By Lucas Cooke, CEO – Field & Game Australia

In environmental management, few terms have been so comprehensively hijacked by ideology as “disturbance.” Once rooted in legitimate ecological science, it has now become a political weapon—wielded not to protect wildlife, but to exclude hunters from public land. Activist bureaucrats and preservationist lobbyists have turned “disturbance” from a measurable ecological phenomenon into a subjective, untestable excuse for policy overreach.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the most recent—and frankly absurd—wetland closures in Victoria.

Brolga and the Collapse of Logic

Take the case of a Victorian wetland: open all season, regularly hunted, and now suddenly closed due to the presence of Brolga. At face value, the logic doesn’t hold up:

1. Either the Brolga have been present all season—coexisting with hunting activity and thus not disturbed, or

2. They have arrived during the season—indicating that regulated hunting does not repel them, and may coincide with habitat conditions they prefer.

Meanwhile, another nearby wetland that was closed to hunters now has no Brolga present at all. So much for the narrative that hunting drives them away.

This isn’t theory. It’s observable, repeatable field data. It is evidence, the backbone of science. And yet instead of treating this as a learning opportunity, we get more knee-jerk closures, more media stunts, and more policy by ideology.

The Orange-Bellied Parrot Farce

It gets worse.

Earlier this year, the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA), encouraged by preservationist groups, sought to close Lake Connewarre to hunting because the Orange-bellied Parrot (Neophema chrysogaster) might arrive.

Not “has arrived.” Not “is likely to arrive.” Simply might—despite no recorded sightings in Victoria at that time, and GPS tracking showing known individuals were still in Tasmania.

No OBP has ever been reliably recorded in Victoria in March. The earliest confirmed 2024 sighting occurred on April 12, involving three adults arriving on the Bellarine Peninsula (SWIFFT, 2024, Nature Glenelg Trust, 2024).

Claims of their March arrival were not only speculative—they directly contradicted real-time conservation data from satellite tracking and field teams. Yet the closure proposal went ahead, propped up by activist rhetoric and the vague invocation of the precautionary principle.

But courts have already ruled on this.

The Courts: Precaution Isn’t Proof

In 2023, the Victorian Court of Appeal overturned earlier decisions that halted timber harvesting by VicForests based on the hypothetical presence of Leadbeater’s Possum and Greater Gliders. The Court ruled that:

• Activities cannot be suspended based solely on speculative presence,
• VicForests had not breached its environmental obligations, and
• Habitat modelling alone is insufficient without verified species data.

“The precautionary principle is not a licence to prevent otherwise lawful activities based on unconfirmed possibility.”
 — Victorian Court of Appeal, 2023 ruling

If those standards apply to forestry, they must apply equally to hunting access. Anything less is discrimination disguised as environmentalism.

What the Science Actually Says

Globally, ethical hunting is not only compatible with conservation—it is often a critical component of it. Organisations such as Delta Waterfowl, Ducks Unlimited, and Safari Club International incorporate hunting as a central mechanism in wetland management and species protection.

“Waterfowl respond to habitat, food, weather, and predators—not the ethical behaviour of hunters. When habitat is healthy and predators are controlled, populations thrive—regardless of regulated hunting.”
— Dr. Frank Rohwer, President, Delta Waterfowl

A 2010 study published in Biological Conservation concluded:

“The impact of recreational hunting on bird behaviour is highly context-dependent and, in well-regulated systems, is often negligible compared to habitat degradation or climate change.”
— Blumstein et al., 2010

Put simply: habitat loss, feral predation, and urbanisation are the real threats—not the presence of law-abiding, licensed hunters.

Australia: Stuck in a Preservationist Loop

Australia’s environmental policy seems increasingly driven by fear of headlines, not ecological reasoning. The very people restoring wetlands, managing pest species, and reporting wildlife sightings—hunters—are being locked out based on political calculations rather than ecological need.

Field & Game Australia is unequivocal in its position:

• We support temporary closures when breeding colonies are confirmed to be present and at risk.
• We endorse access restrictions based on real-time scientific monitoring, not speculation.
• We reject policy that uses the theoretical presence of wildlife as an excuse to ban legitimate public use of wetlands.

When wildlife presence becomes the reason to ban the very people who helped restore the habitat in the first place, something is deeply wrong.

The Real Disturbance

The real disturbance isn’t hunters. It’s:

• Policies based on activist modelling, not verified sightings.
• Political appeasement of lobby groups over balanced land use.
• Regulatory overreach masquerading as ecological concern.

This is not conservation. It’s preservationist theatre—a philosophy that seeks to fence off nature and throw away the key.

What You Can Do

If you’re a hunter, conservationist, or someone who values truth in public policy—act now:

• Document coexistence: Share photos and videos showing wildlife and hunters sharing the same habitat.
• Challenge unscientific closures: Write to your local Representative and Ministers. Ask for data. Demand transparency.
• Stay informed: Learn what real ecological disturbance looks like—and what it doesn’t.

Because science matters. Hunters matter. And truth matters.