CHAPTER 12 - POSSUMS, KOALAS,
PLATYPUS AND FLYING-FOXES
Brushtail Possum
12.1 The brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) has an extensive range throughout eastern
Australia, from tropical north Queensland to the cool climate of Tasmania. It is abundant throughout
most of its range, particularly in Tasmania where densities can be as high as eight per hectare. The
brushtail possum is an arboreal species which has adapted well to urbanisation, invading suburban
houses and gardens, and in many areas it is regarded as a pest to forestry and agriculture. [1] Brushtail
possums have a high reproductive potential and a generalised, opportunistic diet.
12.2 In the past, possums were valued for their fur and the number of possums taken was strongly
related to fur prices which fluctuated according to overseas demand. After air drying, skins were
exported for further processing. [2] During the 1970s and early 1980s, the quota exceeded 200,000
peaking at over 400,000 in 1979. [3] However, the collapse of the international fur market in the early
to mid 1980s resulted in the demise of the industry in Tasmania and consequently a dramatic drop in the
number of possums harvested. By 1993, less than 30,000 were taken from the wild [4] and in the 1996
season, of a quota of 250,000, less than 10,000 animals were harvested for commercial use. [5]
12.3 Brushtail possums have successfully invaded New Zealand where they cause significant
environmental damage and are an economic burden to landholders. In addition, the New Zealand
possum population carries tuberculosis. As an indication of the size of the problem to rural industries in
New Zealand, the poison 1080 is dropped from aeroplanes instead of baiting by hand as is the case in
Tasmania, and some 120 tonnes of 1080 concentrate is used per year in New Zealand whereas only
about 1.2 kilograms is used in Tasmania. [6]
12.4 As a consequence of the very large number of possums and the fact that they are a feral species,
the possum industry in New Zealand expanded much more than it did in Australia. In years when
international fur prices were high, for example, New Zealand annually exported up to 3 million brushtail
furs and some New Zealand companies imported skins from Australia for processing and re-export. [7]
Trade in Tasmania
12.5 While brushtail possums have been hunted for meat and skins since the early settlement of
Australia, they are now harvested commercially only in Tasmania where they are larger and have a
denser fur. Commercial harvesting of possums is controlled by government regulation, both federal and
state. Under a management plan administered by the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service, permits can
be issued to allow commercial harvesting or non-commercial killing for crop protection purposes. [8]
The current annual quota, which is approved by both the state government and Commonwealth
authorities, is 250,000. [9] However, as noted by the Tasmanian Conservation Trust (TCT) in evidence
to the Committee, since the demise of the fur trade the majority of possums have been taken through
crop protection permits rather than through commercial licences. In 1996, of the total quota, 233,000
possums were taken under non-commercial permits.
12.6 Despite sustained harvesting at a relatively high level, brushtail possum populations in Tasmania
have increased considerably over the last few decades. In particular, although there has been strong
harvesting, possum numbers in the low rainfall, midland regions of Tasmania are now at record levels
and in some areas are in plague proportions. They are considered a pest in forestry areas where they
browse seedlings, and in agricultural areas where they damage crops and compete with domestic stock
for food. [10] In conjunction with drought and poor land management, the browsing pressure of too
many possums has resulted in the loss of many mature eucalypts in rural lands in that region. [11]
12.7 According to the Launceston company, Lenah Game Meats: 'This high population is unsustainable
and … the environmental impact of not managing the possum population could be disastrous'. [12] In
support of this, the Department of Environment commented in its submission to the Committee:
'Harvesting can be a useful (and profitable) tool with which to control possums'. [13]
12.8 It is legal in Tasmania to produce possum meat, both as pet food and for human consumption, for
national and international markets. The regulation of the international possum export trade is controlled
by the Commonwealth under Section 10 of the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and
Imports) Act 1982. Under this legislation, the commercial export of species is limited to animals taken
under an approved management program or derived from captive breeding operations. Certification of
meat bound for export is the responsibility of AQIS.
12.9 Both for wildlife management purposes and to allow commercialisation of possums, the Tasmanian
Government has issued a Management Program for the Brushtail Possum (1977-1999). This Program
sets out aims and objectives of the program, procedures for harvesting under crop protection licences,
control of commercial harvest and control of the trade in possum products. The Program also sets out a
system of annual population monitoring from which the impact of harvesting on regional populations is
assessed. [14] The setting of quotas is based on, among other things, population trends, the size of
previous harvests and seasonal conditions. Possums cannot be trapped on nature reserve land or in
national parks. [15]
12.10 In an attempt to reduce the problem of pest possums in Tasmania and to develop potential
business opportunities, Lenah Game Meats has built a specialist abattoir, accredited for processing
possum and wallaby meat for human consumption. As well as providing domestic products for gourmet
shops and restaurants, Lenah is developing a specialist market for the export of possum to China. [16]
12.11 The possum meat industry in Tasmania is currently operating on a very small scale. Less than
10,000 possums were taken for commercial use in 1996, which resulted in about 10 tonnes of product
sold (domestically and overseas). Lenah Game Meats argued that if the annual quota was fully taken
(250,000), it would result in an industry that would employ 60 people full-time and generate $5m in
export income. [17] On the other hand, Lenah argued, should the commercial possum industry close,
there would be no fewer possums killed in Tasmania because they were such a pest that farmers would
control their numbers regardless of whether the carcasses were used or wasted. [18]
12.12 The Tasmania Government is certain that the conservation status of the brushtail possum is
assured for the following reasons:
- the Tasmanian reserve system in which the possum is very well conserved and free from
exploitation;
- a permit system that restricts harvesting to areas used for primary production;
- mechanisms for monitoring harvests;
- a system of annual population monitoring by which the impact of harvesting on regional
populations is assessed; and
- the setting of annual harvest quotas on, among other things, population trends, the size of the
previous harvests and seasonal conditions. [19]
12.13 The TCT, however, is highly critical of the Brushtail Possum Management Program. The Trust
believes that the inclusion of provisions which allow for the export of possum meat is in conflict with
recognised conservation objectives. The TCT further criticised the Program on two grounds: first, that
there was a profound lack of knowledge on the ecology of the species and, second, that the Program
was extremely limited in its scope in that it did not explore options for management of excess numbers
on agricultural land, other than by allowing them to be destroyed by poisoning, shooting or trapping. [20]
12.14 In evidence to the Committee, the TCT raised three particular concerns regarding the commercial
use of possums: matters relating to animal welfare; the possibility that game meat contained parasites
which could be transmitted to humans; and the management practice of using the poison 1080 in the
control of possum numbers.
Animal Welfare
12.15 The removal of possums from agricultural land by live trapping is regulated by a voluntary code of
practice, the Code of Practice for Capture, Handling, Transport and Slaughter of Brush Possums
(Trichosurus vulpecula), which was developed by the AWAC in response to a request from the
Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries. [21] The Code is 'revised as required, to take into
account advances in technology and understanding of physiology and behaviour, as well as expectations
of the industry and the general community', [22] and the most recent, third version was released in
December 1996 and endorsed by the AWAC on 7 March 1997.
12.16 According to the TCT, despite three revisions, the code has not been reviewed by an animal
ethicist group and has not been subject to public comment. [23] In evidence to the Committee, the TCT
raised two specific problems with the code: the time period spent in captivity and conditions endured
before dispatch; and the method of dispatch.
12.17 The current code of practice states that captured possums must be dispatched before sunset of
the day after they are caught. This means that, in practice, a possum which is caught at about 9.00pm
one night stays in the traps for about 12 hours when it is transferred to a wooden box and transported to
the abattoir where it may remain for a few hours before dispatch.
12.18 The TCT claimed that the holding box was too small, being only the size of a large 'shoebox'.
However, Mr John Kelly, Managing Director of Lenah Game Meats, noted that the Code required the
box to be 'no smaller than 50cm long by 25cm wide by 25 cm high' and to be used for only one brush
possum at a time. [24] Mr Kelly suggested to the Committee that, if that size was a 'shoebox', then the
box was big enough for the shoe to fit 'bigfoot'. [25]
12.19 While there was much debate in the evidence as to the period of time that a possum could be held
in captivity prior to dispatch, [26] the matter was resolved when it became apparent that the submission
presented by the TCT had been drafted prior to the issue of the third revision of the code which, with
the inclusion of the provision that 'possums must be slaughtered or released before the first sunset
following capture', changed the capture period from 48 hours to less than 24 hours. [27]
12.20 However, as alleged by Dr David Oberdorf, a representative of the TCT, what the Committee
was not told at the public hearing was that the AWAC had agreed on 15 August 1997 that 'it was better
to keep possums overnight than release them in a strange environment or truck them back to their
capture site'. This, in effect, meant that individual possums could be held in captivity for more than 36
hours. [28]
12.21 Dr David Oberdorf, further asserted that the TCT had provisional evidence to suggest that if
possums were trapped and held in the manner recommended by the Code, they would suffer cage stress
and attempts to escape would result in muscle damage comparable to capture myopathy exhibited by
deer when captured. [29] However, in response to questions from the Committee about cage stress, Mr
Kelly claimed that possums have a relaxed temperament and do not suffer from post-capture stress
conditions, such as myopathy and eccymosis, that affect the condition of the meat. Despite having
processed over 20,000 possums, he had never seen either condition in possum meat. [30]
12.22 When asked about stress reactions in possums, the Chairman of the AWAC, Professor Robert
White, commented:
… any handling of animals causes some level of stress. I am convinced the level of stress is low in these
animals. We were at the abattoirs when a truck of animals arrived, and the majority of them were curled
up and asleep within the boxes. I also know from my experience in teaching biology and being involved
in a large number of field courses that animals will often curl up and go to sleep in a matter of minutes
once they have gone into a trap. [31]
12.23 The method of dispatch required by the Code is similar to that used for domestic animals: the
animal is first stunned with a captive bolt, then exsanguinated by cutting the throat. The Code provides
that the method of killing 'should be effective and cause sudden and painless death'.
12.24 However, later, at a public hearing in Canberra on 2 December 1997, the Spokesperson for the
Animal Societies Federation of NSW, Ms Katherine Rogers, tabled a letter from Ms Jenny Sielhorst,
Tasmanian Executive Member of ANZFAS and representative of that body on AWAC, that had been
sent to Mr Mike Manuel, Secretary of AWAC, dated 14 August 1997, which stated:
After AWAC's visit to Lenah Game Meats [on 16 July 1997] I felt very concerned about the whole
operation.
1/ … Time of confinement without food or water for up to 22 hours.
2/ Transport boxes have inadequate ventilation. Especially when stacked.
3/ The mesh size on bottom of holding cages is too large. … When boxes were put down, some
possums had legs/tail tangled under the box.
4/ A large percentage of possums had facial wounds/injuries.
5/ Not one possum I witnessed was asleep … All the animals looked very stressed.
6/ After the captive bolt pistol was used, possums were flung into plastic crates (2 to 3 per crate). By
this time crates were full of blood, with animals writhing around. Then the crates were shoved through to
the processing room. The possums were removed from the crates into a stainless steel trough where
once again the animals were left to thrash around. Their throats were cut, a hole made in their hind leg &
put on a hook. Then they checked for pouched young. From the time the possum had received the
captive bolt to the time their throat was cut, ranged from a few minutes to eight minutes. The code of
practice says "to ensure death, the possum should be bled out immediately after collapse." This DID
NOT occur. I witnessed one possum trying to crawl out of the stainless steel trough covered in blood.
The slaughterman was very concerned at my witnessing this event. [32]
12.25 Following this quote, Ms Rogers commented:
If that occurs when someone from the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee is there,and presumably
every care is taken,I would think it must be a matter of major concern as to what would happen when
people perhaps are not taking special care and there are not people there that they are concerned
about'. [33]
12.26 However, it should be noted that the Chairman of the AWAC, Professor White, had already
stated at the public hearing in Launceston that:
As a result of inspection, we required some minor changes to the transport arrangements and they have
been taken on board or are being used immediately. We are looking further at …[v]entilation of the
boxes on the trucks: although we did not think there was an immediate problem, we thought there was a
potential problem when we inspected them. Immediately, Mr Kelly made changes to arrange for spaces
between the boxes to make sure that no animal in an internal box would be short of air. On some
occasions the truck will be covered and we are concerned that any tarpaulin covering which provides
shade does not lead to a loss of airflow. We are revisiting the mesh size and wire specifications on the
bottom of the boxes, again as a result of an inspection. [34]
12.27 When asked by Senator Brown whether he was 'familiar and happy with the method of transport
and keeping at the Lenah Game Meats abattoir, the Chairman of the AWAC, Professor Robert White,
had replied 'Yes'. [35]
12.28 On 13 October 1997, the Committee visited the processing facilities in Launceston used by
Lenah Game Meats and witnessed the dispatch of a small number of possums (some 4-6). When the
holding box was opened it appeared to members of the Committee that the possums had been asleep (it
was early afternoon) and were not subject to any stress prior to the fairly swift application of the captive
bolt. After stunning, each animal was passed through a small swinging door and dropped into a metal
trough where it immediately had its throat cut and was hung up to bleed out. Some muscle spasm, a
normal reaction after death, was observed to last for a few minutes in a couple of animals. In the
Committee's view, each possum was dispatched according to the procedures outlined in the Code.
Parasites
12.29 The TCT suggested that there were some potential dangers associated with the commercialisation
of Tasmanian game meat (kangaroos, wallabies and possums) through undetected parasites, particularly
if the meat was not cooked thoroughly. Dr David Obendorf, a veterinarian pathologist who specialises in
wildlife diseases, noted in his evidence to the Committee that two zoonotic parasites could potentially be
found in possums: Toxoplasma gondii and Trichinella pseudospiralis. [36]
12.30 The definitive host of the protozoan parasite Toxoplasma gondii is the domestic cat, but a large
range of animals are susceptible as intermediate hosts. The parasite is known to readily infect people
with potentially serious consequences for people with reduced levels of immunity. Marsupials are very
susceptible to infection because they evolved in its absence until the advent of European settlement and
introduction of cats, and thus have little resistance to it. [37]
12.31 The nematode muscle parasite Trichinella pseudospiralis is endemic to Tasmania and has been
found in a number of Tasmanian marsupial species. Brushtail possums are easily infected under
experimental conditions and one has been found with a natural infection in the Cradle Mountain area.
[38] There is one recorded case of T. pseudospiralis having been found in a person who may have
contracted the infection in Tasmania, possibly from possum meat. [39]
12.32 However, Mr John Kelly of Lenah Game Meats argued that there was no evidence to suggest
that wild Tasmanian possums had Trichinella and considerable evidence to suggest that they did not. In
addition, Mr Kelly noted that even if Trichinella did exist in Tasmanian possums, all carcasses were
sold frozen and it had been demonstrated that the freezing process killed Trichinella, as did cooking.
Unlike kangaroo and wallaby meat, which can be eaten rare, possum meat requires lengthy cooking to
become palatable. [40]
12.33 When questioned about the finding of Trichinella in a person who had lived in Tasmania and the
implications for the possum industry, Mr Michael Middleton, Leader of the Public Health and Animal
Welfare Section of the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, commented:
There was one single finding of trichinella pseudospiralis attributable to brush possums. This was
reported in a paper published by Obendorf et al in the Australian Veterinary Journal a few years
back. That finding has been subject to quite a bit of discussion since because we were unable to
replicate that finding, and I suppose any scientific finding which you cannot replicate has to be
questioned. Since that finding, a total of 830-odd possums from 24 different locations all over the state
have been looked at specifically targeting muscle groups where you would be likely to find trichinella
pseudospiralis, and they were all negative. At the time those possums were being processed in the
laboratory, the laboratory was being used to process meat, muscle from carnivorous marsupials which
was heavily infected, so there is a strong possibility of laboratory contamination. In other words, we
have been unable to find any more trichinella pseudospiralis in possum meat, which calls into doubt the
original finding. [41]
12.34 To this he added:
Freezing has been shown to render uninfective the closely related trichinella spiralis. Freezing protocols
need to be developed to render uninfective trichinella pseudospiralis, even though we maintain that we
do not have it in our possums. As regards toxoplasmosis, meat eaters run a very small risk of getting
toxoplasmosis through eating virtually any meat if it is not cooked. [42]
Poisoning with 1080
12.35 The removal of possums from agricultural land by shooting or poisoning is not covered by the
Code of Practice for Capture, Handling, Transport and Slaughter of Brush Possums. With regard
to poisoning, the TCT stated that the use of 1080 poison to remove possums from agricultural areas was
not 'an appropriate management technique for the end of the 20th century'. [43]
12.36 In its submission to the Committee, the TCT argued that the routine laying of 1080 impregnated
carrot baits presented a health risk to people. The TCT maintained that the use of 1080 was extremely
problematic because the Code of Practice relating to its use was a non-statutory document which meant
that enforcement of procedures was impossible. While the TCT acknowledged that 'it would be
necessary for a human to consume an unrealistic amount of contaminated meat for a lethal dose, people
have an expectation that the meat that they are purchasing is free from any toxic residue'. [44]
12.37 In reply to the concerns expressed by the TCT, Mr Kelly acknowledged that there was some risk
but noted that there were systems in place to minimise that risk:
The chief inspectors of meat hygiene have a code of practice for the processing of possums which
requires that possums are not harvested within two kilometres of a farm where 1080 has been laid over
the last two weeks. Secondly, possums are subject to the national residue testing scheme,and, at our
insistence, that testing includes analysis for 1080; we had to fork out quite a substantial additional
amount of money to ensure that that happened. Thirdly, 1080 has an extraordinarily low toxicity to
human beings. People have tried to commit suicide by eating neat 1080 concentrate and have failed to
do so. For a human being to get remotely sick from eating meat from an animal killed by 1080, they
would have to eat 10 kilograms in one sitting. [45]
12.38 Instead of using 1080 baits, the TCT suggested that the management solution to the damage
inflicted on crops and pasture by possums (and wallabies) was to exclude them from cropping areas
through the use of appropriate fencing, either electric or sonic. However, while the TCT cited examples
of how such fencing could be inexpensive and effective, [46] the Farmers and Graziers Association
argued that fencing was not cheap and that cost increased with effectiveness. Wallaby wire, for example,
cost about $3000 per kilometre for material, with labour charges an additional cost. [47]
Conclusions
12.39 The brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) has an extensive range throughout eastern
Australia but is most abundant in Tasmania, the only state where the species is harvested commercially.
Despite sustained harvesting at a relatively high level, brushtail possum populations in Tasmania have
increased considerably over the last few decades. In some regions they are now in plague proportions,
causing considerable damage to their environment. According to industry and the Tasmanian
Government, the Brushtail Possum Management Program, which includes provision for both a
commercial harvest and a legal cull, was a mechanism whereby this impact could be reduced while at the
same time provide an economic benefit to the Launceston region. Products from the commercial harvest
are sold domestically and overseas. However, the TCT was highly critical of the program and raised
three particular concerns: animal welfare; the potential for game meat to contain parasites which could be
transmitted to humans; and the use of the poison 1080 in the control of possum numbers.
Koalas
12.40 With the gradual cessation of harvesting by Aborigines and reduced predation by dingoes, the
number of koalas in Australia increased substantially in the late 1800's. [48] Their abundance then
resulted in a rapid expansion of the fur trade and they were systematically hunted in the early part of this
century. In the two years 1920-22, for example, over 200,000 koalas were killed. With the added
impact of habitat loss and disease, the species consequently came close to extinction. [49] At that point,
public pressure lead to their protection under legislation and an end to the fur trade. Since that time, and
through major efforts to protect the habitat of remnant populations, the numbers of koalas have again
started to increase.
12.41 Koalas are now strongly linked with the national Australian image. Portrayed as quintessentially
Australian by travel companies in overseas television advertising campaigns, particularly during the
1970s, koalas helped to establish Australia as a tourist destination filled with fascinating and attractive
wildlife. Now the major contribution of koalas to the national economy comes through tourism. In fact,
the image of the koala has now reached 'iconic status in attracting foreign visitors' and as a uniquely
'Australian' image, may now have surpassed that of the kangaroo. [50]
12.42 A recent study of the economic input of koalas to Australia found that while watching koalas was
unlikely to be the sole reason for a visit, the whole koala 'industry' in Australia was worth about $336m
per annum; [51] and that the contribution that the koala industry made to the Australian tourism industry
(and thus to the Australian economy) was about $1.1 billion. The study also concluded that the amount
of tourist revenue that would be lost in the absence of Australia's unique wildlife would have been $1.8
billion in 1996, rising to $2.5 billion in the year 2000. [52]
Koalas on Kangaroo Island
12.43 In 1923, as part of a program to protect koalas and encourage the recovery of their numbers, 18
juveniles were taken from Victoria's French Island and released on Kangaroo Island (south of
Adelaide); an island were they had previously not existed. Because the translocated animals were
immature they did not carry the sexually transmitted disease Chlamydia which serves as a natural form
of population control among mainland koalas, and the population on Kangaroo Island thus thrived. [53]
12.44 In fact, the population expanded to such an extent that by 1995 it was obvious that the trees
within the preferred riverine habitat were being defoliated faster than they could regenerate. It was
predicted that both the population would suffer serious starvation sometime in the near future and that
the habitat would be seriously damaged. The size of the population was estimated to be between 3000
and 5000 animals and owing to the ease of sighting them, the island became popular with tourists.
12.45 In response, the South Australia Government appointed an expert Committee, the Koala
Management Task Force which concluded:
- that the translocation of some individuals to the mainland was unfeasible because of the limited
number of sites where they could be placed; [54]
- that planting more trees would take too long; and
- that sterilisation would not solve the immediate problem.
12.46 The answer, the Task Force concluded, was a culling program - a method commonly used to
reduce excess populations of other native animals such as possums, wombats and kangaroos. However,
having regard to the potential outcry from the Australian public and from tourists, particularly Japanese
visitors (who seem to be especially fond of koalas), the South Australian minister responsible for the
environment announced in December 1996, a management program which would include the sterilisation
of 'as many koalas as possible', [55] and translocation of some sterilised koalas from areas with greatest
habitat destruction to the state's south east and to the Adelaide Hills.
12.47 In addition to fertility control and translocation, the Koala Management Strategy included:
- a vegetation management program (habitat restoration, fencing of young trees and collaring of
large trees);
- scientific research and assessment of koalas and their habitat;
- support for community based revegetation projects;
- a community and schools education program;
- a public appeal for funds; and
- arrangements for the relocation of some koalas to overseas zoos. [56]
12.48 By August 1997, the sterilisation program was well under way. Some 2500 koalas had been
caught, operated on at a mobile veterinary unit (having either a tubal transection or vasectomy according
to sex) and released back at the tree from which it had been taken the previous morning. For
identification purposes, each koala was microchipped and ear tagged; and statistics collected on sex,
size, weight and age (determined approximately through teeth-wear categories). Some individuals had
radio-tracking collars put on for further monitoring of behaviour and territory. Each operation cost an
average of $136.
12.49 The overall budget for the South Australian koala management program was $635,000 for the 18
month period, January 1997 to July 1998. Of this total, $150,000 was provided by the Commonwealth
(Green Corps teams are trained to catch and release the koalas) [57] and $235,000 provided by the
State Government. The remaining $250,000 was to be raised through a public appeal campaign. [58]
To this end, the South Australian Department of Environment and Natural Resources established a
Koala Rescue Program which aimed to increase community awareness of the koala management
program and to encourage the contribution of tax deductible donations. [59]
12.50 However, there are several groups which believe that the sterilisation program is the wrong
approach. In evidence to the Committee a representative of the Nature Conservation Society of South
Australia, Mr Robert Brown, argued:
I do not support and neither does our society the idea of sterilising koalas. I think it is inhumane for a
start, and although the National Parks Foundation were very careful in what they said I certainly do not
approve of the pamphlets that are being put out by the government. They are claiming it is an animal
welfare project. I cannot see much welfare about capturing an animal, sterilising it, and releasing it back
into the wild so it can continue destroying its habitat and eventually dying of starvation or cancer or all
the other things. [60]
12.51 The Australian Koala Foundation (AKF) is also of the view that the decision to sterilise koalas
was wrong. The executive director of the AKF, Ms Deborah Tabart, has argued that despite the fact
that the number of koalas on the island may have been greatly overestimated (the AKF believes the
population stands at about 1000), sterilisation will not solve the immediate problem of tree defoliation. In
addition, the AKF believes that culling is not appropriate because it will not solve the 'real problems'
which are poor management and land degradation. The AKF argued that the solution to the problems of
both overpopulation on Kangaroo Island, and underpopulation on the mainland, was habitat restoration.
Specifically on Kangaroo Island, in addition to allowing the large trees to recover, there is a need to
fence out the riverbeds where the young gums grow so that they are not eaten by sheep. [61]
Conclusions
12.52 Koalas have gained the status of a national icon through the use of their image by the tourism
industry. However, the enormous 'value' of koalas to tourism has had a detrimental impact on the ability
of wildlife agencies to manage populations which have increased beyond the capacity of their habitats,
which are often geographical or biological islands, to provide resources. While sterilisation programs
may appear to be the only politically acceptable method of control, they come at a considerable financial
cost both to government (through administration) and to society (through donations). However, if these
costs are considered in relation to the overall benefit that 'koala-based' tourism brings to Australia, they
may appear to be less significant.
Platypus
12.53 While the distribution of platypus is widespread in south-eastern Australia, it does not occur
anywhere in abundance. [62] As an aquatic species, the main threat to its survival is habitat loss, through
both gross disturbance of creeks and rivers during land clearing and incremental change to habitat quality
through water pollution, bank disturbance and reduced river flows. The main commercial interest in
platypus is their potential for sale to overseas zoos, particularly those which are interested in being the
first to exhibit platypus in their country and would consequently pay a very high price. This issue is
discussed further at Paragraph 18.7.
12.54 There has only ever been a few attempts to export platypuses from Australia and these have been
carried out in an ad hoc and unsophisticated manner, [63] and no animal has survived overseas for any
length of time. Even in Australia, platypus are difficult to sustain in captivity because they are particularly
susceptible to stress, and die easily when captured or transported, and they do not breed readily in
artificial environments.
12.55 Only two institutions in Australia have ever bred platypus, and none have been bred overseas. In
1943-44, Mr David Fleay bred them at a wildlife sanctuary at Healesville in Victoria, but when he
moved to Burleigh Heads in northern NSW he was unable to keep young platypus alive for any length of
time. And currently at Warrawong in the Adelaide Hills, Dr John Wamsley has a population of platypus
breeding in a fully enclosed, artificial reservoir.
Conclusions
12.56 While there is a strong interest from foreign zoos in obtaining platypus for display, they present
significant husbandry problems. The main issue with their use centres on the desirability of allowing
captive-bred animals (which are rare in themselves) to be exported by private enterprise for commercial
gain.
Flying-Foxes
12.57 A submission put to the Committee by Dr Chris Tidemann, [64] a specialist in Chiropterans
(bats), advocated the commercial harvest of flying-foxes for three reasons: (1) a non-commercial
sustainable harvest is already being carried out and permitting commercialisation would allow some
economic benefits to accrue from pest management of the species; (2) the management of flying-foxes is
currently in a parlous state and commercialisation would force management plans to be drafted, which
would benefit the conservation status of flying-foxes and provide incentives for the preservation of their
habitat; and (3) a sustainable commercial program in Australia with exports to Pacific Islands could
assist to reduce hunting pressure and arrest their decline on those islands. [65]
12.58 There are four large species of flying-fox of the genus Pteropus which occur in Australia: the
black flying-fox (P. alecto), the grey headed flying-fox (P. poliocephalus), the red flying-fox (P.
scapulatus), and the spectacled flying-fox (P. conspicillatus). The first two are among the largest bats
in the world, with adult males weighing more than one kilogram and having a wing span of over one
metre. The other two species are smaller, weighing about 500g. Flying-foxes play an important role in
the continuation of biodiversity through their dispersal of seeds and pollen.
12.59 Flying-foxes occur mainly in northern states and colonies prefer swamp, river, estuarine, or
remnant rainforest habitats. Unfortunately, much of the habitat used by flying-fox colonies is prone to
human disturbance or destruction for agriculture or urban development. Because colonies of flying-foxes
occupy the same site for generations, the loss of good habitat is highly disruptive to population stability.
12.60 As observed by Dr Tidemann, flying-foxes 'are many things to many people: they are kept as
pets, carry lethal diseases, destroy remnant vegetation, are a potential hazard to air safety, pests to
orchardists, food to Aboriginal people as well as playing an important ecological role in the maintenance
of biodiversity'. [66]
12.61 While the management of flying-foxes is 'confusingly divided' between federal, state and local
government authorities, their value goes unrecognised and their habitat suffers continued attrition. It is
estimated that about 140,000 flying-foxes are killed each year by orchardists (see Box: Orchardists
Lose to Flying-Foxes) and that a further 180,000 are killed for consumption by Aboriginal people.
Despite this harvest, which has continued unregulated for over 20 years, flying-fox populations are still
abundant in the wild, suggesting that the current level of harvest is sustainable. There are both local and
overseas markets for flying foxes; in Guam, for example, they fetch $50 each.
12.62 At present there are disincentives to preserving flying-foxes. They are smelly, carry disease and
destroy commercial and domestic fruit and vegetables. As with crocodiles, public opinion of flying-foxes
is low and there is little reason to tolerate them. However, allowing commercialisation of flying-foxes
would provide the incentive needed to preserve them and their habitat, as it has with crocodiles.
12.63 The flying-fox is included on CITES Appendix II and Dr Tidemann considers that this is because
'it looks like an endangered species, not because it is endangered'. He notes, however, that this inclusion
would provide a safeguard should commercialisation proceed. [67] For an export industry based on
flying-foxes to develop, changes would need to be made to the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of
Exports and Imports) Act 1982.
12.64 Dr Tidemann recommended that a trial commercial harvest of flying-foxes be carried out, and
concluded that it:
- would benefit conservation of the species in Australia and overseas;
- could be sustained at low levels, within the massive non-commercial harvest that is already
occurring;
- would require the testing and implementation of appropriate management regimes;
- would generate a great deal of biological information on the species;
- would result in the development of techniques suitable for managing less abundant species;
- would provide economic incentives for landowners to preserve habitat and could compensate fruit
growers for losses;
- would enable traditional diets to be maintained by indigenous people separated from their land;
and
- may relieve pressure on endangered Pacific Island species. [68]
-
Conclusions
12.65 Flying-foxes are an important but neglected species and loss of habitat is a significant problem for
them. In turn, they cause significant damage to orchards. At present there are disincentives to preserving
flying-foxes and they are culled in large numbers at a cost to both orchardists and government. The
Committee notes the proposal that a program of commercial use would allow these costs to be off-set,
in addition to providing an incentive to preserve habitat.
Box: Orchardists Lose to Flying-Foxes
The NSW government banned culling of flying-foxes in 1997. In Autumn 1998, orchardists in the
Sydney and Far North Coast regions of NSW suffered considerable damage to fruit crops, losing up to
one third of their yield which was estimated at $20 million. One orchardist at Camden lost a third of his
total export yield representing a loss of $600,000. Some orchardists on the Far North Coast lost their
whole crops.
Exacerbated by the lack of food resources caused by the prolonged drought, flying-foxes have been
forced to migrate from native bushland into more productive areas. According to an article in The Land,
the Government banned culling in response to illegal shooting and culling licence breaches by 'a minority
group' but industry groups claim that the decision was made without proper industry consultation and
that the whole industry was being 'punished' because of the misdemeanours of just two orchardists.
While the government recommends the use of alarm deterrents or netting, orchardists claim that alarms
are socially unacceptable (especially when they are triggered at night close to a neighbour's property)
and netting too expensive at $30,000 per hectare.
Dr Tidemann believes that the problem lies with lack of census data to determine whether harvesting can
be ecologically sustained. Conservation agencies do not have the funding to carry out the necessary
scientific studies and so industry groups are currently seeking funding from various grower group levies
so the work can go ahead. [69]
Footnotes
[1] Ramsay, B J Commercial Use of Wild Animals Bureau of Resource Science, Department of
Primary Industries and Energy, AGPS, Canberra, 1994 ISBN 0644297751, p. 59.
[2] Ramsay, op cit, p. 59-63.
[3] Ramsay, op cit, p. 59; and Neyland, M 1996 Tree Decline in Tasmania: A review of the factors
implicated in tree decline and management recommendations for its control. Land and Water
Management Council, Hobart, ISBN 072463598X, p. 19.
[4] Neyland, op cit.
[5] Submission No. 141, p. 2.
[6] Evidence, p. RRA&T 880.
[7] Ramsay, op cit, pp. 62-63.
[8] Submission No. 338, Tasmanian Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, pp. 2-3.
[9] Evidence, p. RRA&T 895.
[10] Submission No. 338, p. 3.
[11] Evidence, p. RRA&T 866, Submission No. 338, Tasmanian Department of primary Industry and
Fisheries, pp. 2-3; See also Neyland, op cit, p. 2.
[12] Submission No. 141, p.1.
[13] Submission No. 198, p. 66.
[14] Management Program for the Brushtail Possum Trichosurus vulpecula (Kerr) in Tasmania
1997 to 1999 Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service, Hobart, August 1996. See also Evidence, p.
RRA&T 894.
[15] Evidence, p. RRA&T 878.
[16] Evidence, p. RRA&T 869ff.
[17] Submission No. 141, p. 7.
[18] Evidence, p. RRA&T 868.
[19] Submission No. 338, p. 3.
[20] Submission No. 203, Appendix 9.3, TCT Submission on Management Program for the
Tasmanian Brushtail Possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) Kerr and Background Information.
Tasmanian Conservation Trust, 1996, p.1.
[21] The AWAC is a statutory committee established under the Tasmanian Animal Welfare Act 1993.
The 13 member group comprises roughly one third animal welfare group interests, one third animal user
interests and one third Government agency interests.
[22] Code of Practice for Capture, Handling, Transport and Slaughter of Brush Possums
(Trichosurus vulpecula), 1. Introduction and Scope of this Code, p. 3.
[23] Evidence, p. RRA&T 864; ANZFAS also expressed similar concerns about the Code, Submission
No. 178, pp. 8-9.
[24] Code of Practice, op cit, p.8.
[25] Evidence, p. RRA&T 876.
[26] Evidence, pp. RRA&T 861, 872-3, 879, 908, 914, 917, 957.
[27] Code of Practice, op cit, 6. Holding Cages, p.8; and Letter dated 8 November 1997 from Dr
David Obendorf to Senator Paul Calvert which stated: 'I am on record as stating possums could be held
up to 48 hours'. I gave that evidence not having seen the third revision of the Code' p. 1.
[28] Letter dated 8 November 1997 from Dr David Obendorf to Senator Paul Calvert, and attached
copy of Draft Minutes of 2nd Meeting, AWAC 15 August 1997, endorsed with the Minister's signature
16 September 1997 B. Bonde.
[29] Evidence, p. RRA&T 860.
[30] Evidence, p. RRA&T 873.
[31] Evidence, p. RRA&T 915.
[32] Evidence, p. RRA&T 1223.
[33] Evidence, p. RRA&T 1223.
[34] Evidence, p. RRA&T 911.
[35] Evidence, p. RRA&T 911.
[36] Evidence, p. RRA&T 858ff.
[37] Canfield PJ, Hartley WJ & Dubey JP, Lesions of toxoplasmosis in Australian marsupials, J Comp
Path 1990 103: 159-167.
[38] Submission No. 203, p. 13.
[39] Andrews, J R H, et al 1994 Trichinella pseudospiralis in humans: description of a case and its
treatment. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 88, p. 202.
[40] Evidence, p. RRA&T 871-2.
[41] Evidence, p. RRA&T 893.
[42] Evidence, pp. RRA&T 897-8.
[43] Evidence, p. RRA&T 857.
[44] Submission No. 203, p. 13.
[45] Evidence, p. RRA&T 876.
[46] Evidence, pp. RRA&T 857-8.
[47] Evidence, p. RRA&T 884.
[48] Evidence, p. RRA&T 818, Submission No. 9.
[49] Undated, Koala Rescue South Australia, Teacher and Student Information and Activity Pack,
Second Edition, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (SA), p. 9.
[50] Hundloe, T & Hamilton, C 1997 Koalas and Tourism: An Economic Evaluation, by The
Australia Institute, Discussion Paper No. 13, ISSN 1322-5421, p. 1.
[51] Including money spent in visiting zoos and wildlife parks, accommodation, photographs with koalas
and associated souvenirs.
[52] Hundloe, T & Hamilton, C op cit, pp. 1-2.
[53] Phillips, S. Australian Koala Foundation, Some issues associated with the translocation of
Koalas Phascolarctos cinereus, A paper presented to the Australian Veterinary Symposium, May
1997. The population of koalas on Kangaroo Island came from French Island where the population was
Chlamydia-free.
[54] In addition, translocation is not particularly successful among koalas, both for the population from
which the individuals are taken, because the social structure of the population is disrupted if dominant
individuals are removed, and for the individuals themselves after release at another site, because of the
stresses associated with living in a new environment and establishment of a new territory. Phillips, S.
Australian Koala Foundation, Some issues associated with the translocation of Koalas
Phascolarctos cinereus, A paper presented to the Australian Veterinary Symposium, May 1997.
[55] The Bulletin, May 13, 1997, pp. 28, 30.
[56] Undated document, Management Strategy for Koalas in South Australia, 8 pages. See also:
Media Release dated 1 December 1996, Koala strategy release, Hon David Wotton MP, Minister for
the Environment and Natural Resources (SA).
[57] The Bulletin, op cit, p. 30.
[58] Undated, Koala Management Program, information issued by the SA Department of
Environment and Natural Resources; see also Evidence, p. RRA&T 549-50.
[59] Koala Rescue Newsletters No.s 1 (April-June 1997) & 2 (July-August 1997); Fundraising
brochure produced by the National Parks Association (SA) Their survival depends on your support
…Koala Rescue South Australia.
[60] Evidence, p. RRA&T 564.
[61] The Bulletin, May 13, 1997, p. 30; Australian Biologist (1997) 10 (1), Why the koala should
not be culled, when the real problems are poor management and land degradation, pp. 42-48.
[62] Evidence, p. RRA&T 835.
[63] Evidence, p. RRA&T 835.
[64] Submission No. 142, p. 1; see also submission 192 Appendix II Vardon M J and Tidemann, C R,
1995 Harvesting of Flying Foxes (Pteropus spp.) in Australia: Could it promote the conservation
of endangered Pacific Island species, In Grigg, G, Hale, P and Lunney, D (Eds) Conservation through
the Sustainable Use of Wildlife, University of Queensland, Brisbane.
[65] Vardon et al, op cit, p. 1.
[66] Submission No. 142, p. 1.
[67] ibid, p. 2.
[68] ibid, p. 3.
[69] The Land, Thursday, March 26, 1998, p. 15.