Uniting Earthweb

Background

Broadly, an introduced species is a non-native species, that is, it was transferred to an area where it did not evolve or migrate naturally by humans, intentionally or non-intentionally. While this includes species transferred for use in agriculture or as pets, the term is usually used to refer to species which have escaped captivity and established viable populations in the wild. These species may or may not become pests, depending on how invasive they are. Introduced species are sometimes highly successful in new habitats where they are freed from the restrictions of the diseases, competitors and predators that were present in their native habitats. This allows them to potential create an ever increasing range.

"An invasive species is a species occurring, as a result of human activities, beyond its accepted normal distribution and which threatens valued environmental, agricultural or other social resources by the damage it causes.(1)"

Introduced species include feral animals, weeds, introduced marine pests, insects and other invertebrates, fungi, parasites and diseases(2). Familiar introduced species include cane toads, foxes, rats, mice, cats, dogs, brumbies, carp, goats, camels, pigs, water buffalo, European honeybees, European wasps, rabbits, Prickly Pear, Patterson‘s Curse, African Lovegrass, Cape Weed and thistles.

Introduced species are a concern because they compete with (plants, rabbits) or prey upon (foxes, cats) native species, destroy habitat and spread diseases (3), often becoming a threatening factor to their survival and contributing to biodiversity loss. For example, the Bilby needs a constant supply of roots and seeds rich in carbohydrates to survive, so when rabbits or other feral animals graze on or degrade this vegetation, they may experience food shortages(4). One feral cat may eat around five native animals in a single night, comprised of frogs, native rodents, birds and small mammals(5). In addition, hoofed introduced species can contribute to significant erosion damage; and because they are wild it is hard to restrict their access to fragile ecosystems and areas of high natural significance.

See "The Vanishing" – 14 minute video from Sixty Minutes http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=1075026

Introduced species particularly threaten Australia‘s biodiversity because of the geological and ecological history of the continent. After the Pangaea landmass split 250 million years ago, the Australian continent became part of the Gondwana landmass, along with India, Africa, New Zealand, South America and Antarctica. This began to split about 140 million years ago, with first India breaking off, then Africa (120mya), New Zealand (80mya), South America and finally Antarctica (40mya). Australia then spent the next 20 million years drifting north on its own – a lot of time, during which it went through extreme variation in temperature and rainfall. Then approximately 20 million years ago, Australia bumped into the Asian tectonic plate, leading to some interchange of species and genetics, particularly during the last 5 million years when the sea level fell by 120m, opening up land bridges to Tasmania and New Guinea(6).

This unique history, and particularly the long period of separation combined with changing and challenging conditions, has lead to the evolution of Australia‘s unique and highly endemic (found nowhere else) flora and fauna.

Introduced species have been brought to Australia for many reasons, including for:
- Hunting
- Making Australia more European
- Biological control
- During dumping of ballast water from ships
- Quarantine breaches
- Agriculture
- Gardens

The current state of the problem:
- 18 mammal species have established feral populations (and make up 19% of Australia's terrestrial mammal fauna)
- Introduced plants comprise 15% of the total flora
- Exotic fish and are honey bees also problems(7)
- Climate Change may favour introduced species (which are often very adaptable) at the expense of native species

According to the Federal Government Department of Environment, Water, Heritage, and the Arts(8); "It would be desirable to rid Australia of its worst invasive species, but this is not achievable in most cases. The objective for managing the majority of established feral animals is to reduce the damage caused by pest species in the most cost-effective manner. This may involve localised eradication, periodic reduction of feral numbers, sustained reduction of feral numbers, removal of the most destructive individuals or exclusion of feral animals from an area.”

Control methods include conventional techniques (trapping, fencing, shooting and baiting) and biological controls (using one species to control another through predation, disease or parasitism). The potential effects on non-target species always need to be considered, particularly with non-specific and lethal methods such as poisoning. There are also questions about the ethics of using chemicals such as 1080 which is reputedly quite nasty.

There are some conservationists who think all non-natives are evil. I think this is not strictly the case. For example, if we were to simply rip out all the blackberries in Australia today, we would lose many of our small insectivorous bird species from large sections of agricultural land. When the small native shrubs were removed, these became a refuge for these species. Likewise, there are some endangered species that have moved on to feeding on introduced species when their native food was removed and now need the introduced plant to survive. So in some cases, for example where a native species that played a functional role in an ecosystem has become extinct, an introduced species can be an important part of conservation efforts.

Some would suggest that there are many more roles that introduced species can take in good land management. Peter Andrew‘s Natural Sequence Farming theory suggests that plants should be used for their functional service in a landscape, regardless of whether or not they are native. This is a controversial theory, and one that has received a lot of criticism. These ideas are also shared by the permaculture and Transition Town movements.

So that‘s the positive side. On the negative side:
"Feral pigs have been identified, in the relevant recovery plans, as known or perceived threats to sixteen listed species. Of these species:

• thirteen are Endangered - Red-finned Blue-eye (Scaturiginichthys vermeilipinnis), White-bellied Frog (Geocrinia alba), Southern Corroboree Frog (Pseudophryne corroboree), Southern Cassowary (Casuarius casuarius johnsonii), Northern Bettong (Bettongia tropica), Long-footed Potoroo (Potorous longipes), Caladenia elegans, Caladenia winfieldii, Eriocaulon carsonii, Phaius australis, Phaius tankervilleae, Pterostylis sp. Northampton, and Ptychosperma bleeseri; and
• three are Vulnerable - Orange-bellied Frog (Geocrinia vitellina), Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) and Black-breasted Button-quail (Turnix melanogaster)."(9)
  "Of the threatened species listed under the EPBC Act, foxes are considered a threat to 14 species of birds, 48 mammals, 12 reptiles and 2 amphibians, with the orange-bellied parrot, spotted quail-thrush (from Mt Lofty Ranges), herald petrel, Gilbert‘s potoroo and western swamp tortoise listed as critically endangered".(10) 

"Of those species on the EPBC Act threatened species list, feral cats are considered a threat to 35 species of birds, 36 mammals, 7 reptiles and 3 amphibians, with 4 of those, the orange-bellied parrot, spotted quail-thrush (Mt Lofty Ranges), herald petrel and Gilbert‘s potoroo, being critically endangered".(11)
You get the gist....

Social scientists from the Invasive Animals CRC have compiled a literature review on attitudes towards invasive animals in Australasia. "Perceptions and attitudes to invasive animals were found to vary with: gender — males are generally more likely to consider invasive animals a 'serious' problem, and more likely to support intervention and the use of lethal controls; age — older people are generally more likely to regard an animal as a pest (and a more serious problem) than younger people are; residence — rural residents generally perceive invasive animals as being more of a problem than urban residents do; species of invasive animal — eg animals that are capable of being companion animals or are large, attractive mammals, are generally considered more favourably than rodents and non-mammalian species; personal situation — eg attitudes towards species that are seen as a pressing national or local problem tend to be more negative than towards species that are seen as being less pressing, or farther from home; interest — attitudes vary between people with ethical or conservation interests, animal industry practitioners, conservation groups, scientists and health professionals; culture — certain species of animals are seen as companion animals in one culture but as pests and/or food in other cultures."(12)

My Reflections

Tackling introduced species was another challenging topic from a reader; and one I have often struggled with in the past. "Why?" you may ask, "it’s all pretty simple, they are bad" you say, and maybe you are right, but you must be a more pure blooded conservationist than me.

See, I‘ve always felt a little out of place in environmental circles, particularly when this issue comes up. Conservationists can tend to just look at the damage introduced species do (and it‘s a lot) and then immediately become determined to eradicate them. I‘ve known many conservationists who very proudly wear hats made of cat, rabbit or fox fur, as a sign of their "green credentials" (for example Dr John Wamsley who founded Earth Sanctuaries). Some think it is great to run over rabbits in their cars and bash cane toads to death with golf clubs. Me, I‘ve always been a bit too squeamish to fit into this category.

Whenever the topic of killing feral animals comes up I tend to cringe, feeling sorry for the poor creatures who have to suffer now because some idiot set members of their species free in Australia for sport, food, or just to make it look more like England, several generations ago. I used to dream of rounding up all the foxes in Australia, putting them in a zoo type enclosure, sterilising them all, and then just letting them enjoy the rest of their lives until they died.

My piano teacher once tortured me by demanding an answer to a particular ethical conundrum – would I kill a cat if it was going to kill five native mice. Using a utilitarian philosophy and the conservationist‘s love of everything native, I eventually had to concede that yes, it would be best to kill the cat. But it was a hard decision for me to make, as I seem to hold the sacredness of life in quite high regard.

This means I have far too much of an animal rights side to fit comfortably with all conservationists. At the same time, I love our native animals, and I have seen the devastation introduced species can create. Australia was never meant to have hooved animals. So I understand the need to remove introduced species; I just dislike the necessity.

As a kid, I was very fond of Elyne Mitchell‘s Silver Brumby series. These novels, which enthralled three generations of readers, brought the Australian wild horses alive for me, and along with poems like "The Man from Snowy River", fixed them as an important part of Australian history and identity. As Elyne says, "wild horses mean freedom to children in the city". I read all I could about brumbies and learnt that some are descended from horses who were set free after serving in WW1. I also read varying reports about their condition. Those I suspect were most truthful, suggesting that brumbies were seriously undernourished, small, wiry and with no commercial value except as dog food. Silver Brumby fans like me usually suggest that brumbies should be caught and trained to serve as riding horses – but it is questionable whether this market actually exists and there is significant investment of resources required.

Another thing that has deeply affected by perspective on this issue was an article in The Australian Magazine many years ago that documented the intolerable cruelty of a recent aerial brumby cull. I think it must have been the Guy Fawkes River National Park cull in 2000. The article included graphic pictures of dozens of brumbies shot multiple times; including a pregnant mare that had been shot something like 11 times before she died. I think it was this, perhaps more than anything else, which created my qualms about the issues of introduced species management. It is also one of the many strong arguments against allowing hunters into National Parks. If culling is going to be done, to be humane it must be conducted professionally with the highest level of skill available.

Elyne Mitchell herself actually supports the culling of brumbies in the high country.
"'There are too many brumbies,' Elyne said. 'They are not controlled in Victoria or NSW and are not as good as they used to be. 'They were well bred, but the animal liberationists won‘t let them be culled. 'This is silly, as their quality is deteriorating. 'They should be culled or else they will ruin the mountains.' In years gone by, Elyne said, the quality of the brumbies – which came from well-bred horses on the Monaro High Plains – was maintained by shooting out the weedy stallions. A brumby was very quiet when broken in, and made a good packhorse because it was so sure-footed. It was also ideal for droving."(13)

Notably the RSPCA does not oppose lethal control of feral species such as horses(14), but rightly argues for minimisation of suffering during the process. In the context of mountain brumby control, it favours professional aerial shooting rather than the current political "solution" (in NSW) of mustering and trapping. The RSPCA holds that more suffering is caused by the fact that a) the latter approach is ineffective, so significant ecological harm continues to be done by the horses; b) the trapped horses get stressed when passively trapped or actively corralled (e.g. by using helicopters or horse riders); c) they are further stressed and potentially injured when being trucked from remote areas to their usual endpoint – an abattoir (most aren‘t "rescued" as there are relatively few people prepared to take on wild horses when there is often already too much competition for grazing resources, especially in drought)(15).

At university, I did a human ecology course which included a visit to the Snowy Mountains – close to Silver Brumby territory. While there, I gained an appreciation for the incredible fragility of the montane habitats, particularly the mountain fens and bogs. We observed the damage done to these by the hooves of cattle who had been allowed into the park many years ago. Trust me – look at a fen that has never felt hooves and look at one that has, and the difference is vast. One is alive and full of a variety of thriving plant life and the other is a barren stony bottomed pool. Also, cold temperatures mean that any area cleared of vegetation is vulnerable to frost heave. So grazing can slowly turn a rich and diverse habitat into an increasingly bare and less diverse one.

I have not been able to forget that experience, and it‘s a strong argument for keeping anything with hooves out of our mountains, or better yet, anything introduced – as climate change makes it harder and harder for our montane species to survive, the last thing they need is competition from predatory or more competitive introduced species.

Of course, some would say that if they can‘t compete, our native species deserve to become extinct – kind of an extension of Survival of the Fittest. Anyone who knows my passion for endangered species knows I don‘t subscribe to that.

But how does one even define "native"? The classic case is the dingo. They‘ve been in Australia for 3-5,000 years(16), but does that make them native? It‘s likely that their introduction on the mainland wiped out the Tasmanian Tiger from that area of their range; but recent studies have also suggested that their presence reduces cat and fox populations enough to give small mammals some change of surviving in the areas where they are distributed. And if we are targeting all the non-native species, what about us?

***

Camels in particular raise several interesting issues. As far as the impact of introduced species goes, camels are pretty minimal. While they have hooves, the special pads on their feet designed for walking on sand mean that they only contribute minimally to erosion. Thus, while they are introduced and might thus be targeted for conservation purposes, they are not the highest priority introduced species for eradication. To add another interesting twist, Dromedary camels (camels with one hump) are extinct in the wild in their countries of origin (although so many are domesticated that the species is not actually endangered). Australia has the largest wild herd of Dromedary Camels in the world.

Several of our pest species are actually threatened within their native habitats. So does this mean we should preserve them here? What about the cost to our environment? The perhaps obvious solution of simply sending the pest individuals back to their native habitat (apart from being very expensive and difficult) would be unlikely to work as the species will have adapted to Australian conditions through natural selection over the generations since introduction and may no longer be sufficiently able to adapt to the differing conditions in their native habitat....

***

For a couple of years I volunteered in a wildlife rescue shelter in Victoria. The lady who ran the shelter was amazing – a cancer survivor in remission at the time who decided to make her life count after she was given one year to live (12 yrs previously) by sharing her love and compassion with God‘s injured creatures. She let me tag along one day a week to help with rescues and clean cages. I got to learn, and she got to have some company. I was great fun, but occasionally I found it quite confronting.

The law the shelters operate under says any introduced species must be immediately put down. If you get caught with a live feral animal in your shelter you lose your licence. Fair enough, perhaps. Yet, have you ever noticed how similar baby birds of different species look when they are really young? They are basically impossible to identify. Imagine how disappointing it is to spend weeks gently raising a chick, only to realise it‘s an Indian Myna or a Blackbird. Frustrating! Then you have to put it down. And that isn‘t easy for these people. They have to put down injured animals so often... it takes an enormous emotional toll on them, and putting down a healthy one is deeply uncomfortable for them; but they have to do it.

***

Some years ago I had the unusual experience of being quite close to the front line of a campaign to introduce a new species to Australia. I got to hear quite a bit about how very difficult this process is, and the many requirements to get through Quarantine. It was interesting (don‘t get me wrong, I wholeheartedly support Quarantine, but I also understand how frustrating it can be for business).

I had the privilege of being present for one of the Lucerne leafcutter bee introductions. Large polystyrene boxes full of the tiny little bees were opened in a field full of Lucerne to allow the tiny bees out. They are the cutest little things, with green or purple eyes depending on their gender, and I remember being entirely enchanted by them. I was also very sad though to note that all the boxes were lined with a thick layer of little bodies which never woke up (I think they might have been refrigerated or something for transport).

It was a challenging experience for me because I was ardently opposed to the idea of introducing a species to Australia, being well aware of our past ‗success‘ with species like the Cane Toad. However, I also understood the potential economic benefits from the introduction, the potential for a reduction in water use by Lucerne crops (due to a shorter pollination period) and the lack of evidence to suggest any significant environmental impact. I knew how much testing had been done, and it seemed like a relatively harmless species to introduce.

I think, in the end, the introduction was unsuccessful – mostly due to the high percentage of bees dying in transport due to quarantine restrictions making it difficult to establish colonies.

Theology

A few months ago, I organised a working bee to assist with some weeding on a local church property. While we worked away, pulling out large amounts of flowering mustard weed, one of the participants, noting the bees collecting the pollen from the same plants we were targeting, asked me about the ethics of removing their food plants. We quickly reassured her that there were plenty of other sources of food for the bees in the area, including many more mustard weeds; but it was an interesting line of thought. It also helped to push my thoughts towards an issue I was deliberately avoiding at the time – the ethics/theology around killing the weeds.

This issue raises some interesting theological questions. A friend of mine raised some of these questions with some "green" nuns and Buddhists. The nuns felt that the non-indigenous wattles that were coming up from seed within contaminated soil that had previously been dumped on their property represented an example of Creation‘s resilience and tenacity to survive. Ecologists would see these locally non-indigenous and invasive species as weeds that require destruction. Buddhism‘s first tenet of Ahimsa (non-harming), is used by some Buddhists (and Jains, and Yogis, and some Hindus) to justify not taking any lethal action to control invasive plants or animals. They would rather avoid the bad karma associated with killing e.g. a feral fox, than tackle the larger issue of the harm / suffering that the fox causes to its unnatural prey species and their habitat / ecosystem.

The Dalai Lama was once asked for his views on the issue of killing ferals – an obvious problem given the general Buddhist prohibition on taking life. He reverted to the core tenet of Ahimsa (non-harming) to argue that sometimes you have to kill or seriously constrain the freedom of some things, namely species introduced by people, in order to minimise suffering of other beings and systems. So Cane Toads can be trapped or otherwise killed or controlled because failure to do so causes more harm than does the control measure. Weeds would attract the same ruling, as would the widespread exotic Garden Snail.

If your theology holds that God gave humanity the right to use creation for our own benefit, then as long as we see some benefit in removing the weeds and promoting native species there may be little theological dilemma.

A theology that holds instead that all animals and plants exist to praise God and because it pleased God to create them, must find this question more difficult. It becomes a question of how God might see the situation and prefer to be praised by his creation and served by us as God‘s stewards.

So, how might a Christian form a theological response to this issue?

Well, firstly, I think as Christians it is always important to begin by removing the plank from our own eye (Matt 7:3-5). In this case, it is important to acknowledge that the blame for the issue of introduced species does not rest upon the individuals of those species, but upon our own shoulders as the descendants of those who brought them to this country and/or members of the human race. Therefore, our response begins with an acknowledgement that this is an issue that needs to be addressed and a repentance and seeking of God‘s will in the matter. Our aim is to worship and serve God and move away from the "sin" of the continuing ecological degradation caused by introduced species.

However, we must also uphold the principle of being a good neighbour by considering the most vulnerable, despised and disadvantaged in this situation. We must love and care for both the individuals of the native and introduced species.

We know from scripture (Genesis 2:15) that our role on Earth is to tend and care for creation and to represent God as his stewards maintaining the garden. This would suggest that it is reasonable to assume that where the garden is threatened by something that is out of place and preventing the correct function of the ecosystem, we have the right and responsibility to act to alter this situation. We know that God cares for creation (Psalm 65:9, 12-13, Matt 6:26) and wants it to thrive.

We also know that all creation praises God (Psalm 66:4, 69:34 among others). We could perhaps say, therefore, that culling introduced species is reducing the individual animals free to praise God. However, we could also say that creation might praise God in a truer and more wholehearted fashion where the ecosystems are free from the damage created by introduced species.

We also know that Jesus came not just to save humanity, but all of creation (John 3:16-17); that Jesus reconciles all of creation to God (Colossians 1:19-20) and that creation is waiting for the Children of God to be revealed (Romans 8:19-21). Thus, while creation was separated from its ideal state because of the fall of man, Jesus has now made it possible for creation to be reconciled with God and return to that state, but it is waiting for God‘s children in the church to reveal their love of God by working to restore and redeem creation on God‘s behalf until Jesus returns to complete this work. Thus, while the introduction of invasive species might be seen as a symptom of the fall, perhaps working to protect native species from their impact is a work of redemption.

Further Reflections

There was a really bizarre incident late last year with then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd being called a "serial killer" and the culling of 6,000 camels in remote Australia being labelled as "genocide" by a US television host who demonstrated how the animals would be killed using a stuffed camel toy. While a bit absurd, this incident demonstrated just how heated the debates over the management of introduced species can get. UK residents, outraged by the plans, warned other Europeans not to visit Australia. Online comments began labelling Australia as a Third World country and saying that we are not worthy of G20 status and have chips on our shoulders. William Burt wrote "Please tell all your friends that Australia is the worst nation on earth and they should stay away"(17).

Violent emotional reactions like this must make it very hard for National Park managers and decision makers to make objective decisions about the best management of Australia‘s introduced species. Unfortunately, this issue does tend to disintegrate into a debate between emotions and science/reason. If we are going to move forward with this issue in Australia it is important for both sides to make an effort to understand each other‘s points. There needs to be heart in how we deal with this issue, but there also has to be reason; and while, as God‘s creatures, individuals of introduced species do have rights, they don‘t have any more rights than native species. Perhaps they even have less – not because their lives have less value, but because they simply don‘t belong here, and their presence creates damage to the environment as well as biodiversity; and the environment also has value, as do, I think, functioning natural ecosystems and species assemblages. It is really sad and wrong that these species have to suffer for something that is our fault, not theirs, but if the suffering is ever going to stop, perhaps they need to be sacrificed for the greater good. As Christians with a crucified saviour, I think we can understand that.

Here is an interesting quote from a friend worth thinking about:

"When faced with the 'mass slaughter' of brumbies (as would be necessary now given their numbers), some people would ask those who organised, approved, and carried out the killing, 'How can you do this?!' My response would be – 'How could I not do this, given the level of harm that these creatures do through our carelessness, blindness, an arrogance. It is those who let their horses run wild – those who even now, continue to deliberately reintroduce horses to reserves – those who were ignorant or chose to remain ignorant to the harm that the brumbies do – the politicians who lacked the moral integrity and courage to pursue the only effective control measure because it might harm their re-election prospects – those in the media who sensationalised the issue and told only part of the story in order to draw public outrage and boost their employer‘s ratings and their own career – those who lie in public about the facts of the situation – those who close-mindedly place their romantic notions of horses and horse/pioneer culture above the public/ecological interest – those who distort religion to argue that humans and human culture must take precedent over all other life (as though we are not all connected) – who you must challenge with your questions. Attacking those who grit their teeth, risk their life, and work very hard to quickly and effectively shoot many horses in very difficult situations is akin to condemning the Vietnam War veterans, especially the conscripts, because they did something that you oppose – and because many of them may have had to kill, possibly to avoid being killed.'" Anonymous

***

Perhaps one of the issues that impacts on our perceptions of introduced species is our familiarity with them compared to native species. We have this history with introduced species. Whether we like them or not, all of us know what rabbits and foxes are – we have all seen them and the damage they do and we all have stories about our interactions with them. Most of us have no trouble identifying weeds like thistles, Patterson‘s Curse, Prickly Pear and Cape Weed. We have introduced species for pets, we have introduced species in our gardens, and we tend to be comforted by European style landscapes and farming scenes. We grow and eat introduced species and give arrangements of introduced flowers to each other as gifts and make displays of them for our churches.

In contrast, most native species are far less familiar to us. Some of us know the basics – wattles, Eucalypts, grevilleas, banksias, bottlebrushes, koalas, kangaroos. But are you familiar with the dibbler, the numbat, the smoky mouse, the Mala, the Red-tailed Phascogale, or the Southern Purple Spotted Gudgeon? What about the Bindoon Starbush, Davies‘ Waxflower, Tuggeranong Lignum, Basalt Greenhood or the Button Wrinklewort? Many people don‘t realise that Gouldian Finches and Budgerigars are native to Australia. We look at our native forests and think they are messy and ugly... We have relationship issues with our native species.

Then there are the times we can‘t even tell the difference. How many of us know that most of the earthworms we played with as kids are not native? Or remember that the bees we see every day are European Honeybees? When we are running away from them, do we remember that European Wasps are introduced pests? When we try to get rid of house mice and black rats, do we remember where they came from? Whether we know it or not, introduced species are all around us.

Conclusion

Introduced species have been a big issue facing Australia for many years; however in recent years attention has been directed away from this issue as Climate Change has grabbed everyone‘s attention. While Climate Change is important, it is also essential that we do not lose sight of the other environmental issues that threaten our country and biodiversity, including introduced species, salinity, erosion, water shortages and habitat loss.

Christians can bring a different, and potentially useful, perspective to the management table when addressing the issue of introduced species. I think our theology urges us to be aware of the science and reason of the issue, but also to have compassion in our dealings with introduced species; allowing us to possibly perform a bridging or mediation role between those who focus on the animal rights side of the issue and those who are most concerned about the conservation side of the issue.

For further information see:

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/index.html
Australian Government Department of Environment, Water, Heritage, and the Arts

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/pestsweeds/pestanimals.htm
Information on feral animal species

http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/docs/pub/IMPFreshwater/index.php?0506
Information on introduced species in freshwater ecosystems

http://www.animalsaustralia.org/issues/introduced_animals.php
A compassionate perspective

References

1 http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/index.html
2 http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/index.html
3 http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/ferals/index.html
4 http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/ferals/index.html
5 http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=1075026
6 Professor Scott Keogh (S2 2010) BIOL2111 Australian Vertebrates, Australian National University
7 http://www.bio.mq.edu.au/units/biol227_pwd/Lecture%207/L7page3.html
8 http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/ferals/index.html
9 http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/ktp/feralpigs.html
10 http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/pubs/tap-fox-background.pdf
11 http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/pubs/tap-cat-background.pdf
12 http://www.animalsociety.arts.uwa.edu.au/forum
13 Alexander, June (2000) Spirit of the wild brumby shines through, Country Living, The Weekly Times, February 16, 2000 p81
14 http://www.rspca.org.au/assets/files/Science/SciSem2010/SciSem2010Proceedings.pdf
15 Jones, B. and Coleman, S. (2006). Animal Welfare – RSPCA perspective. In:
Dawson, M.J., Lane, C. and Saunders, G. (Eds) (2006). Proceedings of the
National Feral Horse Management Workshop - Canberra, August 2006.
16 http://www.australian-wildlife.com/Dingo-information.html
17 http://www.news.com.au/national/camel-lovers-boycott-third-world-australia/story-e6frfkvr-1225806195548

This article first appeared in Salt and Light, Issue 12 (July 2010), the e-newsletter of the Five Leaf Eco Awards.