For Your Consideration:

I've just stumbled across an article that touches upon a topic frequently brought up in some of my environmental restoration classes; If we decide that it is our duty to return parts of the damaged world to its untouched state, what point of reference should we use to determine our success? I'll shoot you a somewhat relevant example. Restoring and preserving the redwood forests post clear-cutting has been the tireless goal of many environmental groups in the Humboldt area. Some have even gained considerable global recognition for a few major victories. Even still, it is being debated as to what a natural redwood forest even looks like. Should we be thriving to restore this land to pre European settlement? Or much beyond that, before any human intervention? There's evidence out there that suggests that native Americans had been manipulating these ecosystems long before settlers had discovered these lands, particularly with semi frequent fires that redwoods would otherwise seldom experience. So what is it we're trying to bring back? The debate among a suitable target of restoration is quite heated among certain restorationists, and Australia has very similar debates going on within its borders.

This article is full of some very interesting points that must be addressed by policy makers and environmentalists alike. The varying classifications of Indigenous peoples was something I had known nothing about, but determining whether or not they are human or part of the natural environment has been an issue within Australia for quite some time:

"In truth, the Australian ecosystems of 1788 were as much human creations as golf courses are today. Defining them as wilderness relegates Aboriginal people into a sub-human category that the likes of Dr Brown do not feel that they share. The tendency to see Aborigines as part of the Australian ecosystem, rather than part of the human race, can perhaps be seen as a cultural legacy of Aborigines being categorised in some state government Flora and Fauna Acts until 1967. If Aborigines were thought of as human, then wilderness could be defined as any state that the ecosystem was in over the last 60,000 years. This change in thinking would have implications for efforts to re-populate animals like the Tasmanian devil or koalas in mainland ecosystems where they lived 500 or so years ago, but did not exist at the time of European colonisation." 

It is also discussed whether or not the monetary expenses required for some restoration projects can be acceptable, especially if they can't be sure which state of the environment they are trying to recover. The overall tone of the website in which this was found seems to be politically motivated/bias, but much of what is said is nonetheless relevant. I encourage you to explore a little, there's a bit of dirt on just about everything in Australia's culture!