After barely avoiding death row, an unlikely hero has exposed the harsh protocols and consequences foreign animals face in dealing with the Australian government—directly the result of the problematic idea that humans should be able to determine animal fates.
Joe the pigeon, named after U.S. President Joe Biden, was first noticed in an Australian backyard on Dec. 26. Due to a tag on his leg that is identical to those used on American racing pigeons, Joe was assumed to be an American bird by Australian officials.
With the belief that Joe might have been the beginnings of an invasive species (or at least may have carried many of the risks associated with being one), Joe was sentenced to death by euthanization, until it was revealed he was, in fact, native to Australia. As a result, Joe was taken off death row.
“If Joe has come in a way that has not met our strict biosecurity measures, then bad luck, Joe,” said Australian Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack in a statement to the media on the matter. “Either fly home or face the consequences.”
However, despite Joe’s happy ending, it must be said that Joe’s life did not need to be threatened for unknowingly entering a foreign country, regardless of his citizenship.
The rapid decision made by Australian officials outlines the pervasive issue that animals are seen as “things”—not as living organisms who inhabit the same land and deserve many of the same rights as humans. This is a basic tenet of animal rights, and has been so since its major introduction as a movement in the 1980s.
Do some foreign animals pose a threat to other animals and plant life? Of course. But death should not always be the first and only consideration, as there are a myriad of solutions on how to resolve situations similar to Joe the pigeon’s, one of which many of us are now quite familiar with: quarantining.
According to Sick and Dead Wild Bird Disease Surveillance, a document developed by the Australian Registry of Wildlife Health, before wild Australian birds are released back into the wild after treatment for disease or injury, they undergo a variety of protocols—isolation procedures, having blood drawn, exploratory surgeries—to ensure they do not pose a risk to other wildlife.
It is also Australian law that wild and farmed animals—specifically aquatic ones—imported into the country be quarantined for a certain amount of time before they are exposed to existing Australian populations.
Considering Joe had already been exposed to Australian wildlife by the time he was found and incorrectly determined to be an American bird, Australian officials could have either put Joe through isolation protocols in order to spare his life, test him for diseases before releasing him back into the wild, sending him “home,” or moving him into a bird sanctuary.
So why weren’t any of these alternatives applied in Joe’s case?
The Australian Department of Agriculture, Water, and Environment says control methods—such as trapping, baiting, and shooting—are used to fight against invasive or potentially invasive species in the country. This was the approach taken in Joe’s case when he was assumed to be American, as the government feared he could have posed a biosecurity risk.
I understand Australia’s concern about invasive species, considering the prevalence of the problem is unique to the island country. However, it is clear Australia’s concern has reached disproportionate highs, to the point that the government is willing to immediately sacrifice innocent animals like Joe, rather than take the time to consider other possible options that respect the sanctity of animal life.
Being the dominant species does not give us the right to take animals’ lives away without any consideration or effort to do everything possible to ensure euthanization is the last option.
Featured graphic by Sara Mizannojehdehi.
