Victoria is facing a genuine and potentially devastating wildlife disease threat from highly pathogenic avian influenza (H5N1).
Just yesterday, while recording the latest SSAA Victoria podcast, we discussed how disappointing it has already been to see organisations and political groups attempting to hitch their existing agendas to the H5N1 threat.
We specifically discussed the Greens seeking to tie H5N1 to logging, and the Invasive Species Council taking shots from the cheap seats at the Government’s management of the outbreak, seemingly determined to ride the wave of free media attention surrounding a serious wildlife disease threat.
Our point was simple: H5N1 is too serious to become a convenient vehicle for whatever campaign an organisation was already running.
Less than 24 hours later, we saw another example in the Victorian Parliament.
During Question Time today, Greens MP Aiv Puglielli began with a legitimate question to Environment Minister Jaclyn Symes about the threat H5N1 poses to black swans.
Mr Puglielli referred to reports of devastating wildlife mortality in the Southern Ocean and concerns that black swans may be particularly vulnerable to the virus.
The Minister outlined Victoria’s response, including the vaccination program for penguins at Phillip Island, where more than 1,000 penguins have received their first dose. She also explained the very real practical difficulties involved in vaccinating free-ranging wildlife such as black swans.
It was a serious exchange about a serious issue.
Then came the supplementary question.
Mr Puglielli asked:
“Does the government foresee the dispersion of native bird populations due to duck shooting will further exacerbate the spread of H5 bird flu?”
There it was.
A serious discussion about vaccination, wildlife mortality and the enormous challenge of managing an emerging disease suddenly became an opportunity to insert the Greens’ longstanding opposition to duck hunting into the debate.
Importantly, the Minister did not endorse the premise.
She explained that the Government and its expert working group were considering a range of issues associated with the disease before saying:
“I do not have anything in relation specifically to ducks.”
That distinction matters.
No evidence was presented that Victoria’s regulated duck hunting season might contribute to the spread of H5N1. No advice from the expert working group was cited. No scientific finding was offered to establish that recreational duck hunting presents an additional transmission risk.
Indeed, even the premise of the question deserves scrutiny.
Mr Puglielli appeared to assume that the “dispersion” of birds caused by hunting would necessarily exacerbate transmission.
But is that actually what the science tells us?
Disease transmission can be facilitated when susceptible animals congregate at high densities. Dispersing concentrations of birds could therefore reduce close contact and opportunities for transmission within those aggregations. Conversely, movement of infected birds could potentially create different transmission risks.
Which effect matters most for H5N1 in Victorian waterfowl is precisely the sort of question that should be answered by epidemiologists, veterinarians and wildlife disease experts.
It should not simply be assumed that “dispersion” equals greater transmission because that assumption happens to produce a convenient argument against duck hunting.
If expert evidence establishes that hunting increases transmission risk, hunters should take that evidence seriously.
Equally, if the evidence shows that dispersing dense concentrations of birds reduces transmission risk, that should be taken seriously too.
Science first. Political conclusions second.
That is precisely the point we were making while recording our podcast yesterday.
H5N1 is a serious disease threat. Its arrival demands serious, evidence-based responses from governments, wildlife managers, veterinarians, scientists, hunters and the broader community.
Hunters have an enormous stake in healthy wetlands, abundant native bird populations and effective wildlife management. We want vulnerable wildlife protected and H5N1 managed successfully.
What we do not need is every organisation with an existing environmental or political campaign attempting to bolt it onto H5N1 to secure another headline or ride the wave of public interest surrounding the threat.
There will be difficult decisions ahead as Victoria responds to H5N1. Those decisions should be driven by evidence and expert advice, not by whoever can most effectively hitch their political wagon to the crisis.
Victorians and our wildlife deserve better than that.
