Deer hunter shot in accident

I guess if you've inhabited a place for tens of thousands of years, you'd have to be doing it sustainably because otherwise you'd probably be dead. (Perhaps Easter Island is the most obvious example.)

I've just started reading "Making Peoples" by James Belich, Professer of history at Auckland University. Excellent general history book on NZ so far. I've only read the first couple of chapters, where he puts forward a theory of the Maori colonization of New Zealand. Maori were the first humans in NZ and arrived about 900-1000 years ago, making NZ the last place in the world to be colonised by humans outside Antarctica. One thing that has struck me how much the Maori had changed the environment of NZ, approx 1/3 of the pre-human bush cover had been burned off to allow for kumura agriculture, and had killed off multiple species of native birds (moa, other flightless birds) and coastal seal colonies. The Maori also brought with them rats and dogs (pigs and chickens didn't last long) that also had an impact on the wildlife as well. These changes happened over a period of 800-900 years whereas the changes that the European settlers made to the NZ environment (clearing for farms, introduced animals/plants etc) occured much more quickly, within a 100 year timespan.

I seem to recall a recent study that carbon dates Maori occupation at a more recent 600 years (king put the timeline at around 800 years). Interesting how often history is re-written to accomodate a more popular theory. according to Micheal King 32 species of bird life disappeared with the first influx of humans follwed by a further 9 after european migration. Weve probably taken care of a few more since The Penguin History of Newzealand was last published.

Theres a website that claims the Celts were here 2000 years ago. I wonder what birds they wiped out.

I've always been told that the Oz Aborigines had a significant impact on the environment. Pre-aborigine the continent was subject to huge build-ups of combistible meterial and resuting fires covering large proportions of the continent and are visible in the geological record. The aborigines introduced a custom of regular burnoffs and a dislike of build-up of litter, which resulted in samller, more managed fires and a resulting change in the ecological balance. They also brought non-barking dogs (dingoes) from polynesia which will not have been without effect. Or is this interpretation out of date?

I don't suppose it really matters what we do when we consider the next global event such as an ice age will alter everything beyond recognition anyway. Does it matter if we help bring about catastrophes in the meantime? As far as time goes a hundred years earlier or later makes little difference. I think i will just go walking.

And so it comes back to our time in control. How does the saying go take nothing but pictures leave nothing but footprints. Clean up after yourself, polution of the enviroment we live in should be our focus, climate change will happen whether we like it or not.

I've always been serious about 'leaving no trace' and it saddens me to hear advertising in our society suggesting 'impact the world'. e.g CNN television I believe i am at my best when i have the least and i am lucky to live in a democracy that allows some the chance to ignore many things and focus on a few.