Poison collected, but Dicky Beach’s dying trees face an uncertain rescue

Dozens of trees are dying across a 300-metre stretch of the coastal pathway in Caloundra, on Queensland’s Sunshine Coast. Two towering Norfolk pines are affected: one is in a bad state, while its neighbour is showing signs of distress. Arborists are monitoring the vegetation in the hope that some can still be saved.⁠1⁠2

The damage is visible. What remains in the ground is not yet established. Samples are being tested to identify the poison, and lasting soil contamination has been raised as a possible consequence—not a confirmed outcome. Collecting the visible granules does not, by itself, establish that the site is safe or that the trees will recover.⁠1⁠2

Sunshine Coast Council first received information about the poisoning in August 2026 and immediately began monitoring the site, according to Sunshine Coast News. That is the date the council was alerted, not a verified date for when the substance was spread. Residue testing and further inspections were still continuing in the outlet’s October 29 report.⁠2

That assessment, relayed by the Sunshine Coast councillor, conveys the alarm among those responding. It is not a measured historical ranking. The supported scale is substantial enough: dozens of affected trees, native vegetation as well as the conspicuous pines, along a stretch of beachfront used by residents every day. No exact inventory of damaged trees has been released in the available reporting.⁠1⁠2

ABC Queensland’s earlier report identified at least one affected Norfolk pine. Sunshine Coast News subsequently reported two and described their different conditions. Those accounts are compatible; the more specific account makes clear that concern extends beyond a single badly damaged tree. Landsberg also said the more established trees appeared to have suffered more than the undergrowth.⁠1⁠2

Landsberg described crews searching the affected area and gathering the granular substance, which he compared in appearance to kitty litter. That description tells residents what the material looked like, not what it contained. No chemical identification has been reported.⁠2

He has suggested that the substance may be interfering with photosynthesis, the process plants use to turn sunlight into energy. But that remains his suggested explanation, not a laboratory finding. Naming a particular herbicide—or treating the proposed mechanism as established—would get ahead of the testing.⁠1⁠2

The distinction matters for more than the trees. Until the substance and any remaining contamination are established, the extent and persistence of the damage beneath the vegetation remain uncertain. The possibility of permanent soil contamination is serious, but it cannot responsibly be described as something testing has already proved.⁠1

Residents regularly walk dogs along the pathway, and concerns have been raised about those animals. Landsberg said he did not know the effect on wildlife. The available reports establish neither an animal poisoning nor a measured exposure risk to people, and they do not supply an incident-specific safety advisory or a verified all-clear.⁠1⁠2

For people who use this foreshore, however, the loss is already tangible. Chloe Christopher, a 28-year-old Caloundra resident who has lived locally her whole life, described a usually lush place dotted with flowers. “It’s sad to see because we live in such a beautiful part of the coast, so it’s really sad to come past and see all of our beautiful plants dying,” she told ABC.⁠1

Nearby resident Brittany Guy, who spends time there with her young son, said she was furious. Another resident, speaking to Sunshine Coast News, described a large banksia among the losses and said he had never seen poisoning on this scale in 45 years in the region. These are accounts of damage to a shared everyday place—not evidence identifying who caused it.⁠1⁠2

No culprit or motive has been identified in the available reporting. There is no evidentiary basis here to accuse a neighbouring property owner or conclude that someone poisoned the trees to improve a view. Landsberg explicitly warned against that leap.⁠1⁠2

“We’ve got to make sure we respect the process before we start singling out any property owner or individual,” he told ABC. “We’ve got to follow due process and make sure we deal with it in an appropriate manner.”⁠1

The warning about financial penalties also needs its conditions attached. ABC reported that environmental vandalism could attract fines above A$130,000 if a culprit were found and prosecuted. Sunshine Coast News quoted Landsberg putting potential council fines at about A$130,000, with greater penalties possible under state environmental legislation. These are penalty warnings, not a fine imposed over this poisoning.⁠1⁠2

The specific offence, applicable statutory maximum and penalty-unit calculation for this incident have not been established. A large dollar figure should not be mistaken for a settled legal outcome, any more than residents’ understandable anger should be mistaken for proof against a suspect.

Landsberg has urged anyone with information to contact the council and promised that the community will be told about the impact and consequences. No date has been announced for laboratory findings or the investigation’s conclusion. For now, the immediate task is to identify the substance and determine what can still be saved—and whether removing the granules was only the beginning of repairing the ground beneath them.⁠2