REMAKING WETLANDS - Rethinking Invasion Ecologies from the Environmental Humanities - page 225

always work, and there is strong evidence that in some regions of Victoria in the
nineteenth century, hunters significantly reduced the populations of many native
waterbirds (Dow, 2008: 156-160). In addition to open seasons, towards the end of
the nineteenth century, there was also some provision for protecting birds by
conserving nesting areas, a move which was linked to hunting interests. These
'game reserves' were included in the Birds Protection Act 1881 and subsequent similar
Acts. The reserves could be declared for any of the listed birds and in the 20-year
period following the introduction of this Act a series of wetlands were listed as
reserves (s11; Jarman and Brock, 2004: 3; Hogendyk, 2007: 14).
From the end of the nineteenth century and into the early twentieth century,
arguments for the protection of birds in Australia broadened to include their value
to farming, in addition to hunting interests, a shift that was reflected in the
protection of insectivorous birds in various NSW state Acts (Walker, 1991: 20;
Jarman and Brock, 2004: 2-6). Peter Jarman and Margaret Brock have argued that
this change was partly due to intense drought in the late 1880s and 1890s, which
brought the economic and environmental effects of intense over-stocking of sheep
and widespread tree clearing by graziers into focus for both governments and
farmers, and with it a realisation that pastoral land use practices needed to change,
partly because 'native biota were suffering' (2004: 6). R. B. Walker has argued that
the now largely native-born Anglo-Celtic population had a better appreciation of
native flora and fauna than previous generations of mostly European migrants
(1991: 19). With these motivations, throughout this period some sectors of
government and advocates of conservation looked to scientists for information on
'the economic relationship that exists between animals, birds, and agriculture'
(B. Nicholls, 1925, quoted in Jarman and Brock, 2004: 7), partly to counter accusa-
tions by opponents of conservation that animal and bird protection was merely
sentimental. Arguments for the economic value of birds were arguments for their
protection on these grounds. Publications of scientific research into the economic
role of birds in agriculture, for instance, in eating invertebrates, proliferated in the
1920s and 1930s, and was a topic Kinghorn wrote about beyond his work on ducks
in rice fields (1929: 263-271; Jarman and Brock, 2004: 7). 'Sportsmen' were seen
to be allies in bird protection by people like Kinghorn, as they had 'long realised
the necessity of the protection of game during the breeding season' (1929: 263).
As agriculture intensified and expanded in the early twentieth century, particularly
with new irrigation networks and closer land settlement, including from soldier
settlement schemes following World War I, problems between farmers and native
birds and other fauna intensified (Jarman and Brock, 2004: 6-7).
Conflicting interests and the expansion of rice growing:
1930s to 1950s
Between 1929 and 1939, approximately 20,000 to 23,500 acres were sown to rice
each year in the MIA, making rice a fixture of farming there. Farmers' concerns
over duck damage continued and 'special open seasons' were declared in rice areas