Trigger Warning: Community contains mostly bad environmental news (not by choice!). Community may also feature stories about animal agriculture and/or meat. Until tagging is available, please be aware and click accordingly.

🪲

Aussie Zone Rules.

Golden rule - be nice. If you wouldn’t say it in front of your ~~grandmother~~ favourite tree, don’t post it.
No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. You are allowed to denigrate invasive plants or animals.
Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here. Except invasive plants or animals.
No porn. Except photos of plants. Definitely not animals.
No Ads / Spamming. Except for photos or stories about plants and animals.
Nothing illegal in Australia. Like invasive plants or animals. Exotic microbes and invasive fungi also not welcome.
Make post titles descriptive with no swear words. Comments are a free for all using the above rules as a guide. Fuck invasive plants and animals.

🐝

/c/Aussie Environment acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the land, sea and waters, of the area that we live and work on across Australia. We acknowledge their continuing connection to their culture and pay our respects to their Elders past and present.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

lodion@aussie.zone

Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone

Humpback whales hold lore for Traditional Custodians. But laws don't protect species for their cultural significance (theconversation.com)

submitted 2 years ago by Treevan@aussie.zone to c/environment@aussie.zone

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The ability to list species of cultural significance is not possible under Australian law.

Last month, Australia marked Threatened Species Day by adding 48 more species to the list threatened with extinction.

As three Indigenous ecologists, we argue this approach of affording species greater protection only when they become threatened, falls short of our cultural obligation to care for Country when applied to species of cultural significance.

Waiting for these species to decline in order to show them care represents a failure to uphold lore.

Humpback numbers are recovering after industrial whaling of the species ended in 1963.

If we allocate funding and research based only on whether a species is threatened or not, we risk losing the tangible and intangible elements of cultural heritage and the First Nations knowledge of a species.

Another step is to realign policy and practice to make possible traditional management of culturally significant species.

top 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

How about a radical idea - don't kill sea creatures at all?

[–] Treevan@aussie.zone 3 points 2 years ago

I can't see in the dark without a whale oil candle.

[–] Marsupial@quokk.au 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

How about we don’t apply thousands year old imaginary beliefs to the present day?

Let’s focus on saving wildlife and the planet because it’s the good thing to do not because some dude said we should care about some specific animals a long time ago.

[–] samson@aussie.zone 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Crazily enough, you can actually do both without being a dick.

[–] Marsupial@quokk.au 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah, no.

Religion has no place in the world.

[–] samson@aussie.zone 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's not just religion, it's culture. You can legislate against hurting animals and you can have your reason and those who have cultural practices that align with it can have theirs. It's really not a problem.

[–] Marsupial@quokk.au 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It is a problem when it comes to a species they don’t culturally value and will no longer support conservation efforts because it doesn’t align with their “culture”.

Only doing something because you want to and not because it’s the right thing to is not something we should celebrate or encourage.

[–] samson@aussie.zone 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Unless you can point to an animal that destruction is actively supported by aboriginal people on the basis of culture, this is a straw man argument.

[–] Marsupial@quokk.au 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

That’s not how this works champ.

If a house is on fire and I run in only to save the dog because I value it and don’t bother about the cat, that is not me actively supporting it’s destruction but the end result is the same.

[–] samson@aussie.zone 1 points 2 years ago

If you tell the firefighter to start saving dogs because you love them and they institute a policy of saving all animals in response everyone wins, regardless of motivation. You can do both, this isn't a zero sum game.

[–] Saeculum@hexbear.net 3 points 2 years ago

It's a lovely idea, and absolutely something that should be done when we have a surplus of resources for protecting species, but this is unfortunately a triage situation. Redirecting conservation funds to protect individual humpback whales means that other species will go extinct, when they could have been saved.