The short term environmental destruction caused is so minimal and has no comparison to the massive land clearing that continues particularly in Qld.
The simple fact remains, the land clearing in QLD - some of which, is undesirable for the long-term - is currently, completely legal.
Protestors against the clearing in QLD are seeking to have the QLD clearing laws changed, and stricter limits placed on the clearing.
The difference is - the re-instating of the Marree Man is illegal, and the original etching was illegal.
The basic problem is, that no-one with any standing in the community has carried out a verifiable, properly researched, cost-benefit study on the etching.
All proposed developments and land-use alterations are subject to cost-benefit studies - and then those studies are scrutinised to pick the holes in them, and to see if the community as a whole, benefits.
If the benefit of the proposed development/land-use change is limited to just a few people, and the rest of the community ends up picking up the tab for the major cost of supporting the development (or repairing the damage caused), then the development/land-use change is scrubbed.
What a lot of people are forgetting here is that mining companies are obliged (as in the case of the authorised pipeline), to put up environmental bonds - sometimes running into millions of dollars.
If the company then goes bankrupt, or discontinues, or ceases its mining operations - the environmental bond money is then taken by the likes of the EPA, and the money is then used to rehabilitate any damage to the area utilised by the company for their operation.
In this manner, no burden for environmental rehabilitation, or the repair of environmental damage, is placed on the rest of the nations long-suffering taxpayers.
These two publicans, if found guilty of environmental destruction and violation of other important laws, may find they are not only facing heavy fines - they may find they will be ordered to rehabilitate the area to the satisfaction of the EPA and the Aboriginal landowners - at their cost.
My Stepdaughter is involved in overseeing obedience to environmental laws by a sizeable oil and gas company (for whom she works) at Moomba.
She tells me that even the slightest amount of environmental damage by the oil and gas company - such as even the tiniest oil spill - will incur a major investigation by the EPA, and bring great wrath and draconian penalties upon the company. These people make CASA look positively benevolent.