Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Management of the fish community of the Goulburn River in south-east Australia has stalled, as river managers, anglers, scientists, policy-makers, and local residents debate which fish belong in the river. In Australia, such questions of belonging are frequently configured around geographical origin; on a distinction between indigenous species as natural, and introduced species as unnatural. However, in managing the Goulburn River, other versions of naturalness are invoked as the final arbiter of which fish should swim in these waters. In this paper, I explore routines and rhetorics of river management, and three different versions of naturalness they perform and entangle: indigeneity, wildness, and ecological functionality. In concluding, I suggest that negotiations over which fish constitute the natural state of the river resonate with contemporary concerns with human citizenship of the nation state.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stéphanie Lavau (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: