Until 1967, Australian Aborigines were officially classified as flora and fauna and "protected" in much the same way that flora and fauna is today. They were locked up in reserves and given people to look after them.

Although the fauna label has been removed, a cultural legacy can still be seen in the way that environmentalists treat Aborigines today. Just as it was in the past, Aborigines are thought of as some kind of seperate species. Some of this thinking can be seen in the official classification of wilderness, which proposes that the actions of Aborigines are the actions of nature, but the actions of non-Aborigines are something different. According to Dr A. J. Brown, from Griffith Law School;

"Today, for environment groups and land management agencies, wilderness is a land use classification which relates specifically to growing respect for the non-commercial, non-industrial, non-colonial values of those landscapes that have been least disturbed since 1788. Most recently, the Commonwealth Government discussion paper on wilderness protection defined a wilderness as:

"... an area that is, or can be restored to be, a sufficient size to enable the long-term protection of its natural systems and biological diversity; substantially undisturbed by colonial and modern technological society; and remote at its core from points of mechanised access and other evidence of colonial and modern technological society. "

Correcting the mistakes of "humans" is one area where the classification of Aborigines as flora and fauna directly impacts upon environmental decision making. Many environmentalists are involved in breeding programs that aim to repopulate native animals in areas that they have been eradicated from over the last 200 years. The Tasmanian Devil is one animal that is conspicuous by its absence from these breeding programs. Until about 400 years ago, the Tasmanian Devil roamed mainland Australia and went extinct from its mainland habitats due to the actions of Aborigines. Despite Aborigines being responsible for its demise, no attempt is made to correct the mistake as it is made for other humans. This is because it would mean defining Aborigines as human and sharing the same classification system as non-Aborigines.

Hunting cetaceans is another area where the classification of Aborigines as flora and fauna impacts upon environmental decision making. In northern Australia, Aborigines hunt dugong. Because there is plenty of alternative food in the areas, the dugong is by no means an indispensable part of the diet as whales are to indigenous people of Canada. Despite this, Aborigines are allowed to hunt the dugong because, in the eyes of environmentalists, an Aborigine eating a dugong is no more significant than a shark eating a dugong. As far as the environmentalists are concerned, it is simply natures way.

While a fauna classification is used to defend the Aborigines' right to hunt cetaceans, non-Aboriginal Australians that hunted cetaceans were given a human classification and this ultimately led to their hunting coming to an end. As humans, their actions were deemed to be a form of culture and open to change. This culture had a rich history in Australia. In 1792, Sydney Cove was the centre for the profitable whale around the southern coasts. Numerous other coastal whaling stations were established around Australia in the late 1820s to 1830s. The whaling stations were the economic heart of communities, they brought in a cosmopolitan mix of people from around the world, and they inspired paintings, scrimshaws, and novels. This culture came to an end in 1978 with the closure of Australia's last whaling station. With the demise of whaling, a significant part of Australia's cultural heritage came to an end as well. The demise was rationalised on the grounds that sometimes culture should change.

The mistake of previous generations was not that they classified Aborigines as flora and fauna; it was that they didn't classify themselves as flora and fauna as well. Likewise, the mistake of present generations is not that they continue to treat Aborigines as flora and fauna; it is that they don't expand the classifications to include themselves. Environmentalists continue to persevere with a zoo ideology that seeks to separate themselves from the environmental world; however, they fail to appreciate that this can't be done.  Even the most diligent environmentalist that tries to minimise their impact on the environment can't avoid making an impact. Nutrients from an organic farm will end up in the water ways. A house will form a refuge for rodents. A family cat will hunt lizards or go feral. Driving a car will release CO2 emissions. A vegetable farm results in an opportunity cost of native fauna and flora. Instead of trying to minimise their impact, these environmentalists need to shape their environmental impact into one that is more conducive to the well-being of the ecosystem. Being part of the ecosystem can actually be a benefit to the ecosystem.

Being a benefit to the ecosystem can only occur if humans stop seeing the ecosystem as something they are distinct from. In practice this could mean having native animals, such as Tasmanian Devils, as pets. It could also mean eating more native animals, such as Emus or Crocodiles. It could also mean shaping their backyards to be more friendly to native flora and fauna. It means living with the environment instead of trying to lock it up and "protect" it.