ABSTRACT The question of problem animals in Australia is often framed in language that has nothing to do with either science or conservation management, but is rather about nationalism and popular culture. The need to attract funding for conservation can often lead to framing problems as ‘national’, yet caring for nature can be done on many scales, and ecological systems is seldom work on national scales. This paper considers both ecological scales (regulated by the animal or plant under consideration) and personal scales (scales meaningful to the conservation manager). The idea that only certain sorts of conservationists can ‘care’ can itself become the problem where conservation groups care, but care differently , and spend time and effort fighting each other, rather than improving ecological outcomes for the animals and plants they care about. Examples discussed include kangaroos in Canberra and cane toads in northern Australia. Changing some inflammatory language and finding more productive uses for the animals culled may enable more inclusive conservation efforts, and engage more hands to help. Macho and military eradication efforts may get in the way of caring for the country, or the animals displaced by invaders. Wasteful practices give conservation a bad name. Better ‘metaphors for environmental sustainability’ (Larson, 2011) can lead to better outcomes for the environment and for those who care for it. The task of conservation demands more than science: it is rewarding for many of the people who undertake it. Conservation is an opportunity for service that many volunteers welcome.

ABSTRACT This paper considers how the natural sciences and humanities describe and discuss the biota described as ‘feral’, showing that it is employed differently by the various professionals and researchers. Recognizing that metaphors can colour outcomes for sustainability and for the animals themselves, we have explored the interdisciplinary context that has created this as a pejorative term. Through the lens of history, we explore how ‘feral’ has changed its meaning over time in practical management and research contexts. Specifically, we explore how labeling a species or population or group as feral shapes theoretical and practical aims for scientists, humanists and managers in the present and for the future.

This is a history of beginnings, but it doesn't come from 1879. Rather it is about the politics of the World Centennial of National Parks in 1972. Not in 1964 - 100 years after the first national park in the world, Yosemite. Nor in 1979 - 100 years after Royal National Park was legislated as the first national park in the world. The politics of the decision to rewrite history to make Yellowstone National Park the signature ‘first’ national park in the world is entangled with the perception of RNP's history. This decision reveals much about the workings of Earth Day politics in USA in 1970, and also the networks between national parks managers in Australia and in the United States in this period. The story speaks to the tensions between the national and global in the politics of biological diversity at a time when national parks were seen as the primary solution to a crisis of extinctions. It also reflects the tensions in Australia inherent in the constitutional responsibility for ‘national’ parks being vested in the states and the issues this still raises for Australia's international responsibilities for global biodiversity.