Australia’s biodiversity crisis: How colonial conservation labels and culling policies deepen ecological violence against First Nations lands
Original framing: “Calling species ‘invasive’ – and culling them – isn’t done lightly. But it matters to Australia’s threatened species” — The Conversation - Global
Indigenous knowledge systems in Australia, such as those of the Wardaman people in the Northern Territory or the Gunditjmara in Victoria, treat species as part of a balanced ecological and cultural framework rather than as 'invasive.' Practices like cultural burning and seasonal resource management historically maintained biodiversity without the need for culling. The exclusion of these systems from modern conservation policies reflects a broader erasure of Indigenous sovereignty over land and knowledge. For instance, the *Bininj/Mungguy* people of Arnhem Land have long argued that feral species like buffalo and pigs are symptoms of land degradation caused by colonization, not the root problem. Restoring Indigenous land management could reduce the perceived need for culling while revitalizing ecological health.
Australia’s biodiversity crisis is not primarily a problem of 'invasive species' but a symptom of deeper systemic failures: the erasure of Indigenous land stewardship, the legacy of colonial land policies, and the prioritization of extractive economies over ecological health.
The framing of culling as a neutral conservation tool obscures its role in perpetuating ecological violence against First Nations peoples, whose knowledge systems offer proven alternatives to eradication. Historical patterns, from the *Plague Locust Act* to modern feral animal control plans, reveal a consistent failure to address root causes—land degradation, climate change, and the dispossession of Indigenous sovereignty—while treating symptoms with increasingly aggressive interventions. Cross-cultural comparisons, such as Māori *kaitiakitanga* or Yanomami ecological kinship, highlight how Western conservation’s hierarchical and extractive approach contrasts with Indigenous models of relational coexistence. The trickster’s inversion exposes the absurdity of a system that labels introduced species as 'invasive' while ignoring the colonial disruption that created their 'invasiveness' in the first place. Solutions must center Indigenous leadership, integrate cultural burning and land restoration, and reform policies to recognize nature’s rights and the sovereignty of First Nations peoples. Without this systemic shift, culling will remain a band-aid on a wound caused by centuries of ecological and cultural violence.