The Flood Creek Non-Nativist Landcare Group blog is a collaborative enterprise intended to develop a community of interest and discussion. We’d be happy to hear your ideas for a post on topics related to:

  • Landcare in general,
  • Non-nativist Landcare,
  • Landscape health,
  • Willows,
  • Agricultural ecology,
  • Nativism,
  • Landscape ecology,
  • Human ecology,
  • Non-native habitat,
  • Biodiversity,
  • Biosecurity,
  • Landscape degradation,
  • Professionalism in Landcare,
  • Ecosynthesis,
  • “Pest” management,
  • “Weed” management,
  • Ecological succession,
  • Chemical management,
  • Living landscapes,
  • Natural Sequence Farming,
  • NRM bureaucracy,
  • Analog forestry,
  • Compassion for non-native species,
  • Non-human agency in the land,
  • Landscape rehabilitation;

…..or anything else you think is relevant or of interest to our community discussion.

Submitted posts should be between approximately 500 and 1500 words. Accompanying pictures are encouraged where appropriate. Best to get in touch before you start; email: icare(at)

You can also contribute comments on any of the blog posts or pages you find here. Your input and support are very much appreciated.

Just in case you’d like to contribute funding in support of enlightened ‘caring’ for our land and environment, we’ve also provided a donations facility below.

100% of receipts will be used to provide South East Local Land Services  employees with training opportunities in Natural Sequence Farming and landscape function delivered by Tarwyn Park Training.

Still under construction. Please bear with us while we get the PayPal functionality up and running.

$0 dollars have been raised and donated so far this year!!!

Thanks for all your help!


19 responses to “Collaborate-Contribute

  1. Yes, good to see a Landcare group considering the value of vegetation from a non-nativist political position. We cover thinking about weeding related to this interest at

    • Thanks Dr Low. Glad you could find us. It makes no sense to expect all modern ecologies to only utilise species from the 1788 playbook, hence ‘non-nativist Landcare’. Your site is further testament that many land-managers are seeking alternative ways to interact with the potential resources referred to as ‘weeds’. Especially within agricultural landscapes, these are natural responses and often a sign of functional ecological resilience. You seem to offer some great alternatives to conventional approaches. Regards, Ben

  2. Pingback: Reflecting on Bicentennial Park, Braidwood | Flood Creek Non-Nativist Landcare

  3. Ben amongst your “pest management” you need to include those mis-guided people who destroyed the willows along Flood Creek. The willows were keeping the ivy and privet under control by shading it out. Now look at it, “well done willow warriors” Anyone down that end of Braidwood now spends weeks miserable with hay fever and allergic reactions to the privet now it is in flower.
    Those lovely bird sanctuaries are gone as well. There is a huge place in the Australian landscape for non native species, if they are planted thoughtfully and managed they are real asset to the landscape.
    Well done on your site Ben

    • Thanks Chris! I take your point about that kind of “pest”, they can be problematic when they proliferate to an unchecked monoculture. It won’t last though, there’ll be a natural succession of ideas. It is good to see a diversity of voices and approaches emerging within Landcare.

  4. Pingback: Collateral Damage: How the Willow War Kills the Bushcraft Culture. | Flood Creek Non-Nativist Landcare

  5. Pingback: What We Did In The Holidays | Flood Creek Non-Nativist Landcare

  6. The specifics are great; perhaps the context could be a touch broader.
    Like landcare in general, from under my rock, ‘food security’ doesn’t rate as a topic in the subject interest list. Is feeding ourselves, with the best food, from the healthiest local environment, the only game in town.
    These discussions are probably not high on the agenda of farmers whose only income is derived from their plot of land; but perhaps it is something they might engage with given the right conditions. What about co-hosting with South East Local land Services. They have a live chat site that could double as a co-hosting forum. Simply copied. Their ‘Open Forum’ site is not exactly overloaded.


  7. should have added, Jane at LLSsoutheastOpen is the site manager. I have found her very helpful and open to ideas.

    • Hi Robbo,

      Was just talking to someone this evening about approaching SELLS directly (as opposed to ‘via USLC’) to see if they can help get up a Landcare bulletin board. This person suggested Jane would be a knowledgable individual to talk to. I think it would certainly achieve a great deal from SELLS’ perspective, and for minimal investment on their part. Personally I would think a catchment focus would be best, right now ‘open’ seems to cover the whole SELLS area which is massive (whole of southeast NSW).

      The only question would be who moderates such a forum. Obviously, given recent correspondence in the Landcare Perspective, the USLC has shown it lacks the capability we’re seeking. I’d think SELLS itself would also struggle not to utilise such a forum as a tool for its own “information” dissemination. We’re definitely after a community forum, not a ‘customer portal’ or such. However, having identified these issues up front as something to be wary of, I’d be happy to see this idea put forward.

      PS so that interested others can follow the reference, here’s a link to the ‘SELLS open’ webpage:

  8. Well yes and no. It is after all just that mine host; a customer portal. I think there is a case for ’embracing’ LLS operational norms and let the ‘response’ do the bidding. A lot of us are new to online forums, let alone ‘virtual’ public speaking.
    It is we who think there is value in sharing Flood Creek Non Nativist Landcare understandings. And that is quite a mouthful in itself.
    People will need to feel safe in their interpretation of what the words stand for. At the end of the day all we can do is put ‘it’ out there; for some one else to discover. The content and delivery mechanism will interplay and color individual interpretations. Pretty scary hey; we are only images of other peoples perceptions.
    With respect to locality I think local issues transcend boundaries in all sorts of creative ways.

  9. Pingback: Our Hero Nativist. (Or how the Australian Humanist of the Year 2005 has made my family miserable and set back riverine repair by decades) | Flood Creek Non-Nativist Landcare

  10. Pingback: Non-nativist progress. | Flood Creek Non-Nativist Landcare

  11. Pingback: Australian landscapes: Mary White’s contribution towards our understanding of them. | Flood Creek Non-Nativist Landcare

  12. Pingback: Landcare, the institution | Flood Creek Non-Nativist Landcare

  13. We (National Toxics Network) are constructing a website on chemical-free bush/landscape regeneration. We agree that many (if not most) funded Landcare projects are environmentally destructive because of a) the removal of plants which are functioning in the regeneration process, b) chemical pollution of our soils, water and thus of life. Do you have examples of ecological regeneration which does not use herbicide and which has monitored biodiversity gains? If so, we would love to include such case studies on our site. Thanks

  14. Pingback: Natural Sequence Farming landscape rehydration project at Mulloon Creek | Flood Creek Non-Nativist Landcare

  15. Pingback: The Big Picture | Flood Creek Non-Nativist Landcare

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s