CHAPTER 2 - ETHICS AND OPINIONS
Introduction
2.1 The degree to which individual members of the public accept commercial
utilisation of wildlife varies greatly. In the first instance, acceptance
depends primarily on the ethical stance taken (that is, whether they believe
that it is morally or ethically right to use animals). A decision at this
point is usually based on a value judgement which relates to an individual's
general moral viewpoint. Should there be acceptance at this point, the next
level is whether 'wildlife', as opposed to European agricultural species,
should be subject to commercial use. A decision at this point is also
frequently based on a value judgement as to whether 'wildlife' is sacrosanct.
Curiously, at this point there is often acceptance of the use of native plant
species but not native animals, or of some animals but not others. Should
there be acceptance of commercial use of wildlife in theory, the next question
is whether wildlife can be used in an ecologically sustainable manner.
Critically, a decision at this point is most likely to be based on the degree
to which there is education and understanding about the management of wildlife
utilisation, the ways it can assist conservation and the potential for
mitigation of detrimental impact. If it is accepted that ecologically
sustainable utilisation of wildlife is possible, often an element of animal
welfare is then raised, whereby proponents concede that wildlife can be used
as long as the welfare of the animal is given due consideration.
An Ethical Approach to Commercial Utilisation of Wildlife
2.2 The need for an ethical starting point has been an underlying theme to
this inquiry. This need was sometimes expressed and at other times an
underlying assumption which witnesses found hard to articulate.
2.3 A number of witnesses claimed they were operating from an ethical
basis against those who held an opposing point of view but, when asked,
most witnesses did not find it easy to spell out exactly what their ethical
basis was. An exception to this was the written submission by the Australian
and New Zealand Federation of Animal Societies (ANZFAS) and oral presentation
by the Director, Glenys Oogjes, who quoted Professor Singer, a well known
ethicist, especially in the area of animal rights. However, the value
of this submission was diminished as Professor Singer was not available
to be cross examined and Ms Oogjes felt she was unable to answer questions
about this section. [1]
An Ethic In Favour Of Commercial Utilisation?
2.4 Those witnesses who argued for the commercial utilisation of native
wildlife often did not explain clearly their starting points, nevertheless
there were assumptions behind what they were saying (or had written).
2.5 One of those assumptions was the broad argument that the demand for
animal protein to feed the world's human population provides sufficient
justification for the use of animals as food. This argument is based on the
notion of the greatest good for the greatest number. However, witnesses did
not address the counter claim that feeding animals with grain, for example, is
inefficient in terms of the conversion rate of grain into protein when
consumed by animals compared with the direct consumption of grain as food by
humans.
2.6 A sub-set of this debate is about which animals may be consumed as
food. While some witnesses argued against any consumptive use of animals,
others argued that they would allow the use of domestic animals for food for
humans but not the use of native wildlife.
2.7 Reasons advanced for making this distinction included claims that
centuries of selective breeding make domestic animals much more suitable as
food because they provide a much greater mass of meat per animal. Also, the
argument was advanced that, should there be a greater consumptive use of
native wildlife, this will inevitably lead to farming of such animals followed
by selective breeding and genetic manipulation. Should this occur there is the
possibility of a change in the nature of species and a loss of original
genetics.
2.8 Another variation of the debate is the argument that the consumptive
use of some native animals (for example, fish) is preferable to the
consumptive use of others (for example, marsupials). However, it is difficult
to sustain an ethical argument based on a graduation in the intrinsic worth of
species. At its crudest it seems to be an argument about which species is more
'cuddly'.
2.9 The debate about the use of animals as food also involves arguments
about animal welfare and whether Codes of Practice are enforceable and
therefore whether they work. This debate is taken up elsewhere in this Report
(Paragraph 6.63).
2.10 A separate argument in favour of commercial utilisation was not
expressed directly but at times was an unspoken justification for the use of
animals. This was the assumption that, because humans are seen to be the most
advanced species in terms of evolution, then this gives humans right to
dominate other species - the 'survival of the fittest' argument. This is
sometimes given a theological justification as discussed below.
2.11 Probably the most serious argument advanced for the commercial utilisation
of native wildlife was put by witnesses such as Professor Gordon Grigg
[2] and Dr John Wamsley. [3] They argued that commercial utilisation can
lead to an enhanced conservation value in terms of preservation of habitat,
recovery of threatened species and enhanced support for biodiversity.
For example, Dr Wamsley's Warrawong Sanctuary in the Adelaide Hills has
re-established a number of threatened species which had almost been wiped
out through human intervention. He argued that he has achieved this because
the animals were given a monetary value.
2.12 Professor Grigg has conducted extensive research in marginal
rangelands and proposes that domestic animals such as sheep, goats and cattle
should be removed from these areas and replaced with the harvesting of
kangaroos. He argued that this kind of commercial utilisation of native
wildlife would enable these areas to gradually recover, especially where there
has been serious soil degradation.
2.13 The above elements of the debate are not necessarily all ethical in
nature as they rely also on biological and ecological arguments. However, they
lead to the following important questions:
- Are human beings a part of, or separate from other living things?
- That is, are human beings one species amongst other species and part of
the inter-relatedness of all species, or unique in the sense that they stand
apart from and above all other species?
- On what ethical basis do human beings have the right to use other
species for human benefit but to the detriment of those species?
-
Animals versus Humans
2.14 What follows is simply an outline of where some of the answers to
these questions may be found. It is not possible in a report of this nature to
canvass all the implications of these questions.
2.15 Those who argue against the commercial utilisation of native wildlife
usually do so from the perspective that animals are 'sentient creatures' which
are similar to us and therefore should not be treated as things. The ANZFAS
submission quoted Professor Peter Singer:
Commercialisation sees sentient beings as things, and asks how we can
best profit from them. An ethical attitude sees wild animals as sentient
beings, and asks how we can best protect and preserve their interests,
while recognising that our own interests must also count, especially where
our own survival is at stake. [4]
2.16 Those who are for commercial utilisation argue that human beings have
a right to use animals because this is part of the natural order of things or
that it is necessary for human survival, or at least permissible in order to
enhance the quality of human life. These arguments also usually assume or
state that human beings are superior to other animals and therefore, in an
evolutionary sense and as the apex of evolution, have the right to exploit
inferior species.
2.17 There are theological arguments as well which are sometimes advanced
to justify the use of animals by human beings. The ANZFAS submission is
critical of this kind of theology:
The entire mind-set that lies behind that of 'sustainable use' and 'harvesting
a resource' is derived from a Western (Christian) tradition that makes
animals merely of instrumental value is therefore fundamentally wrong.
[5]
2.18 The reference is to an on-going debate between ecologists and some
aspects of Christian theology about the meaning of such passages in the Bible
as Genesis 1:27-28:
So God created man in his own image; in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them, God blessed them and said to them, 'Be
fruitful and increase, fill the earth and subdue it, rule over the fish in the
sea, the birds of heaven, and every living thing that moves upon the earth'.
2.19 It is assumed from this passage that words such as 'subdue' and 'rule'
justify a kind of 'divine right' to dominate and use animals in whatever way
human beings determine. While in the past these words have been interpreted in
this way, modern scholarship does not support this interpretation at all.
Contextual, exegetical and linguistic considerations all point to the meaning
of this passage as being about human beings living in a responsible, dynamic
relationship with all other living things and with the earth itself.
2.20 There are other aspects to this debate such as the nature of this
relationship before and after the 'fall' (Genesis 3) but these cannot be
pursued here. Readers of this report are referred to recent writings by
Christian thinkers such as Animal Theology by Andrew Linzey and The
Good Earth by Paul Collins.
Ethics and Economics
2.21 Dr John Hatch from the University of Adelaide made some telling
points in his submission to the Committee about the relationship between
commercial utilisation and market forces. [6] He warned about depending on the market to
achieve a good ecological outcome given that markets are 'not easily predicted
or controlled'. To quote him more fully:
To be more specific. When you turn a wild creature into a commercial
good, you willy nilly release forces, market forces, which may well be
largely outside society's immediate and close control. It is something
of a gamble to assume, as some do, that these forces will further environmental
and biodiversity goals. Markets, particularly competitive ones, create
information and incentives. They are organic not mechanical and therefore
not easily predicted or controlled. [7]
2.22 Dr Hatch's point also serves as support for those who warn against
turning living things such as animals into commodities. He argued that
commercialisation (commodification) 'changes the nature and/or our perception
of things' so that a wild animal is less wild and therefore different
once it is treated as a commodity to be used, or disposed of, without
any thought as to whether it has an intrinsic value for its own sake.
[8]
2.23 This dichotomy is perhaps illustrated best by reference to the way
in which many traditional, indigenous societies understand other non-human
species. These societies see themselves as being related to other species
and deriving meaning from such relationships. So, whilst indigenous people
may kill animals for human consumption, they do not do so in any causal
way or regard it as a right derived from a superior status as human beings.
Rather, they acknowledge that the animal is in some way offering itself
to sustain human survival. Perhaps this is what Professor Singer means
when he writes that human beings have an obligation to care for animals
whilst, at the same time, 'recognising that our own interests must also
count, especially where our own survival is at stake'. [9]
2.24 So, it cannot be argued that there is only one ethical starting point.
Nor should it be argued that one's own position is the only ethical one and
that those on the other side of the argument are motivated by an agenda which
is unethical.
2.25 What can be said is that there are strong ethical grounds for human
beings to see themselves in relationship with all other living things. So,
whether or not the decision is made for the commercial utilisation of native
wildlife, this should be done always with an eye to the intrinsic worth of
non-human species. The final words of Dr Hatch's submission are a timely
reminder to all sides in the debate:
The point is that markets evolve, incentives are created and they are
driven substantially by individual self interest, albeit an aggregation
of individual self interests. None of these ensure collective interest
especially when our knowledge base is so poor. In much more practical
terms, it may well be true that in the immediate future we can only defend
some environmental assets by commercialising them. It may be that it is
the only strategy that will work. However, I do not believe that bringing
everything into the narrow ambit of the market is a long term and sustainable
solution for environmental conservation in general or preservation of
biodiversity which is a major part of that. Biodiversity is the continuing
and changing product of forces largely outside human control. Markets
are another set of forces, partially outside human control, but following
a set of incentives which operate on humans. Ultimately, it may be seen
as extreme hubris on our part as a species to want to integrate the two
and become the managers of the environment, using our most potent and
yet dangerous weapon - market forces. [10]
Review of Submissions Spectrum of Views
2.26 The submissions sent to the Committee revealed a high degree of
disagreement about the ethical desirability of commercial utilisation of
wildlife, aside from any impact on the environment, economics or biodiversity.
Most submissions could be classed in one of five categories:
- animals have a right to exist without interference from humans and
therefore commercial utilisation of wildlife is wrong, as is any use of
animals;
- wildlife has an intrinsic value and is different from domesticated
animals and therefore commercial use of native animals is wrong;
- Australian wildlife is already threatened in many ways and the
conservation value of most native species, and in particular animals, would
be threatened by commercial use;
- commercial utilisation of wildlife is acceptable if it can be proved to
be ecologically sustainable and if it has a conservation benefit to the
species involved or its habitat; and
- commercial utilisation of wildlife is acceptable if it does not have any
detrimental impact on the environment and is economically sustainable.
2.27 Submissions belonging to the first three groups were more
philosophically aligned to each other than to the last two groups and,
similarly, the last two groups had many views in common.
(1) Objections Based on Animal Rights
2.28 The well-being of all animals, whether they are native or exotic,
wild or domesticated, is of concern to many people in Australia. The degree
of concern, however, ranges from absolute protection of animal rights,
to a position where use of animals for varying purposes is acknowledged,
but that use is tempered by considerations of the welfare of the individual
animal. Animal rights groups, most usually represented by branches of
the non-government organisation (NGO) Animal Liberation, are totally opposed
to any use of animals for any purpose. They believe that animals have
a right to live untouched in any way by human interference. From this
fundamental premise, animal rights groups oppose commercial utilisation
of wildlife, just as they oppose use of any animal, other than for strictly
regulated eco-tourism activities. [11]
2.29 Animal Liberation takes the view that it is immoral to exploit any
sentient being for purely commercial gain, even if the exploitation is
carried out in a humane manner, because animals are not the property of
human beings. Just as people have come to understand that having power
over other people does not bestow a right to treat them as disposable
items, having power over animals does not bestow a right to treat them
in any way we want. Animals have the same right that people have to live
their lives without interference. [12] Commercial utilisation of wildlife is 'inherently
cruel' because codes of practice are inadequate, because there is no such
thing as humane shooting of kangaroos or cruelty free emu and crocodile
farming practices, and because wild animals are not adapted to co-habit
with humans as are domestic species. 'The rights of these animals are
being abused and they go through much physical and emotional suffering
in the process'. [13]
2.30 Groups objecting to the commercial utilisation of wildlife primarily
on the basis of animal rights included (submission number given in
parenthesis):
- Native Bird Liberation Alliance (57);
- Animal Liberation, ACT (66);
- South Australian Federation of Animal Societies (76);
- Animal Liberation, Vic (87);
- Antivivisection Union (132);
- RSPCA (169);
- Australian and New Zealand Federation of Animal Societies (178); and
- NSW Animal Societies Federation (339).
(2) Objections Based on Intrinsic Value and Sanctity of Wildlife
2.31 The objections to using wildlife in a commercial manner presented by
this group of submissions can be summed up as:
- by its very nature, wildlife is different from domesticated animals or
cultivated plants;
- wildlife has an innate right to exist and should not be exploited;
- wildlife belong to the public, not to the government or to specific
commercial interests;
- the public should value and preserve wildlife solely for its intrinsic
qualities.
2.32 One of the points raised repeatedly by people who objected to commercial
utilisation of wildlife was that it was philosophically wrong to consume
the very animals that were a symbol of Australia and, in particular, were
represented on Australia's coat of arms (emus and kangaroos). Groups such
as ANZFAS considered that it was hypocritical to, on one hand, praise
the glory and uniqueness of Australia's wildlife as tourist icons and
then, on the other hand, use them commercially for consumer products.
[14] As expressed by wildlife carer, Mrs Lorraine
Conley:
As a nation, we are so downright hypocritical. We support our country
in sport by barracking for the Wallabies, the Hockeyroos, the Socceroos,
the Boomers, the Ollyroos. Qantas has a kangaroo on the tails of its planes,
there is the 'buy Australian made' campaign, the preview of the 2000 Olympics
opening ceremony and the like. Then this country condones and promotes
the massacre of millions of these very same species of animals. And for
what? The almighty dollar, of course. Then there is the most hypocritical
thing of all: Australia's coat-of-arms. [15]
2.33 However, other submissions argued that claims of this type were
susceptible to the 'cuddly syndrome'. Noting that there has been little
objection to the use and export of freshwater crustaceans such as marron
and yabbies and to the crocodile industry, one observer commented: 'The
arguments against commercial utilisation of wildlife seem more to do with
'cute and cuddly' than sound scientific argument. [16]
2.34 Major submissions objecting to the use of wildlife primarily on the
basis of its sanctity included:
- Bird Care and Conservation Society, SA (61);
- Australian Wildlife Protection Council (92 & 93);
- Kangaroo Protection Co-operative (129);
- Nascaring Wildlife Carers (297);
- Central Coast Concerned Citizens About Native Wildlife (311);
- Wildlife Foundation (319 & 320); and
- Australians Against Commercialisation of Wildlife (333).
- Objections Based on Threat to Conservation Values
2.35 Quite a number of submissions argued that commercial use of any
species of native wildlife would represent a threat to the conservation
status of that species and would diminish the conservation values of the
environment in which it lived. Many of these submissions argued that a
major impediment to commercial utilisation of wildlife was lack of sufficient
scientific knowledge to allow an adequate assessment of 'sustainability'.
[17] The Arid Lands Environment Council, for
example, argued that 'until basic information about population dynamics
and life histories are known, as well as interaction with other species
in an ecosystem, it will be impossible to set realistic sustainable culling
quotas'. [18] Generally, groups taking this stand were
those listed at Paragraph 2.41.
(4) Agreement Based on Sustainability and Conservation Benefit
2.36 Quite a number of submissions acknowledged that the survival of
many species could not be assured simply through protection in national
parks and other government reserves, and that protection of broad areas
of habitat was now crucial to biodiversity conservation. Those submissions
generally supported sustainable use of wildlife on the basis that it was
carried out in an ecologically sustainable basis on private lands, that
scientifically based monitoring procedures were established and that it
was strictly regulated. For example, the Wildlife Preservation Society
of Australia argued that: 'if the native wildlife provides an acceptable
use, there is no problem with the harvesting given adequate controls as
well as no cruelty in the gathering'. [19]
2.37 Some submissions, while objecting generally to the harvesting of
wildlife, accepted that species which had become 'out of balance' with
their natural population numbers could be harvested. [20] Other submissions accepted captive-breeding
of wildlife provided that there was no detrimental impact to the environment,
but did not accept wild harvesting. [21] Other submissions pointed out that farming
of wildlife was one way in which the impact of illegal taking from the
wild could be reduced. [22] The Humane Society International takes the
position that if trade in wildlife or wildlife products is allowed, 'the
criteria devised to control and manage that trade should be the strictest
criteria possible'. [23]
2.38 However, many submissions that agreed with conditional commercial
utilisation of wildlife also argued that any commercial utilisation of
wildlife must have a direct positive environmental outcome; that is, it should
have a conservation benefit for the species involved or for the habitat of
that species. Generally, groups taking this stand are those listed at
Paragraph 2.42, plus the scientists listed at Paragraph 2.44.
(5) Agreement Based on Sustainable Use
2.39 The view that appropriate management of Australia's wildlife resources
could have a beneficial economic impact to individuals and to the nation was
expressed in many submissions to the Committee. In addition to industry groups
and governments, a number of other independent agencies put submissions
arguing the important role that both existing and new wildlife industries
could play in benefiting the Australian environment and economy. These
submissions did not necessarily advocate a direct link between commercial use
and conservation benefit.
- National Farmers' Federation (106);
- Far North Queensland Network (83);
- Northern Land Council (300).
Disparity Among Conservation Groups
2.40 The issue of commercial utilisation of wildlife is clearly one which
does not have consensus among conservation groups. Some favoured the
ecologically sustainable use of wildlife with conditions and some emphatically
and dogmatically rejected it. Conservation groups which favoured commercial
utilisation of wildlife usually did so on the considered premise that it could
result in benefits to conservation. Those which opposed it, usually did so on
the grounds that no commercial use of wildlife was ecologically sustainable
and that all uses of wildlife would have a detrimental impact on ecological
systems. In some instances, conservation groups which opposed commercial
utilisation of wildlife also held a strong ethical view against the commercial
use of animals (although many of those submissions did not substantiate their
views) and it appeared that those groups were aligned with animal rights
organisations.
2.41 Conservation groups which opposed commercial utilisation of wildlife
included:
- Johnstone Ecological Society (6);
- North Coast Environment Council, NSW (22);
- Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland, Capricorn Branch (37) and
Pine Rivers Branch (134);
- Sunshine Coast Environment Council (54);
- Queensland Conservation Council (65);
- Waterbird Conservation Group (67);
- Nature Conservation Council of NSW (mammals, birds, reptiles and
amphibians) (99);
- Conservation Council of Western Australia (101);
- Stradbroke Island Management Organisation (139);
- Blackwood Environment Society, WA (156);
- Tasmanian Conservation Trust (203);
- Gold Coast and Hinterland Environment Council (253);
- Australian Conservation Foundation; [24]
- Nambucca Valley Conservation Association (315); and
- Threatened Species Network (317).
2.42 Conservation groups which agreed conditionally with the commercial
utilisation of wildlife included:
- Wild Life Preservation Society of Australia (9);
- Latrobe Valley Field Naturalists Club (48);
- Nature Conservation Council of NSW (plants and animals other than
mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians) (99);
- World Wide Fund for Nature, Australia (102);
- Arid Lands Environment Centre, Alice Springs (111);
- Australasian Wildlife Management Society (176);
- Victorian Herpetological Society (190);
- TRAFFIC Oceania (299);
- Nature Conservation Society of South Australia (301);
- Cape York Herpetological Society (308);
- Spencer Gulf Environmental Alliance (farming of wildlife is more
acceptable than harvesting) (328); and
- Conservation Council of SA (330).
2.43 An eloquent explanation for the divergence in views between groups of
conservationists is provided by Canadian scientist Robert Hudson as follows:
Although seldom stated, the root of disagreement among conservationists
may be simply that commercialization runs at cross-purposes with moral
appeals. Much of the money donated to international wildlife conservation
comes from people attracted to the thought of moral duty and wholesome
love for nature. They are unlikely to be convinced that killing animals
is good for them. The public votes with its donations and conservation
agencies have been forced, for better or for worse, to modify policies
and even fundamental views. [25]
Scientists
2.44 The Committee received a considerable number of submissions from
individual scientists who supported sustainable use of wildlife. Mr David
Millar, Exhibition Project Officer at the Australian Museum, who gave
evidence in a private capacity, commented: 'Some degree of commercial
utilisation of native animals is generally supported by those who are
interested in their study '. [26] Submissions supporting commercial utilisation
of wildlife provided by scientists included: [27]
- Dr John Wamsley, Earth Sanctuaries (77);
- Professor Eugene Moll, Department of Natural Systems and Rural
Management, University of Queensland (103);
- Associate Professor Michael J Tyler, University of Adelaide (104);
- Dr Chris Tidemann, Department of Forestry, ANU (142);
- Dr Darryl Houston (148);
- Dr Grahame Webb, Wildlife Management International (157);
- Mr David Millar, Australian Museum (175);
- Australasian Wildlife Management Society (176);
- Australian Veterinary Association (187).
- Dr Michael Vardon, Wildlife Management International (192);
- Professor Gordon Grigg, Department of Zoology, University of Queensland
(200); and
- Mr Melvin Bolton, conservation planner (337).
Indigenous People
2.45 Submissions were put to the Committee by a number of Aboriginal groups
including:
- Central Aboriginal Land Council (298);
- Northern Aboriginal Land Council (300);
- NSW Aboriginal Land Council (174);
- Murwangi Community Aboriginal Corporation (310);
- Bama Ngappi Ngappi Aboriginal Corporation; [28] and
- Edward River Crocodile Farm. [29]
2.46 For the most part, these groups accepted commercial utilisation of
wildlife and expressed a desire to be involved. However, the Central Land
Council was of the opinion that commercial utilisation of native wildlife was
not an appropriate conservation measure in arid regions for following reasons:
- few species have the potential to be harvested or farmed;
- harvesting would be logistically difficult because of the remoteness of
resources from each other;
- transport limitations (distance of resources from markets);
- the conditions for captured animals may be quite harsh; and
- value adding would occur closer to the markets and thus minimal benefits
would pass on to the harvester. [30]
Lack of Informed Debate
2.47 It was clear from the evidence presented to the Committee that the
subject of commercial utilisation of wildlife and its potential benefits
to biodiversity conservation is complex. It was equally clear that at
times people and groups entered the debate without adequate scientific
information and without a full appreciation of the issues and their intricacies,
or without practical experience of conservation problems. For example,
one submission stated: 'Our stance is not complex it will be similar
to every other Conservation group in the country. We will add the weight
of our society and its 200 members to the case for opposing any commercialisation
of Australian native wildlife. We are not making a scientific or technical
submission'. [31]
2.48 The lack of informed debate was of concern to a number of people
who gave evidence to the Committee. For example, in criticising the statements
made by some animal rights groups, Mr David Millar commented: 'while [animal
liberationists] appear to me to be long on rhetoric and high on emotion,
most seem uninformed and deficient in practical experience'. [32] To Mr Keith Cook, a crocodile farmer from
Cairns, the public perception of how conservation operated was very limited:
there is very little understanding amongst either government or the
public as to the realities of conservation and how they relate to the
consumptive use of these things. It is easy to sit down and have your
bowl of Weeties in the morning and forget the fact that we wiped out most
of the wheat belt areas of Western Australia and southern New South Wales
to produce the wheat; but try shooting a koala and it is the end of the
world. [33]
2.49 Nadine and Paul Marshall of Endemica Furniture, a business based on
the production of high quality furniture from recycled timber and kangaroo
leather, stated in their submission:
The future benefits to Australia of commercial utilisation of native
wildlife are immense. However the Australian government, together with
businesses such as our own, must make concerted efforts to communicate
to the Australian and international public the importance of changing
our perceptions of the sanctity of native wildlife to embrace a broader
and more informed environmental ethic. [34]
2.50 In the opinion of conservation planner, Mr Melvin Bolton: 'There
is no doubt that Australians are concerned about their wildlife but in
general people are not well informed about the science of wildlife conservation'.
Mr Bolton highlighted the fact that misinformed debate was often perpetuated
by a media which pandered to scandal and sensational headlines: 'To make
an analogy, it is rather as if car thieves were publicly regarded as the
major threat to traffic safety'. [35]
2.51 Finally, Dr Grahame Webb of Wildlife Management International noted
in his submission that the image of Australian conservationists overseas
was not positive: 'We are considered to be arrogant, narrow-minded and
totally oblivious to the real conservation problems that most of the world
and the world's people are faced with'. [36]
Conclusion
2.52 From the breadth and depth of submissions, the strong element of moral
judgement and the expression of views not necessarily based on rigorous
scientific information, it is clear that in Australia there is a strong and
vocal minority who believe that there should be no commercial use of native
wildlife. At the other extreme there are a few people who have little respect
for native fauna or flora. In between, there is in all likelihood a large
majority of people who hold the view that there could be some sustainable use
of wildlife, with differing views on which species can be used and under what
circumstances. This report explores the current and potential beneficial and
detrimental impacts on the environment and on the economy, the conditions
whereby commercial utilisation of wildlife is acceptable, problems with the
regulatory environment and, in Part II of the report, the current diversity of
wildlife use.
Footnotes
[1] Submission No. 178; Evidence, p. RRA&T 953.
[2] Submission No. 200.
[3] Submission No. 77, Evidence, p. RRA&T 609ff.
[4] Submission No. 178, p. 3.
[5] Submission No. 178, p. 2.
[6] Submission No. 56, Evidence, p. RRA&T 567ff.
[7] Submission No. 56, p. 2.
[8] Submission No. 56, p. 3.
[9] Submission No. 178, p. 3.
[10] Submission No. 56, p. 5.
[11] Submission No.s 35, 57, 66, 87, Evidence, p.
RRA&T 537, 539.
[12] Submission No. 66, p. 1-2.
[13] Submission No. 87, p. 15.
[14] Evidence, p. RRA&T 952.
[15] Evidence, p. RRA&T 105.
[16] Submission No. 210, p. 5.
[17] See for example, Evidence, p. RRA&T 481.
[18] Submission No. 111, p. 4 (Note, however, that
ALEC conditionally agree with commercial use of wildlife).
[19] Submission No. 9, p. 3.
[20] For example, a submission from Alice Springs,
signed by 62 people, suggested that 'adult birds like the corella or the galah
could be collected from wheat farming regions where the growing of wheat has
produced an explosion of these species well out of balance with what the
natural environment can or has supported' Submission No. 55, p. 2.
[21] For example, Submission No. 55.
[22] Submission No. 6.
[23] Evidence, p. RRA&T 38.
[24] ACF Policy Statement No. 61, Tabled by the
Nature Conservation Council of NSW, 8 September 1997.
[25] Hudson, R J 1997 Paths to Conservation
Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, Edmonton,
http://cervid.forsci.ualberta.ca/ENCS376/Lectures/Trade/Trade p. 2, quoting
Bonner 1993.
[26] Evidence, p. RRA&T 740.
[27] Note: although the affiliation of each
scientist is given, unless otherwise stated, submissions were usually made in
a personal capacity. There were no submissions from individual scientists
opposed to commercial use of wildlife.
[28] Evidence, p. RRA&T 284ff.
[29] Evidence, p. RRA&T 179ff.
[30] Submission No. 298, p. 4.
[31] Submission No. 61, p. 1.
[32] Supplementary Submission No. 175, p. 1.
[33] Evidence, p. RRA&T 277.
[34] Submission No. 147, p. 2.
[35] Submission No. 337, p. 4.
[36] Submission No. 157, p. 6.
|
