Feral violence: The Pelorus experiment

Probyn-Rapsey, F; Lennox, R

Feral violence: The Pelorus experiment

Probyn-Rapsey, F Lennox, R

Permalink

Publisher:: SAGE Publications
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 2022, 5, (1), pp. 362-380
Issue Date:: 2022

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	2514848620976959.pdf	Published version	292.13 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Probyn-Rapsey, F
dc.contributor.author	Lennox, R https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8862-2354
dc.date.accessioned	2022-12-07T20:34:50Z
dc.date.available	2022-12-07T20:34:50Z
dc.date.issued	2022
dc.identifier.citation	Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 2022, 5, (1), pp. 362-380
dc.identifier.issn	2514-8486
dc.identifier.issn	2514-8494
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/164216
dc.description.abstract	In early July 2016, two male dingoes were brought by ferry to a small island called Pelorus in the Great Barrier Reef, off the coast of north Queensland, Australia, as part of an experimental ‘feral’ goat eradication project. What was remarkable about this project was that the two dingoes released on the island had been implanted with a slow-release capsule containing sodium fluoroacetate, commonly known as ‘1080’. These so-called ‘Tik Toks’, produced by a firm called Scientec, were designed to release their poison into the bodies of the dingoes in approximately 600 days, after they had served their purpose as goat exterminators. The public and political backlash that the Pelorus experiment aroused reveals a gap between the team’s ambitions to ‘set the platform’ for the conservation of ‘pristine’ islands and community sentiment concerning animal cruelty. Just how this ‘bizarre’ experiment (as it was described in State parliament) gained ethics approval is one part of this story. Another relates to implants themselves and what this ‘innovation’ (‘the stuff of horror films’ as one petitioner described it) reveals about attitudes to ‘killing for conservation’. The Pelorus experiment also shows us what is frequently concealed by eradication programmes, which is that they rely not on a single act of eradication, but a cycle of violence that we describe here as a form of ‘feral violence’. In the case of Pelorus, the ‘implants’ tipped Conservation’s motif from the romance of ‘rescuing nature’ to that of horror, imperilling the social licence that conservation projects assume.
dc.language	en
dc.publisher	SAGE Publications
dc.relation.ispartof	Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1177/2514848620976959
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.title	Feral violence: The Pelorus experiment
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	5
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access	*
pubs.consider-herdc	false
dc.date.updated	2022-12-07T20:34:49Z
pubs.issue	1
pubs.publication-status	Published online
pubs.volume	5
utslib.citation.issue	1

Abstract:

In early July 2016, two male dingoes were brought by ferry to a small island called Pelorus in the Great Barrier Reef, off the coast of north Queensland, Australia, as part of an experimental ‘feral’ goat eradication project. What was remarkable about this project was that the two dingoes released on the island had been implanted with a slow-release capsule containing sodium fluoroacetate, commonly known as ‘1080’. These so-called ‘Tik Toks’, produced by a firm called Scientec, were designed to release their poison into the bodies of the dingoes in approximately 600 days, after they had served their purpose as goat exterminators. The public and political backlash that the Pelorus experiment aroused reveals a gap between the team’s ambitions to ‘set the platform’ for the conservation of ‘pristine’ islands and community sentiment concerning animal cruelty. Just how this ‘bizarre’ experiment (as it was described in State parliament) gained ethics approval is one part of this story. Another relates to implants themselves and what this ‘innovation’ (‘the stuff of horror films’ as one petitioner described it) reveals about attitudes to ‘killing for conservation’. The Pelorus experiment also shows us what is frequently concealed by eradication programmes, which is that they rely not on a single act of eradication, but a cycle of violence that we describe here as a form of ‘feral violence’. In the case of Pelorus, the ‘implants’ tipped Conservation’s motif from the romance of ‘rescuing nature’ to that of horror, imperilling the social licence that conservation projects assume.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/164216