Paper short abstract:

In this paper, I outline some of the routines and rhetorics of managing the Goulburn River in south-eastern Australia, and the different “natural” rivers they perform. I explore various versions of “naturalness” that are invoked as the final arbiter of which fish should swim in these waters.

Paper long abstract:

The Goulburn River in south-eastern Australia has become a battleground between trout fishery and native fish habitat. This very public confrontation between utilitarian and ecological enactments of river is entangled with another, more murky, contestation over these waters. Management of the fish community of the mid-Goulburn has stalled as river managers, river users and local communities debate which fish belong in the river. The threatened, native Murray cod; the eminently fishable, introduced brown trout; and the much maligned European carp: these three species are the key figures in this debate. In Australia, such politics of belonging is frequently configured around geographical origin; that is, on a distinction between indigenous species as natural and introduced species as unnatural. However, in this case other versions of naturalness” are invoked as the final arbiter of which fish should swim in these waters. In this paper, I outline some of the routines and rhetorics of river management and the different “natural” rivers they perform. In doing so, I argue that this negotiation of belonging expresses contemporary concerns with origins, authenticity, integration, and national identity.