The Landcare movement is pretty solid having good support from government.

I'm embarrassed to say I can't recall the actual small regional group's name, even though I have over the last 20 years or so read their pamphlets when I see them. They had work group events a couple times a month too, that would visit beaches and stream and help rehabilitate it by removing the declared problem weeds. My browser's search history doesn't help there either despite I searched after their literature went absent and remained quiet and found the group was amiss, needing or requesting someone to fill positions of chairperson and a number of other top tier positions.

The native is best movement started in earnest in my region where I was conscious of the push at the end of the 90s. I guess that matches the time a big spotlight was being shone on big bad ag industry, in what I consider simply a move to shift the blame for loss of diversity along the state's streams and beach front areas which have been heavily developed the last 30 years - it's a madness (building in those areas) to put it politely. My state was at the time, pushed into a position they had to address tree clearing problem (but lets ignore the spaces around heavy population, so developers can do their thing ... besides that is not near water catchment that flows into the lower states ...) by the acting federal govenment and they did so by creating a map of environmental zones which IMHO wasn't particularly accurate and somewhat silly in that one couldn't get a straight answer why one unremarkable piece of ground was marked as high environmental importance when much of the area around it was the same.

I think any outlook, natives or not, should be case by case considering as many important factors as one can. Erosion and fire hazard in a dry area would by why some might dislike the variety of eucalyptus growing. Oh yes, for running water, many dry forest eucalyptus are not so good against water erosion and it's where grass varieties might be better. Then again I've got no idea how they compare to other trees from the US or the region in particular.

When it comes to removal of problem vegetation, the worry is when what seems like a practical solution is applied everywhere since it's cost effective, more often the solution are nasty herbicides that are pervasive in the environment and applied at quantity with little real thought. I particularly worry about Metsulfuron Methyl and similar which are effective at a few grams per acre for killing woody plants. I suspect I've seen that damage first hand where some idiot dumped the remains of a half used bottle in a stream and proceeded to kill a third of a mile of river oaks downstream. Though I have no proof, the coastal region to the south of me supposedly had an issue with Diuron, there was much gnashing of teeth over its use ... I'd noted the dry formulation did not have enough solvent, it seemed to mix in water but a lot of it was merely going into colloidal suspension, meaning many farmers were not getting the true benefit and much of it could have washed off and into streams and later dissolving in the presence of eucalyptus type oils from leaf matter - I felt fortunate a couple years later that I'd not had a chance to get up on a soap box to explain why it was a problem though poor application, when I was informed a federal or state supported water catchment group approx 200 miles south again, had used approx 90 tonnes one year (I believe the source / person who relayed some number of truck transports full of diuron had been dispatched there) to spray over not land, but a water based grass weed in the river ... of course no proof apart from knowing the group had controlled a section of river for this pest grass. One realises and could safely assume what didn't enter the plants, simply went out to sea and caught the east coastal current up the coast. It's something that never made the news and present day what I say would be considered merely conspiracy noise without any actual proof.