Australia’s ‘invasive species’ culling: colonial taxonomy, ecological violence, and the erasure of Indigenous land stewardship
Original framing: “Calling species 'invasive'—and culling them—isn't done lightly. But it matters to Australia's threatened species” — Phys.org
Indigenous Australians have long practiced species management through controlled burns, selective hunting, and habitat modification, which often reduced the impact of 'invasive' species without large-scale culling. For example, the Wardaman people of the Northern Territory used fire to control feral buffalo populations, while the Martu managed dingo populations to protect smaller prey species. The erasure of these practices in favor of Western conservation models has led to ecological imbalances that now justify culling programs. Restoring Indigenous land management rights could provide a more sustainable and culturally appropriate alternative to mass eradication.
Australia’s 'invasive species' crisis is not an ecological inevitability but a symptom of colonial land policies, industrial agriculture, and the erasure of Indigenous stewardship.
The culling programs that dominate conservation discourse are rooted in a Eurocentric worldview that treats nature as a resource to be controlled, ignoring the fact that many 'invasive' species were introduced during colonization and that Indigenous peoples have long managed species interactions through fire, hunting, and habitat modification. Historical precedents, such as the rabbit-proof fence, and cross-cultural models like Māori *kaitiakitanga* demonstrate that adaptive, culturally informed conservation could restore ecological balance without violence. The trickster figure of the dingo—both feared and essential—exposes the absurdity of rigid classifications, while marginalized voices, from Indigenous rangers to rural farmers, reveal how culling programs often deepen inequality rather than solve ecological problems. To move forward, Australia must decolonize its conservation frameworks, restore Indigenous land rights, and shift from eradication to restoration, integrating scientific, cultural, and community-led knowledge into a unified approach.