (like the Death Adder), stalking up to them until they coil and strike. The goanna cleverly avoids the first strike, then grabs the snake while it is momentarily off balance before it recoils to strike again. Other species of animals for which snakes constitute either major or minor portion of their food source include birds such as hawks and Kookaburras.

Now consider what would happen if snakes were removed from the food chain in the tussock grasslands of north Australia….

The species predated upon by the snakes – such as the herbivorous mammals and marsupials - would increase exponentially to the point of being unsustainable: overgrazing the limited vegetation the grassland have to offer. In a drought year the results would be even more marked.

The species that predate upon snakes – such as goannas and birds of prey – that are, to a degree, reliant on snakes as a source of food, would in turn have to either find alternatives or starve. Even in a non-drought year we could expect these species to be severely affected.

So, no matter how unpleasant or scary we might find snakes, they are an essential part of the rich tapestry of life that has evolved (for whatever reason) on Planet Earth of millions of years. It is surely part of our responsibility as guardians of biodiversity for future generations to enjoy, to ensure snakes are treated with equal respect and right to life as any other species.

Suggested learning activities: think of an animal or plant local to you that is considered a threat or undesirable to humans. Then host a debate in class: one side forwards a motion to eradicate the species, the other side acts in defence of the species. Be sure to remember that the debate is theoretical only – i.e. just because you are on the side arguing to eradicate the species doesn’t necessarily mean you actually mean this in real life.

THEME: Road to Lajamanu
SUBJECT: Education for Sustainable Development (ESD)
TOPIC: pollution

In the photo you see us sitting writing today’s updates. Around us you might also be see quite a large quantity of refuse that has been left here by other people who used this camping area previously.

During our editorial meeting, in which we sit around in a circle and decide who is going to write updates and on what topic, we entered into a debate as to whether the rubbish around us could actually be described as ‘pollution’ of the environment.

Practically everyone in the group first said ‘Yes, of course it’s pollution. Look at the mess!” But then someone spoke up and countered “But how is just ‘looking messy’ polluting the environment?” It was then clear that we had to define what pollution actually was before passing a judgement on our campsite. Such a judgement might be important, for example, if we felt it important to clear up the refuse ourselves, regardless of whether someone made the mess in the first place.

The definition of pollution is something that upsets the balance of nature. Or put more specifically, something that causes a negative effect on the environment, be it the soil, the ocean, the air or an animal or plant. Something might only become a ‘pollutant’ once it reaches a certain level of concentration in the environment. For example, the smoke from a small Bushfire may be easily assimilated (absorbed or diluted) into the atmosphere. However, when the amount of smoke and heat being released reaches a certain point beyond which it can be said to do ‘harm’ to the environment – like the smoke cutting out the sunlight in an area thereby affecting the ability of trees and plants to photosynthesise efficiently, or the combined heat of the fire contributing to global warming, which in turn affects the global ecosystem adversely – we can say it is a pollutant.

So, what about all the refuse around us? Well, the more we got to thinking and discussing it, the more we realised that we had to look at each piece of refuse individually to decide if it was a pollutant or not, rather than make a blanket judgement for all.

• Plastic ring pieces: we decided the plastic ring pieces that hold a 6-pack of drink cans together were the worst pollutants as they could get caught around the necks of goannas and birds, eventually suffocating them.
• Plastic bottles: next on the list would be plastic bottles that animals with long necks – like lizards - have been known to get their heads stuck in while attempting to drink the remaining fluid.
• Glass bottles: they’ve been known to start bush fires by the sunlight heating the inside of the bottle hot enough to light any dried grass that might be inside, in much the same way as a magnifying glass will. Also, if broken, shards of glass can cut and maim the feet of many different animals, including cows, wild horses and camels, and of course bare-footed bikers!
• Aluminium cans were not considered a pollutant, as we couldn’t think of an adverse affect on either plants or animals, and they take around 100 years to biodegrade into the soil – quite a short time on the greater time scale of things.
• Cardboard boxes: we decided cardboard boxes were also not a pollutant, as they will easily break down into the soil, especially when the rains come.

So, we have decided to clean up and dispose of appropriately the plastic ring pieces, plastic bottles and glass bottles, but leave the aluminium cans and cardboard boxes, even though (to us) they look unsightly.

One thing made clear from this exercise is that our judgement of what was a pollutant and what wasn’t was not always obvious, and was ultimately decided by our limited knowledge of the effects of the piece of refuse on the environment. Education and further research would therefore be needed in order to make better decisions in future.

Suggested learning activities:
1. Hold a debate in class about pollution in much the same way as we did at our editorial meeting. Make sure everyone in the class understands what pollution really means, thereby giving them the critical thinking tools for deciding for themselves what is a pollutant and what is not.
2. As the second half of the debate you might choose three articles of refuse regularly thrown away from our homes in the rubbish/garbage. Discuss the effects of those articles on the environment in which it is disposed (a landfill more often than not, if not recycled or re-used). Remember to include varying levels of each article of refuse in the discussion as a way of determining to what extent it is a pollutant.