• myGriffith
    • Staff portal
    • Contact Us⌄
      • Future student enquiries 1800 677 728
      • Current student enquiries 1800 154 055
      • International enquiries +61 7 3735 6425
      • General enquiries 07 3735 7111
      • Online enquiries
      • Staff phonebook
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Griffith Research Online
    • Journal articles
    • View Item
    • Home
    • Griffith Research Online
    • Journal articles
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

  • All of Griffith Research Online
    • Communities & Collections
    • Authors
    • By Issue Date
    • Titles
  • This Collection
    • Authors
    • By Issue Date
    • Titles
  • Statistics

  • Most Popular Items
  • Statistics by Country
  • Most Popular Authors
  • Support

  • Contact us
  • FAQs
  • Admin login

  • Login
  • British Colonialism, Australian Nationalism and the Law: Hierarchies of Wild Animal Protection

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    91616_1.pdf (321.3Kb)
    Author(s)
    White, Steven
    Griffith University Author(s)
    White, Steven W.
    Year published
    2013
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    A combination of animal welfare law and nature conservation law establishes a hierarchy of protection for wild animals, with rare, threatened or endangered native animals receiving the highest levels of protection, plentiful native animals lying in the middle - sometimes wellprotected, sometimes not - and introduced wild animals at the bottom. In reading beyond the accounts of contemporary law, especially in sociology and environmental history, a plausible argument can be made for the proposition that this prevailing general schema of protection refl ects an early 20th century assertion of a distinctive Australian identity, ...
    View more >
    A combination of animal welfare law and nature conservation law establishes a hierarchy of protection for wild animals, with rare, threatened or endangered native animals receiving the highest levels of protection, plentiful native animals lying in the middle - sometimes wellprotected, sometimes not - and introduced wild animals at the bottom. In reading beyond the accounts of contemporary law, especially in sociology and environmental history, a plausible argument can be made for the proposition that this prevailing general schema of protection refl ects an early 20th century assertion of a distinctive Australian identity, combined with the emergence of a conservation ethic and the decline of attempts to acclimatise British wild animals in Australia. Prior to federation the legal protection of wild animals was quite different, with native animals receiving little protection until the late 19th century. Introduced wild animals were initially protected to allow their fl ourishing, but by the late 19th century were increasingly being characterised as 'pests' and their protection wound back. This article explores how and why attitudes to native wild animals and introduced wild animals in Australia have changed over time, and how this continues to be refl ected in Australian law.
    View less >
    Journal Title
    Monash University Law Review
    Volume
    39
    Issue
    2
    Publisher URI
    https://shop.monash.edu/monash-university-law-review-2013-volume-39-2.html
    Copyright Statement
    © 2013 Monash University. The attached file is reproduced here in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. Please refer to the journal's website for access to the definitive, published version.
    Subject
    Environmental and Natural Resources Law
    Law
    Publication URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/10072/60081
    Collection
    • Journal articles

    Footer

    Disclaimer

    • Privacy policy
    • Copyright matters
    • CRICOS Provider - 00233E

    Tagline

    • Gold Coast
    • Logan
    • Brisbane - Queensland, Australia
    First Peoples of Australia
    • Aboriginal
    • Torres Strait Islander