Native or Feral?

Classifying whether a species is native or feral is without doubt the most influential form of ideological environmental management in Australia. An ecosystem may be balanced, bio-diverse, adaptable to change, and productive; however, if scientists deem some of the species in the ecosystem to be feral then they will intervene. Funded by government, they will attempt to eradicate the species they have defined as feral. As a result, the ecosystem may be pushed into chaos, immense suffering may be endured by both native and feral animals in the ecosystem, and unforseen problems may result in land degradation and a reduction of biodiversity.

Because classification systems play such an influential role in environmental management, different classification systems have been developed to justify the killing of some animals but not others.

One classification system proposes that any animal that existed in Australia prior to 1788 is a native while all others are feral. This classification system has a significant problem. Specifically, extensive human contact between Asia and Australia for at least 60,000 years resulted in many species of flora and fauna being introduced, such as the dingo, pacific rats, Australian ginger, coconuts, ivy gourd, and five-leaf yam. To only regard flora and fauna introduced after 1788 as feral is to define the humans that lived in Australia prior to 1788 as animals. It is a very racist way of thinking.

Another classification system proposes that anything that was introduced by humans is feral. One of the problems with this classification is that it defines the dingo as feral and in need of eradication even though even though it is the dominant predator in mainland Australia and serves an important role. A second problem with the classification is that it has been used to define animals like the koala as feral if humans introduced them to areas where they had been eliminated from. For example, the South Australian government has funded scientists to slaughter koalas on Kangaroo Island on the basis the koalas were descendants of 18 koalas introduced in the 1930s. Potentially, other endangered marsupials reintroduced to an ecosystem may one day be re-categorised as feral on the basis that there was no proof they lived in an area prior to a human introduction. Alternatively, they may be introduced to one area and subsequently migrate to another, and then be deemed in need of eradication. These control methods prevent ecosystems from changing and evolving as they should do naturally.

A third classification system was proposed by dingo expert Laurie Corbett. Under the classification system, anything that has been shaped by the ecosystem and become unique is a native.  According to Corbett:

“So what constitutes a native animal? It is simply one that lives in Australia and has ecological and/or cultural impact, regardless of taxa, birth site, race, language, length of time in Australia etc. Accordingly, the Dingo most certainly is a native Australian.”

Critics, such as biologist Tim Low, have criticised the classification on semantic grounds. Low has expressed his concern that the classification systems basically makes the words "feral" and "native" obsolete. In his own sarcastic words:

“by Corbett’s definition…the  word sheds its meaning. Native rabbits, native goats, native toads, native trout, native camphor laurels and native prickly pear. O brave new world!”

Ironically, there is a marked difference between Aborigines and non-Aborigines in regards to the importance of defining a species as feral or native. Aborigines who are still connected to the land don't even consider it to be an important question. They just assess the flora and fauna on the basis of usefulness. In the northern territory, they see buffaloes, cats and rabbits as important food sources. Some are regarded as new arrivals while others, such as cats, are just considered to have always been in Australia. Either way, they don’t want biologists coming onto their land to kill them.

The Aborigines’ differing ideologies can be explained as a cultural legacy of their hunter gathering past. Hunter gatherer cultures take a more egalitarian approach to nature. They see themselves as one of the components of the ecosystem and attempt to live as a component in that ecosystem. On the other hand, farming cultures take a hierarchical approach to nature, which sees humans as the governors of the animals. The differences in approaches can be partly seen in the quote by Tom Dystra:

We cultivated our land, but in a way different from the white man. We endeavoured to live with the land; they seemed to live off it "

Most of Australia's environmental scientists take the vertical approach that has flowed from their cultural heritage in farming communities. They see themselves as environmental masters that must control and dominate the ecosystem.

Unfortunately, despite being in agreement that they must govern nature, different environmental scientists have different conceptions about which animals have a moral right to exist and which do not. As the classification systems change with the whims of each scientist, different animals are deemed to be in need of eradication and the ecosystem never has a chance to strike a new balance.

While arguments about which is the best way to categorise an animal as feral or native can be debated forever, there is no debating that semantic arguments are not preserving biodiversity in Australia. Because of scientists killing animals on moral grounds, instead of logical grounds, Australia suffers from desertification to almost 42 per cent of its land, it has 59 of its mammals at risk of extinction, it is the only continent with cats spread completely across it, and is the only continent that has the fox near the apex of the food chain.