> so those here coming to their defence is not a bit surprising. Who came to their defence? The debate about eucalyptus trees goes back many many decades and

> so those here coming to their defence is not a bit surprising. Who came to their defence? The debate about eucalyptus trees goes back many many decades and the fuel load management question is the big one. Take down the Blue Gums (and friends) and allow no other trees to replace them is one option, sure, that's a decision for California. Take down the Blue Gums and allow California trees native to that area to replace them isn't neccessarily an improvement over the situation there now.