Download IAS and Env Ethics Non Animals Conference2

INVASIVE ANIMALS: KILLING FOR THE GREATER GOOD OR SHORTSIGHTED EXPEDIENCY?*
1. Introduction
Good morning everyone. I would like to start this presentation by briefly relating a tale of
two species: the western quoll in Australia and the grey squirrel in Italy.
The story of the western quoll concerns the reintroduction of that species into the Flinders
Ranges of South Australia, after an absence of more than one century. The impact of
predators, most likely foxes, and loss of habitat were blamed for the disappearance of the
western quoll from many areas of Australia. The reintroduction of the western quoll is
generally hailed as a success story that demonstrates how eradication of invasive species such
as foxes can lead to protection of native biodiversity.
The story about the grey squirrel has a very different outcome. Grey squirrels have been
introduced to many parts of the world with serious impacts for protection of biodiversity.
These include debarking of trees, and outcompeting and replacement of native red squirrels,
including Racconigi Parks near Turin, Italy. Biologists in Italy proposed to cull grey squirrels
from these parks. They consulted with stakeholders (including animal advocates) and
obtained permission from the National Institute for Wildlife, for the cull. However, before the
project could proceed, a different group of animal advocates commenced litigation and the
court held that the National Institute for Wildlife did not have the power to authorise the total
eradication of the grey squirrel.1 Yet, preliminary indications noted that eradication was
feasible. However, the litigation deferred the project and in the interim, the grey squirrel has
significantly expanded its range. Accordingly, eradication is no longer considered practical.
The expansion of the grey squirrel constitutes a major threat to the survival of the red squirrel
and will also have notable environmental impacts on forests, as well as economic
consequences relating in the way of damage to timber crops. 2
*Sophie Riley, senior lecturer at the University of Technology Sydney.
1
Spagnesi and Genovesi v The Republic of Italy Court of Appeal of Turin - IV - July 4, 2000 judgment n.4009
(copy on file with author).
2
For a discussion of the problems see Sandro Bertolino and Piero Genovesi, ‘Spread and Attempted Eradication
of the Grey Squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) in Italy and Consequences for the Red Squirrel’, (2003) 109
Biological Conservation 351.
1
These two stories demonstrate the difficulties that society faces when implementing policy
and measures to deal with invasive species. From an environmental perspective it raises
issues with regard to the protection of biodiversity. In particular, where one species threatens
or is causing harm to another species, how should society manage the invasive species? The
answer to this question not only rests on scientific evidence but also squarely raises ethical
considerations of how society weighs competing interests of individual species as against
other species, habitats and ecosystems.3 In the context of invasive animals, an important issue
is whether society’s obligations are limited by notions of welfare or is it valid to consider the
life of individual species?
The paper uses the Australian regime as a case study, conducting a textual analysis of the
nine Model Codes of Practice for the Humane Control of camels, cats, donkeys, goats,
horses, pigs, foxes, rabbits and wild dogs (Model Codes). It is argued that these Codes
entrench killing as a first point response, although the Codes are seemingly based on notions
of animal welfare. The discussion commences with a summary of what is meant by an
invasive species and then sets out Australia’s responsibilities in this regard. The paper then
examines Australia’s legislative and policy responses followed by a critical analysis of these
responses using an environmental ethics paradigm. The paper concludes that culling does not
appear to be achieving long-term management objectives and also raises significant issues
with respect to animal welfare. The paper puts forward an alternative view, based on broad
notions of environmental ethics that encourages us to examine our relationship to nature and
question why we turn to killing as a first option.
2. Invasive Animals and Obligations
The meaning of “invasive” can vary according to context. The Guiding Principles for the
Prevention, Introduction and Mitigation of Impacts of Alien Species that Threaten
Ecosystems, Habitats or Species (CBD Guiding Principles) define invasive species as species
whose introduction and spread threatens biological diversity.4 This definition acts as a trigger
for obligations, found in Article 8(h) of the CBD that directs parties to prevent the entry of
these species and/or eradicate and control them.5 The CBD also acknowledges that the
impacts of invasive species can extend to other types of losses including economic harm in
agricultural systems.6
In Australia, an emerging trend with invasive animals that impact on environmental and/or
agricultural systems is to describe them as “pest animals.” This is the definition adopted in
the Model Codes:
Dorothy Boorse, ‘Teaching Environmental Ethics: Non-Indigenous Invasive Species as a Study of Human
Relationships to Nature’, (2004) 8 (2-3) Worldviews 323, 332.
4
CBD Guiding Principles, definitions in footnote (57) paragraph (ii). The CBD ‘Guiding Principles for the
Prevention, Introduction and Mitigation of Impacts of Alien Species that Threaten Ecosystems, Habitats or
Species’ adopted as part of Decision VI/23 of the Conference of the Parties, Report of the Sixth Meeting of the
Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, UNEP/CBD/COP/6/20 (23 September
2002).
5
Strictly speaking the CBD refers to invasive alien species; however, given the fact that the species referred to
in this paper are in fact alien or introduced species, the use of “invasive” species is appropriate in the sense that
it refers to a threshold of threat or harm to biodiversity and other values.
6
Convention on Biological Diversity, Information Sheet, ‘Why Does it Matter’,
<http://www.cbd.int/invasive/matter.shtml >.
3
2
native or introduced, wild or feral, non-human species of animal that is currently
troublesome locally, or over a wide area, to one or more persons, either by being a
health hazard, a general nuisance, or by destroying food, fibre, or natural resources
(Koehler, 1964).
This definition significantly expands the potential reach of regulatory regimes by the
inclusion of native species as ‘pest’ species and also by lowering the threshold for measures
to perspectives that regard the species as troublesome or a general nuisance.
Invasive species may be regulated by a number of means including listing their impacts as a
threatening process under environmental legislation such as NSW Threatened Species
Conservation Act 1995(NSW)7 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999 (CTH) .8 In other cases, animals are subject to management plans that
seek to reduce population levels below a threshold that is considered harmful.9 Undoubtedly,
there are many species that cause environmental and economic problems.10 Their impacts are
well documented in the literature; and biologists such as Tim Low11 and Simberloff12 have
written extensively in this field.
However, labelling a species as invasive or a pest does not automatically provide guidance as
to how regulators should deal with the species. It is inescapable that humans have played a
major role in these species becoming invasive and this fact is regularly overlooked in
regimes. In 2006, a book called Killing Animals was published by the Animal Studies Group;
it comprises 8 essays on the most common way that humans relate to animals, which is by
killing them. The book was reviewed by Anca Vlasopolous who said:
7
Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW)
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedspecies/KeyThreateningProcessesByDoctype.htm
8
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999(CTH)
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicgetkeythreats.pl
9
Department of Environment and Recreation, Namadgi National Park Feral Horse Management Plan 2007,
ACT Government, Territory and Municipal Services,
http://www.tams.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/441455/NNP-Feral-Horse-Mgt-Plan-2007.pdf
Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Victorian Alps Wild Horse Management Plan (in
preparation) http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/explore/parks/alpine-national-park/plans-and-projects/victorian-alpswild-horse-management-plan; Department of Primary Industries, New South Wales, Wild Dog Management
Strategy 2012-2015. Department of Primary Industries (2012),
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/445234/NSW-Wild-Dog-Management-Strategy-20122015.pdf
10
CBD ‘Invasive Alien Species: Comprehensive review on the efficacy of existing measures for their
prevention, early detection, eradication and control’ UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/6/7 (20 December 2000) paragraphs
85-93.
11
For example, T Low, Feral Future, Viking Victoria Australia (1999); Tim Low, The New Nature, Winners
and Losers in Wild Australia, Penguin (2003); Tim Low, Climate Change and Invasive Species: A Review of
Interactions Commonwealth of Australia, Department of the Environment (2006).
12
Daniel Simberloff, ‘Confronting Introduced Species: a form of Xenophobia?’, (2003) 5 (2) Biological
Invasions, 179; Daniel Simberloff, ‘Risks of Biological Control for Conservation Purposes’, (2012) 2 Biocontrol
263; Biocontrol Martin A Nuňez, Sara Kuebbing, Romina D Dimarco and Daniel Simberloff, ‘Invasive Species:
To Eat or Not to Eat, That Is the Question’, (2012) 5 (5) Conservation Letters 334;Daniel Simberloff, Martin A
Nuňez, Nicholas J Ledgard, et al ‘Spread and Impact of Introduced Conifers in South America: Lessons from
Other Southern Hemisphere Regions’, (2012) 35 Austral Ecology 489;Rafael D Zenni, Joseph K Bailey and
Daniel Simberloff, ‘Rapid Evolution and Range Expansion of an Invasive Plant are Driven by Provenanceenvironment Interactions’, (2014) 17 (6) Ecology Letters 727.
3
What seems to be missing in the essays is the awareness that very little of non-human
life on our small planet can escape human impingement…and that management is the
only way for many species to survive. The pseudo-Darwinian concept--survival of the
fittest--in terms of specific populations competing for the same resources in the same
territory can no longer be seen as natural. Human interference in destroying and
fragmenting habitat, introducing exotic species, and polluting remaining habitat has
been so pervasive as to require the present-day management of even the vast ocean
environments.13
These comments squarely focus on the relationship of humans to the environment, and
embody the notion that humans have altered so much of the plant that the world needs to be
managed – it is an area where the field of environmental ethics should play a significant role.
3. Environmental Ethics and the Model Codes
There are many descriptions and definitions of environmental ethics; however, it is
epitomised as a discipline that studies the moral relationship of human beings and their
environment including the intrinsic value and moral status of non-human components such as
animals. It is concerned with what society ought to do.14
Environmental Ethics regards the intrinsic value of animals as an integral component of the
decision-making process. This draws into the field of environmental ethics, philosophies of
animal rights and animal welfare. Animal rights philosophies propose that non-human
animals should have rights attributable to all sentient beings including the freedom to live and
not be killed by humans. By way of contrast, philosophies of animal welfare are not opposed
to the use or killing of animals but focus on the desire to prevent unnecessary animal
suffering which includes giving them a humane death.
In the context of invasive species, this raises complex questions. However, as Mellor and
Littin posit, at the very least it is incumbent upon regulators be satisfied that management is
essential and defensible, including whether it is necessary to intervene and undertake “killing
as part of control, as opposed to, or in addition to non-lethal control[s].”15 Rather than delving
into the rights/welfare debate, this paper approaches the question of invasive species on the
grounds identified by Littin, and more particularly whether management based on lethal
methods is achieving objectives.
As already noted, the Federal government has developed a number of Model Codes to deal
with the Humane Control of feral animals such as camels, cats, donkeys, goats, horses, pigs,
foxes, rabbits or wild dogs. These Model Codes are relevant whenever a species is being
controlled, whether this is due to a threat abatement plan in accordance with environmental
regulation or a management plan because the species is causing agricultural damage. The
Model Codes note that
[feral animal] control techniques have the potential to cause animals to suffer.
To minimise this suffering the most humane techniques that will achieve the
13
https://networks.h-net.org/node/16560/reviews/16724/vlasopolos-baker-killing-animals
Clare Palmer, Environmental Ethics, ABC-CLIO California (1997), 6.
15
David M Mellor and Kate E Littin, ‘Killing Pest Animals – Some Ethical Issues’ in Solutions for Achieving
Human Vertebrate Pest Control, Proceedings of the 2003 RSPCA Australia Scientific Seminar, Canberra (Bidda
Jones, Ed) RSPCA (2003), 44, 44. Available from < http://www.rspca.org.au/sites/default/files/website/Thefacts/Science/Scientific-Seminar/2003/SciSem2003-Proceedings.pdf > (last visited November 2014).
14
4
control program’s aims must be used. This will be the technique that causes the
least amount of pain and suffering to the target animal with the least harm or
risk to non-target animals, people and the environment 16
Moreover, best practice pest management needs to consider that:
From an animal welfare perspective, it is highly desirable that pest control
programs affect a minimum number of individuals and that effort is sustained so
that pest densities always remain at a low level. Over the last decade, the
approach to managing pest animals has changed. Rather than focussing on
killing as many pests as possible, it is now realised that like most other aspects
of agriculture or nature conservation, pest management needs to be carefully
planned and coordinated. Pest animal control is just one aspect of an integrated
approach to the management of production and natural resource systems. Most
pests are highly mobile and can readily replace those that are killed in control
programs. Unless actions are well planned and coordinated across an area,
individual control programs are unlikely to have a lasting effect.
Notwithstanding these comments, and the nomenclature of the Model Codes as being based
on “humane control”, an examination reveals that the Model Codes in fact regard killing as a
first point response. Table 1 below sets out a summary of the most commonly used (lethal)
control methods; while Table 2 sets out a summary that explains why non-lethal methods are
not practicable.
Table 1
Most Commonly-Used Control Methods
Code (Humane)
Summary of Most Commonly-Used Control Methods
Control of feral camels
Control of feral cats
Aerial shooting and ground shooting, mustering and trapping at water.
Shooting, trapping, lethal baiting and exclusion fencing. The currently available methods of
control are generally expensive, labour intensive, require continuing management effort and can
be effective only in limited areas.
Aerial culling whereby donkeys are shot from helicopters with high-powered rifles.
Control of feral
donkeys
Control of feral goats
Control of feral horses
Control of feral pigs
Control of foxes
Control of rabbits
Control of wild dogs
The most commonly used feral goat control techniques are mustering, trapping at water, aerial
shooting, ground shooting and exclusion fencing.
Trapping at water, mustering, aerial shooting and ground shooting. Other measures such as
exclusion fencing, fertility control and immobilisation followed by
Lethal baiting; however not all poisons are equally humane. Depending on the poison used, target
animals can experience pain and suffering, sometimes for an extended period, before death.
Lethal baiting, shooting, trapping, den fumigation, and exclusion fencing. Lethal baiting is
considered to be the most effective method of fox control currently available; however not all
poisons are equally humane. Depending on the poison used, target animals can experience pain
and suffering, sometimes for an extended period, before death.
Lethal baiting, warren fumigation and destruction, shooting, trapping, exclusion fencing and
biological control with RHDV and myxomatosis.
Lethal baiting, shooting, trapping and exclusion fencing. Other measures such as the use of guard
animals have been promoted in recent years but not yet fully evaluated in Australia.
16
These words are found in the Model Codes for camels, cats, donkeys, goats, horses, pigs and foxes, wild dogs
and rabbits, under the heading “Choosing Control Techniques”.
5
Table 2
Comparison of Control Methods
Code (Humane)
Comparison of Control Methods
Control of feral camels
Favours lethal methods.
Although fertility control is seen as more humane, delivery of contraceptives is difficult and there
is no long-acting or permanent method of fertility control presently available. Not currently
feasible for large camel populations over an extended range.
Favours lethal methods.
When correctly carried out, shooting is humane.
Favours lethal methods.
Although exclusion fencing is seen as more humane, it is expensive and to construct and
maintain. Also not feasible in rugged terrain. Can also concentrate donkeys at other points where
they can die of thirst. Also possible to use a tranquiliser dart and then euthanize the donkey with
an injection of barbiturate. However, it is not feasible over large areas as it is costly and labour
intensive, requiring veterinary supervision.
Control of feral cats
Control of feral
donkeys
Control of feral goats
Control of feral horses
Control of feral pigs
Control of foxes
Control of rabbits
Control of wild dogs
Favours lethal methods.
Although exclusion fencing is seen as more humane, it is expensive and to construct and
maintain; in addition goats sooner or later manage to breach fending. Exclusion fencing may be
of some use in environmentally sensitive areas.
Favours lethal methods.
Also possible to use a tranquiliser dart and then euthanize the horse with an injection of
barbiturate. However, it is not feasible over large areas as it is costly and labour intensive,
requiring veterinary supervision.
Favours lethal methods.
When correctly carried out, shooting is humane. Other methods not practicable or considered less
humane.
Favours lethal methods.
Although fertility control is seen as more humane, delivery of contraceptives is difficult and there
is no long-acting or permanent method of fertility control presently available.
Favours lethal methods.
Although exclusion fencing is seen as more humane, it is expensive and to construct and
maintain. It has some use in protecting pasture, crops and conservation areas.
Favours lethal methods.
Other measures have not been evaluated.
As already stated, these Codes concentrate on control and management in terms of the most
effective way of killing animals. This is the case, even though the Model Codes note that
approaches that take this path are not achieving best practice management. It also means that
the Codes start from a moral and legal position that is already premised on the need to kill.
Other methods are explored but dismissed. A textual analysis of the Model Codes based on
the work of Hervé Corvellec and Asa Boholm is instructive.17
Corvellec and Boholm’s research focusses on environmental impact statements (EIS) for
wind farms in Sweden to determine how proponents of wind farms communicate about risk.
They apply what they call a “New-Rhetorical Analysis” to their study. Their research
demonstrates a number of matters including:
Hervé Corvellec and Asa Boholm, ‘The Risk/no-risk Rhetoric of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA):
the Case of Offshore Wind Farms in Sweden’, (2008) 13 (7) Local Environment 627, 627.
17
6
1. That EIS function as a “locus for both risk production and risk neutralisation”.18 In
other words, the document attaches a long series of potential risks to their project but
also “systematically describes these same risks as being non-existent, negligible or
manageable. …[the EIS] …is carefully designed to support the claim that the project
is devoid of any risk that could motivate its being stopped. 19
2. That material in IES is presented in a way that facilitates it becoming “an integrated
part of reality”. In the case of wind farms the argument is made that wind farms
contribute to fulfilling energy policies and if the farms are not built energy policies
will not be fulfilled. The rationale is that the construction of wind farms “claim” a
right to become part of a reality based on the grounds of an alleged fit with the
structure of this reality. 20
Analogous processes are at work in the Model Codes. They become a locus for identification
of the impacts of invasive animals as well as identifying concerns for welfare implications.
However, welfare concerns are not so much neutralised as rationalised – there are many
reasons why it is not feasible to use non-lethal methods. Killing animals thus becomes an
integrated part of the reality of dealing with invasive species. Indeed, by invoking the risk
that invasive species pose, the species must be killed otherwise management goals remain
unfulfilled. Yet, it is questionable whether killing animals is achieving management goals,
leading to at least two problems with the current system. First, the regime is not operating as
effectively as it should be; and second it does not adequately take into account humanity’s
relationship with nature.
Efficacy of the Regime
With respect to the operation of Australia’s regime, the Department of the Environment at the
Federal level has commenced a systematic review of their Threat Abatement Plans (TAP/s).
At the time of writing the Department had concluded three reviews for: Threat Abatement
Plan for Competition and Land Degradation by Rabbits (Rabbit Review);21 Threat
Abatement Plan for Competition and Land Degradation by Unmanaged Goats (Goat
Review);22 Threat Abatement Plan for Competition and Land Degradation by the European
Red Fox (Fox Review).23 The government has also issued an updated advice for the Threat
Hervé Corvellec and Asa Boholm, ‘The Risk/no-risk Rhetoric of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA):
the Case of Offshore Wind Farms in Sweden’, (2008) 13 (7) Local Environment 627, 627.
19
Ibid, 635.
20
Ibid, 634.
21
Australian Government, Department of the Environment, Threat Abatement Plan for Competition and Land
Degradation by Rabbits Review 2008-2012 Commonwealth of Australia (2012).
Available from ¸ http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/7097f100-4a22-4651-b0e1df26e17c622c/files/tap-review-rabbit.pdf > (last visited November 2014).
22
Australian Government, Department of the Environment, Threat Abatement Plan for Competition and Land
Degradation by Unmanaged Goats (2008): Five Yearly Review 2013, Commonwealth of Australia (2013).
Available from: <http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/2109c235-4e01-49f6-90d026e6cb58ff0b/files/tap-review-unmanaged-goats.pdf > (last visited November 2014).
23
Australian Government, Department of the Environment, Threat Abatement Plan for Competition and Land
Degradation by the European Red Fox (2008): Five Yearly Review 2013, Commonwealth of Australia (2013).
Available from:
< http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/1846b741-4f68-4bda-a663-94418438d4e6/files/tapreview-red-fox_0.pdf > (last visited November 2014).
18
7
Abatement Plan for Predation, Habitat Degradation, Completion and Disease Transmission
by Feral Pigs (Pig Update).24
In each of these cases lethal methods are used to control the species, yet one of the most
striking features about these reviews is that not one of them has concluded that culling had
achieved the objectives of the TAP. The Rabbit Review, for example, notes that culling
represents a way of trying to kill as many rabbits as possible. Although this approach has
succeeded in reducing rabbit numbers in the short-term,25 it is less effective in the long
term.26 The Goat Review candidly admitting that implementation of the TAP for unmanaged
goats “has not achieved the goal of minimising the impacts of feral goats. The problem of the
impact of feral goats is complex and as feral goat numbers rise the problem is increasing.”27
The Fox Review similarly noted that the goal of the TAP was to minimise the impact of foxes
on biodiversity and this goal predominantly remained unfulfilled.28 There was, however some
success with eradicating foxes from islands. 29 The Pig Update did not categorically state one
way or the other, whether culling had achieved TAP objectives; however it did emphasise the
need to continue managing pigs, arguably indicating that management goals are not being
met.30 One of the main reasons for the ineffectiveness of culling stems from lack of data. The
Goat Review noted that it is difficult to gather data on environmental impacts and outcomes
because land managers rarely deal with only one species and the interactions, for example
among goats, rabbits and foxes, are not well understood.31
24
Australian Government, Department of the Environment, Threat Abatement Advice for Predation, Habitat
Degradation, Competition and Disease Transmission by Feral Pigs (2013), Commonwealth of Australia (2013).
Available
from:
<
http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/379b2dd1-e820-4de6-88ed3dfcea614d1d/files/threat-abatement-advice-feral-pigs.pdf > (last visited November 2014).
25
Australian Government, Department of the Environment, Threat Abatement Plan for Competition and Land
Degradation by Rabbits Review 2008-2012 Commonwealth of Australia (2012), 26.
Available from ¸ http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/7097f100-4a22-4651-b0e1df26e17c622c/files/tap-review-rabbit.pdf > (last visited November 2014).
26
Australian Government, Department of the Environment, Threat Abatement Plan for Competition and Land
Degradation by Rabbits Review 2008-2012 Commonwealth of Australia (2012), 2.
Available from ¸ http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/7097f100-4a22-4651-b0e1df26e17c622c/files/tap-review-rabbit.pdf > (last visited November 2014), 64.
27
Australian Government, Department of the Environment, Threat Abatement Plan for Competition and Land
Degradation by Unmanaged Goats (2008): Five Yearly Review 2013, Commonwealth of Australia (2013), 3.
Available from: <http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/2109c235-4e01-49f6-90d026e6cb58ff0b/files/tap-review-unmanaged-goats.pdf > (last visited November 2014).
28
Australian Government, Department of the Environment, Threat Abatement Plan for Competition and Land
Degradation by the European Red Fox (2008): Five Yearly Review 2013, Commonwealth of Australia (2013),
5. Available from:
< http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/1846b741-4f68-4bda-a663-94418438d4e6/files/tapreview-red-fox_0.pdf > (last visited November 2014).
29
Australian Government, Department of the Environment, Threat Abatement Plan for Competition and Land
Degradation by the European Red Fox (2008): Five Yearly Review 2013, Commonwealth of Australia (2013),
9-10. Available from:
< http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/1846b741-4f68-4bda-a663-94418438d4e6/files/tapreview-red-fox_0.pdf > (last visited November 2014).
30
Australian Government, Department of the Environment, Threat Abatement Advice for Predation, Habitat
Degradation, Competition and Disease Transmission by Feral Pigs (2013), Commonwealth of Australia (2013),
5. Available from: < http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/379b2dd1-e820-4de6-88ed3dfcea614d1d/files/threat-abatement-advice-feral-pigs.pdf > (last visited November 2014).
31
Australian Government, Department of the Environment, Threat Abatement Plan for Competition and Land
Degradation by Unmanaged Goats (2008): Five Yearly Review 2013, Commonwealth of Australia (2013), 3-4,
20. Available from: <http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/2109c235-4e01-49f6-90d026e6cb58ff0b/files/tap-review-unmanaged-goats.pdf > (last visited November 2014).
8
The short-term imperative appears to be one of the motivating factors driving lethal means of
control. In the context of over-abundant elephants in Africa, Scholtz describes culling as a
quick-fix for inadequate management and planning by authorities. He argues that in the case
of super-abundant native wildlife that the biodiversity convention can be read to contain the
notion of ‘common concern’ in the CBD underscores the notion that biological resources may
be regarded as a global common resource. He therefore argues against culling as a first point
response.
Olsen, also highlights the fact that more research is needed to determine whether lethal
control methods are effective in the long-term. She cites instances where culling has resulted
in re-bound increases in populations due to enhanced availability of food and resources for
the remaining population.32 She also studied pigs and their taking of winter lambs. Her
conclusion was this was attributable to a few older boars that learned to avoid shooters.
Therefore a general cull would not necessarily target these boars or otherwise reduce damage
caused by pigs even at low densities.
More recently, Zeng and Gerritsen have researched the eradication of camels in Northern
Australia and question the effectiveness of commercial harvesting and culling as regulatory
tools.33 The authors note that camels are regarded as both a pest and resource and that camel
densities vary.34 In order to reduce populations, harvesting “would need to increase
dramatically.” 35 Even taking into account those zones where camel densities are high, or
camels are otherwise more available for harvesting, it would take an increase in commercial
harvesting in the order of 30% per annum until 2022 to reduce camels to a level that
regulators consider acceptable.36 The authors also express a similar concern with respect to
culling:
The political (i.e. short term) imperative is for culling. However, this does
not necessarily mean that culling by shooting to waste will succeed in
controlling camel numbers in the long term. Previous large-scale culls of
feral herbivores, such as the feral buffalo of northern Australia in the 1980s,
produced dramatic reductions of numbers in the short term, but with a longterm population bounce back. 37
Another problem that is related to the lack of success in meeting management goals is that
from an ethical perspective the regime entrenches culling as a first point regulatory response.
Once killing for the greater good is established as an accepted part of the reality for dealing
with invasive animals it then moves from killing for the greater good to killing as a
commercial and/or recreational industry. This has already occurred in Australia with respect
to Kangaroos and brush-tailed possums.38
Penny Olsen, Australia’s Pest Animals, New Solutions to Old Problems, Bureau of Rural Sciences (1998), 31,
41 and 53.
33
Benxiang Zeng and Rolf Gerritsen, ‘Inadequate Contribution of Commercial Harvest to the Management of
Feral Camels in Australia’, (2013) 56 (8) Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 1212, at 12123.
34
Ibid, at 1213 and 1216.
35
Ibid, at 1216.
36
Ibid.
37
Ibid, at 1222.
38
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Management Plan for the Commercial
Harvest and Export of Brushtail Possums in Tasmania 2010-2015Wildlife Management Branch Department of
32
9
Conclusion
The introduction to this paper asked whether society’s obligations to invasive animals are
limited by notions of welfare or whether it is valid to consider the life of individual species.
Providing a clear-cut answer to this question is most challenging. A major difficulty stems
from the fact that humans have altered and impacted upon much of the earth. In light of this
fact, a relevant issue ought to be how society deals with animals who have become invasive
because of society’s activities. Low meaningfully observes that humans need to live with the
nature they have created.39 What is more, “nature” should not be considered as a detached
realm characterised by its unspoiled features; but rather, should embrace the human influence
in a new and altered vision of the environment. Significantly, this includes acknowledging
that there is a place for alien species.40 At the same time, Low does emphasise that species
can cause damage and if society’s aim is conservation of nature, “Conservation is
intervention, and intervention isn’t easy.” 41 The same could be said of preventing economic
damage from invasive species.
However, intervention need not always be by lethal means. The Model Codes themselves
clearly state that killing as many animals as possible is not an effective approach and have
broached the use of non-lethal measures. Non-lethal means, however, are said to be
expensive, time-consuming or not yet developed. Given the human element with respect to
the introduction and spread of invasive species, society needs to change its attitude and
examine its own practices that may have led, and continue to lead, to species becoming
invasive. Otherwise, if as a community we turn to killing every time a species impedes or
inconveniences society’s activities, we may eventually find ourselves alone on this planet.
Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Tasmania (2010), State of South Australia, Department of
Environment, Water and Natural Resources, South Australian Kangaroo Management Plan 2013-2017 (2013).
Available from < http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/managing-naturalresources/Plants_Animals/Abundant_species/Kangaroo_conservation_management > (last visited November
2014); Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, Queensland Wildlife Trade Management Plan for
Export Commercially Harvested Macropods 2013–17, The State of Queensland, Department of Environment
and Heritage Protection, (2012). Available from < http://www.qld.gov.au/environment/assets/documents/plantsanimals/macropods/trade-manage-plan2013-2017.pdf > (last visited November 2014); Office of Environment
and Heritage, NSW Kangaroo Management program Kangaroo Management Plan 2012-2016 Office of
Environment and Heritage, Department of Premier and Cabinet (NSW) (2011). Available from
<http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/wildlifemanagement/KangarooHarvestMgmtPlan2012.htm > (last visited
November 2014);
39
Tim Low, The New Nature, Winners and Losers in Wild Australia Penguin, (2003) at 21.
40
Ibid and also see also chapter 8.
41
Ibid at 30.
10