Invasive Animal Species: International Impacts and Inadequate Interventions
Author | Dr. Teresa Giménez-Candela & Carly Elizabeth Souther |
Pages | 333-364 |
333
Chapter 14:
Invasive Animal Species:
International Impacts and
Inadequate Interventions
Dr. Teresa Giménez-Candela* and
Carly Elizabeth Souther**
I. Invasive Species: Denitions and Distinctions .....................................338
II. Invasive Animal Species Policies of the United States and European
Union .................................................................................................341
A. United States Statutory Framework ..............................................342
1. e Lacey Act ........................................................................343
2. Pieces of the Patchwork .........................................................346
B. European Union Statutory Framework: Regulation
No. 1143/2014 ............................................................................347
III. Case Studies to Assess Non-Native Animal Interventions .................... 351
A. Case Study 1: ese Pesky Pythons! ..............................................353
B. Case Study 2: ose Damn Ducks! ..............................................356
IV. Proposal for Protection of Non-Native Animal Species ........................ 360
Conclusion ................................................................................................... 363
* I would like to thank our colleague, Professor Randall Abate, for his invaluable assistance
in every phase of this project. Without Carly Souther, no portion of this text would have
seen the light of day were it not for the keen eye and professional standard of her work.
She transformed our collaboration into an exciting academic experience for which I am
truly grateful.
** I am eternally indebted to Chewy and Jake, my childhood English Labrador retrievers,
for teaching me invaluable lessons on adventuring, loving without condition, and chasing
one’s dreams—whether they consist of catching (ahem, dogs) or protecting rabbits (smugly
pats self on back). I also thank my insightful editor, Professor Randall Abate, for running
a metaphorical mile of the marathon known as “academia” beside me, and my charismatic
co.-author, Dr. Marita Candela—me mola tu gramola!
334 What Can Animal Law Learn From Environmental Law?
The European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) is grayish-brown in color
and the size of a small housecat. A sociable animal and prolic
breeder—females ca n have a s many as six litters per year, each pro-
ducing three to eight young (“kittens”)—the European rabbit is native to the
Iberian Peninsula and pockets of France.1 Today, however, this tiny creature
can be found on every continent but Asia and Antarctica.2 In 1859, omas
Austin introduced approximately one dozen European rabbits for hunting
purposes in Victoria, Australia. Due to lack of native predators and mild
winters that facilitated yea r-round breeding, within a century, Australia had
more than 600 million European rabbits.3
e successful acclimation of the non-native European rabbit to Aus-
tralian farmlands has caused many negative ramications to the natural
environment and ecosystem. e Au stralian government has described the
adverse eects as follows:
Feral4 rabbits compete with native wildlife, damage veget ation and degrade
the land. ey ringbark trees and shrubs , and prevent regeneration by eating
seeds and se edlings. eir impact often increases during drought a nd imme-
diately aft er a re, when food is sca rce and they eat whatever they can. Feral
rabbits may have cause d the extinction of several . . . ground-dwelling mam-
mals of Austral ia’s arid lands, and have contributed to the decline in numbers
of many native plants and anim als. In the Norfolk Isl and group, feral rab-
bits .. . reduced Philip I sland to bedrock, leaving at least two plants loca lly
extinct. Feral r abbits even threaten c olonies of seabirds.5
Established non-native species pose a tremendous threat to the ecological
integrity of t he natural systems that they invade. Because inva sive animal
species have an indivisible impact on native ecosystems, they are inherently
an environmental problem. is chapter explores the multifaceted issue of
non-native animal species, a controversy that lies at the intersection of ani-
mal and environmental law.
Australia has tried— and failed—to control the European rabbit popula-
tion through several creative measures.6 Between 1901 and 1907, Australia
1. See Flavia Schepmans, Introduced Species Summary Project: European Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus),
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/cerc/dano-burg/invasion_bio/inv_spp_summ/Oryctolagus_cuniculus.
htm (last visited May 3, 2015).
2. Schepmans, supra note 1.
3. A G, F E R (ORYCTOLAGUS CUNICULUS) (2011), available at
http://www.environment.gov.au/system/les/resources/7ba1c152-7eba-4dc0-a635-2a2c17bcd794/
les/rabbit.pdf [hereinafter F E R].
4. e use of “feral,” a stigmatizing term, is included in ocial government literature.
5. F E R, supra note 3, at 3.
6. Schepmans, supra note 1.
Invasive Animal Species 335
attempted to build a “rabbit-proof fence” to control the westward sprawl of
European rabbits, which are capable of both burrowing underground a nd
jumping very high.7 Realizing the futility of its eorts, the government
began experimenting with biological, chemical, and mechanical measures of
European rabbit control.8 ese measures do not appear to implicate animal
welfare concerns; however, the decades of pain and suering inicted on
European rabbits is evident. Noting that biological controls have been par-
ticularly eective, the Australian government explained:
Biological controls include the myxoma viru s causing the disease myxoma-
tosis . . . Released in 1950, the vir us initially killed over 90 percent of feral
rabbits . . . but some developed resistanc e, makin g the pathogen less eective.
However, the myxomatosis disease st ill keeps populations to an average of
ve percent of former population size s in wetter areas, and 25 percent in arid
areas. e other important biologica l control is the ra bbit cal icivirus disease
... which has proved more eective in wetter parts of the country . . . Austra-
lia currently has only one strain of calicivirus . . . and rabbits are developing
genetic resista nce to infection. Researc h is being undertaken to identify new
eld strains to relea se.9
Poison, particularly sodium ouroacetate, is the primary chemical con-
trol and provides “a high mortality rate of up to 90 percent.”10 Like wise,
warrens11 are f umigated with chemic als li ke chloropicrin and carbon mon-
oxide to kill a community of Europea n rabbits while they nest.12 Mechani-
cal measures of control include physical destruction of warrens (by manually
ripping the warren apart or setting o explosive devices), which deprives
European rabbits of a sa fe place to breed, sleep, a nd raise kittens. Other
methods of mechanical destruction also include fencing, shooting , and
trapping.13 e literature on European rabbit control concludes with the
following disc laimer by the Australian government: “ere is a community
expectation that all animals, including pests a re to be treated humanely.
7. Id. (explaining that “[i]n the early 1900s, the Australian government spent a million dollars to build
a 2,000-mile long fence which kept the rabbits away from the cereal-growing southern regions for a
while, until a few got through the fence and started breeding again on the other side”).
8. F E R, supra note 3, at 3.
9. Id.
10. Id.
11. A warren is a series of underground tunnels, passageways, and runs, where a community of 8 to 12
rabbits lives. See M-W D, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
rabbit%20warren.
12. F E R, supra note 3, at 3.
13. Id.
To continue reading
Request your trial