CANE TOADS - Rethinking Invasion Ecologies from the Environmental Humanities - page 152

meant that it decimated populations of native Australian species—death adders,
crocodiles, goannas, quolls (or native cats), kookaburras and ibises. Unlike indige-
nous prey, the toad's poison contains no unpleasant warning taste. In the absence
of effective predators, and with a rapid breeding cycle, the toad's range quickly
expanded. By the time Lewis set out to make his first film in the mid-1980s, cane
toads occupied more than half the east coast of Australia, with an ever-increasing
range stretching from northern New South Wales along the Queensland coast to
the Northern Territory.
Dr Michael Archer, a mammalogist interviewed in the film, warns that the
ecological impacts of cane toads will be catastrophic. 'What we are gradually going
to see is one of these classic human disasters of a monoculture, gradually a single
species replacing—and a single introduced species—replacing many many natural
species.' He emphasises that the repercussions will be felt throughout entire
ecosystems, and predicts that 'some of the dominant carnivores in those ecosystems
are probably going to vanish'. Clutching eight toads, Dr Bill Freeland, a wildlife
research officer in the Northern Territory, paints a disturbing ecological picture in
which the Territory's wetlands will be transformed into 'a sea of little black
tadpoles'. From there, he argues, the 'total conquest of Northern Australia is but a
hop, step and a jump'. It is left to Freeland to deliver the film's final, deadpan words,
'At the moment we have absolutely no way of controlling the cane toad.'
This story of biological control gone wrong forms the backdrop of the film. But
rather than simply focusing on the ecological impacts of cane toads, Lewis illu-
minates the synergies between cane toads and people. He focuses on cane toads as
homophilic and synanthropic animals, emphasising their fondness for living in close
proximity to humans and the ways in which they benefit from environments that
have been altered by human habitation and industry, such as gardens, farms and
roadsides. As Lewis argues: 'My films are as much about people as they are about
animals. All of the films I've made are about animals that interact or are dependent
or interdependent on humans for one thing or another' (Lewis, 2012). 6 Dismissing
voice-of-God narration as an 'artificial device', he dispensed with it altogether
in his film, using intertitles to bridge any gaps in the story (ibid.). Instead, he wove
together interviews from an extraordinarily wide range of people—politicians,
scientists, farmers, ecologists, children, environmentalists, government officials,
retirees and local residents—who all offered their opinions on the toad.
Lewis was fascinated by how people had incorporated the toad into their
everyday life, domesticating it, transforming it into a companion animal, and even
utilising its poison to obtain an illicit high. He shows how cane toads and people
have come to co-inhabit Queensland's cities and other human-culture environ-
ments, and how in the process the cane toad has become 'a highly ambiguous
symbol of regional identity' (Thomas, 1991: 1119). Caricatures of cane toads
regularly feature in political cartoons, most notably of the notoriously corrupt
politician, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, who served as the Premier of Queensland from
1968 to 1987. Players in the Queensland rugby league team are affectionately
known as 'cane toads'. But it is Lewis's focus on the diversity and complexity of