Should koalas be culled (shot)?
Echo Issue Outline: copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.
Issue outline by J M McInerney
Since March, 1996, there have been several proposals to cull koalas, using shotguns. The most significant proposal came after the release of a report by the South Australian Environment Department. The report claimed a koala over-population problem exists on Kangaroo Island, South Australia. It suggested the koalas were in danger of destroying their own habitat and starving to death.
The South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service proposed shooting 2,000 of the Kangaroo Island koalas. This plan attracted widespread opposition.
The South Australian Government had already drafted legislation allowing wildlife managers to shoot native animals and to collect live animals for sale. However, the Environment and Resources Minister claimed the draft bill had not been developed to deal with the koala problem.
In November, 1996, a taskforce, established in March to consider the koala over-population problem, recommended culling. This recommendation proved unacceptable to the general community and politically impossible for the South Australian Government. Relocating koalas to mainland South Australia and New South Wales is one possible solution. Sterilisation of koala males and hormone implants to reduce female fertility are other methods being tried.
Similar concerns have been expressed about koala over-population in at least four Victorian regions, with some conservationists recommending culling. However, male sterilisation, hormone implants for females and possible relocation to New South Wales appear the control methods most likely to be used.
Background
The Kangaroo Island koala population has been estimated at between 1,500 and 5,000. (The National Parks and Wildlife Service based its proposal to cull the Kangaroo Island koalas on estimates putting their population at 5,000.)
The current koala population on Kangaroo Island has grown from an original 12 koalas which were moved to Kangaroo Island from French Island in 1923.
The French Island population itself developed from another very small breeding pool.
In the 1880s, a sealer gave a pair of young koalas to his fiancee, who lived on French Island. Other settlers on the island then also acquired koalas. The koalas did very well on French Island. They were largely protected from introduced predators and were free of diseases such as chlamydia, which has limited population growth among mainland koalas. The French Island population has been used to supplement koala numbers throughout Victoria and supplied the koalas that were introduced to Kangaroo Island.
Kangaroo Island provided similar conditions to French Island. - the koalas were disease-free and largely without predators.
Koalas are efficient breeders. When free of diseases such as chlamydia, koalas, in good conditions, can double their population every two and a half years. Further, unlike many other animals, koalas do not stop breeding when food is scarce. Females can breed from age two to age sixteen, with each producing one cub annually. Population growth can be very rapid. Twenty koalas grew into a population of above 2,000 in just 17 years at Sandy Point in South Gippsland.
Victoria has several areas where koala over-population and overbrowsing is a problem - French Island, Sandy Point, Tower Hill Game Reserve, Framlingham Bush, Snake Island and Raymond Island.
It is claimed koalas in these areas are in danger of destroying their own habitat through overbowsing. Each koala consumes about a 1kg of eucalypt leaves a day, discarding a further five kilograms on the ground. It has been suggested that Kangaroo Island koalas are stripping and killing one tree a month.
Arguments against culling koalas
One of the major arguments against culling koalas is that it would damage Australia's reputation overseas and harm our tourist industry.
A Herald Sun editorial of March 19, 1996, noted, `Internationally, where the koala is the tourist symbol of Australia, it would be a public relations disaster.'
The South Australian Opposition warned the Government of possible `international tourist and consumer boycotts' if it acted on the proposal to cull koalas using shotguns.
It has also been noted that the koala is such a well-known and popular animal that most governments would be afraid of electoral damage if they had koalas culled.
Others who oppose culling maintain there are better koala population control measures.
The main methods recommended are relocation and fertility control measures such as male sterilisation and hormone implants for females.
The New South Wales Government have offered to take excess koalas from both Kangaroo Island and Victoria. Currently the governments of South Australia and Victoria appear to prefer fertility control measures to relocation. However, the
Australian Wildlife Surveys and Conservation Services is involved in a scheme to relocate Kangaroo Island koalas to New South Wales.
There are also those who oppose culling because they believe it is ineffective. The Koala Foundation of Australia has warned that a cull could have the reverse effect of that intended and actually increase koala numbers. The Foundation has suggested that one possible response to the trauma of cull by shooting could be that the remaining koalas breed more rapidly.
Further, there are those who are opposed to koala culling because they believe it may be unnecessary.
Among those who believe culling or any other means of controlling koala numbers on Kangaroo Island may not be necessary are those who maintain that the number of koalas on the island has been overestimated. The Koala Foundation is one of a number of groups that believes the number of koalas on the island has been exaggerated. It has suggested that there may be no more than 1,500 koalas on Kangaroo Island.
There are others who maintain that before any population-control measures are put in place there needs to be more solid information gathered on koala population numbers and the impact they are having on the Kangaroo Island environment. The conservation organisation,
Earthwatch, is establishing a koala monitoring program on Kangaroo Island.
Finally there are those who oppose all methods to control koala numbers because they believe the problem of overbrowsing should be solved by halting de-afforestation, planting more trees on which koalas can feed and removing introduced non-native animals which degrade koala habitats.
Animal rights groups such as
The Fund for Animals and Australians for Animals have claimed that the timber industry has cleared over 50 per cent of Kangaroo Island. They also claim that a large rabbit population and insect infestation are damaging Kangaroo Island's eucalypts.
According to this line of argument it is more appropriate to stop human and pest destruction of the koala's habitat and to replant eucalypts than it is to kill, relocate or sterilise koalas.
This position has been summed up by Ms Deborah Tabart of the Australian Koala Foundation who has stated, `We don't think there are too many koalas. We think there are too few trees.'
Arguments in favour of culling koalas
The major argument offered in support of culling koalas on Kangaroo Island is that koala numbers must be reduced to stop koalas destroying their habitat and starving to death.
Alternative proposals to transport koalas to New South Wales are considered unsuitable.
Firstly, it has been claimed that introducing Kangaroo Island koalas into mainland koala populations may destroy the genetic diversity among koalas.
There are three sub-species of koala in Australia. Some zoologists are concerned that the French Island sub-species, which was first introduced onto Kangaroo Island from French Island over 70 years ago, will contaminate the gene pool in the new areas in New South Wales where it is relocated.
This concern has been voiced by koala geneticist, Dr Bill Sherwin, of the University of New South Wales.
Dr Sherwin fears Kangaroo Island's surplus koalas could flood eastern Australia with koalas with French Island genes.
Secondly, there is concern that unless the Kangaroo Island koalas are carefully placed in their new environments, they will not adapt and will simply face starvation in a different location.
Dr Cath Handasyde, a Melbourne University zoologist has asked, `Do you then dump surplus koalas in sub-optimum habitat and watch them slowly starve?'
Relatedly, it has been claimed Kangaroo Island koalas may die on the mainland because there they will be exposed to some 20 koala diseases, including chlamydia, which are unknown on Kangaroo Island. They will also be exposed to predators, such as foxes, of which they have had no previous experience.
Thirdly, concern exists regarding the trauma koalas could suffer during capture and transportation. Some critics have suggested shooting excess koalas would be kinder than trying to capture and relocate them.
Monash University zoologist, Mr Roger Martin, has claimed relocation may be `disastrous' and the most `inhumane option'.
Fourthly, it has been argued that relocation is no solution even if Kangaroo Island koalas are relocated in highly suitable environments where they will encounter few predators and where there are no other koalas with which to interbreed or from which to contract diseases.
Some fear that such ideal `empty' environments will recreate the problems the koalas face on Kangaroo Island, where without predators or diseases their numbers have grown so large that their habitat can no longer support them.
This view has been put by Allen Greer, who has argued, ``If KI (Kangaroo Island) koalas are translocated to another "empty" but suitable habitat the whole problem may repeat itself in a few decades.'
Fifthly, it has been suggested that capturing and relocating a species in oversupply in one area is a misuse of conservation funds. According to this line of argument, conservation revenue should be spent on animals at greater risk of extinction.
Dr Cath Handasyde has urged the spending of conservation funds on the needs of species such as the northern hairy-nosed wombat and the long-footed potoroo which are more endangered than the koala, but less well-known.
Finally, it has been argued that male sterilisation may take too long to have any effect. According to this line of argument, large numbers of koalas may starve before sterilisation or hormone implants reduce their populations.
The Koala Management Taskforce, which reported to the South Australian Government in November, 1996, claimed that sterilisation and relocation might be worthwhile long-term management strategies, but that the immediate problem of habitat destruction and a `dying ecosystem' required that the koalas be culled.
Further implications
In the short-term koalas will almost certainly not be culled. South Australia and Victoria have begun experimenting with controlling koala populations by suppressing their fertility. Sterilised males and females carrying hormonal implants have been released into some areas of supposed over-population. There have also been some limited attempts at relocating koalas.
However, in the medium-term it is possible that culling may be used. If the other methods being tried are not as successful as their supporters hope, then some governments and wildlife authorities may face the prospect of having to decide between allowing koalas to starve and shooting them.
Behind this dilemma is a mixture of conservation success and failure. The conservation movement has not managed to prevent the destruction of much of the koala's former habitat. (Much of this destruction had in fact occurred before there was a conservation movement.) However, the conservation movement and biologists, zoologists and geneticists have been successful at establishing koala colonies in a number of suitable habitats remaining in Victoria and South Australia.
Unfortunately these successful colonies appear to have become ecological time-bombs with growing koala numbers likely to outstrip the capacity of their habitats to support them.
The possibility of having to shoot koalas is so unattractive to most people and to most governments, that it is possible there may be large-scale export of koalas to overseas zoos and wildlife sanctuaries.
The only long-term solution appears to be the successful maintenance and extension of koala territories and the use of effective methods to reduce koala fertility.
Sources
The Age
20/9/97 page 3 news item by Tim Winkler, `Koalas to go on the pill or get the snip'
The Australian
19/3/96 page 5 news item by John Kerin, `Island koalas hang on'
21/3/97 page 5 news item by Andrew Ramsey, `Koala group slams `soft cull' relocation'
23/3/96 page 3 news item by John Kerin, `Specialists in crisis talks over future of island koalas'
30/3/96 page 24 letter from Allen Greer, `The case of the much-travelled koala'
20/9/97 page 3 news item by Rachel Hawes, `Implants to cool koalas' ardour'
27/11/96 page 5 news item by Katherine Towers, `Koala taskforce recommends cull'
30/11/96 page 5 news item by Katherine Towers, `Science seen as solution to koala cull'
1/3/97 page 4 news item by Terry Plane, `Kind cut for koalas'
4/3/97 page 5 photograph and caption, `First sterilised koala returns a new man'
The Herald Sun
18/3/96 page 2 news item, `Outrage over koala cull bid'
18/3/96 page 18 editorial, `In defence of Blinky Bill'
19/3/96 page 5 news item by Terry Brown, `Gun furore sparks koala surgery plan.
20/3/96 page 16 news item, `World anger on koala cull'
24/3/96 page 15 analysis by Graeme O'Neill, `Warning on "kind" koala decision'
29/11/96 page 1 news item by Kristin Owen, `Our starving koalas'
30/1/97 page 7 news item by Bruce Brammall, `NSW wants our koalas'
1/12/96 page 24 analysis by Kelly Ryan, `Koalas lose number balance'
2/12/97 page 18 comments by Roger Martin & Jim Roberts, `Are there times when we should cull koalas?'
The Internet
The Australian Wildlife Surveys and Conservation Services explains its koala relocation scheme at http://www.awt.com.au/koala/
Earthwatch gives background information on Kangaroo Island's koalas and calls for volunteers for its monitoring program at http://www.earthwatch.org/x/Xpaton.html
The animal activist groups, Fund for Animals and Australians for Animals, oppose koala culling. They detail their reasons on the Internet at http://www.paws.org/activists/news/news303.htm
The Sydney Morning Herald
14/1/97 page 3 news item, `Preservation group's bid to kill 60 koalas'