REMAKING WETLANDS - Rethinking Invasion Ecologies from the Environmental Humanities - page 226

each year from 1933, lasting from 1 September to 31 December, until 1938 ( Argus ,
1 July 1933: 27; Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) , 5 December 1936: 14; Ellis, 1940:
203). In that year, ducks were 'scarce' due to a prolonged dry period and state-
wide open seasons were cancelled in both Victoria and NSW ( SMH , 7 December
1937: 12; Canberra Times , 18 December 1937: 3; Argus , 8 December 1937: 17).
Despite these general closed seasons, the NSW Chief Secretary declared a special
open season on ducks in rice areas from 1 September ( Canberra Times , 18 December
1937: 3). Soon after the season began, several 'natural history societies' led a protest
to the NSW Government against the season having been declared at all because
the months for the open season coincided with the duck breeding season.
Representing the protestors to the Argus , the Secretary of the Royal Zoological
Society (based in Sydney) argued that the Chief Secretary's decision was 'high-
handed and contrary to all humane ideas' ( Argus , 8 November 1938: 3).
The protest generated a string of letters to the SMH by farmers, zoologists, and
ornithologists. The debates remained focused on whether ducks should be hunted
through their breeding season. In them, a division is evident between those in
government agriculture who argued for the elimination of ducks in the MIA (and
whose views were reiterated by some farmers), and zoologists and naturalists, who
were becoming increasingly aligned with species protection, and not just on
economic grounds. In these debates, the views of some farmers about having
ultimate control over what did and did not belong on their farms, and eliminating
what did not 'fit', were articulated most directly. For instance, one farmer wrote,
that: 'I quite agree with the agricultural instructor who said that “all ducks should
be destroyed”, meaning, of course, on the Murrumbidgee area' (9 December 1938:
3). In contrast, A. Basset Hull, the President of the Royal Zoological Society,
repeated the Society's 'view that the opening of the duck season on 1 September
was wrong' and also unnecessary as Kinghorn's report had shown that 'ducks are
not a serious pest of rice crops' (29 November 1938: 7). This kind of interest by
natural history societies in the conservation of native species was relatively new in
Australia, and only started in a sustained way in the twentieth century (Jarman and
Brock, 2004: 5; Hutchings, 2012: 79). It is interesting to note too that in 1938
biologists made these arguments for the 'humane' or ethical protection of ducks
under the banner of the societies rather than in their government roles, which
suggests that the societies provided an avenue for these arguments and interests that
their government work did not. 5
A member of the Royal Ornithologists' Union raised the potential consequences
of these open seasons on graziers, arguing that while the concerns of rice growers
over damage from ducks 'cannot be passed over lightly, as it represents big money',
ducks needed to be protected for the benefit of wool-growers who represented
'bigger money' ( SMH , 14 December 1938: 12). Ducks were helpful to graziers as
they ate grasshoppers and snails that carried liver-fluke, which could kill sheep
( Argus , 8 December 1937: 17). The concerns of graziers and ornithologists show
one of the many issues raised by the mobility of birds, as their treatment as
agricultural pests in one area possibly undermined their ability to be agriculturally