koala management in australia - j-stage home

Australian Studies Association of Japan

NII-Electronic Library Service

AustralianStudies Association of Japan

Koala Management in Australia Ecology or Politics?

Brett Bryan', Jan Carey*, and Yoshiko Ohkura"

Abstract

The conservation ef Australia's biological diversity has many controversial aspects, in particular,

wildlife management programs that sanction population control, or culling, of native species, Most

Australians, however, draw the line at shooting koalas. Koaia populations in Australia vary widely

in their popuiation dynamics and conservation status as some are experiencing critical dec}ine and

others, unbridled expansion. Sensitive habitats in parts of southern Australia have become

overpopulated by koala populatiens which have overbrowsed their preferred tree species'. As a

result, endemic Eucalyptus communities have become decimated and the food supplies destroyed.

Controlled culling of koalas has been proposed by some ecologists and conservationists, and has

become a political issue. Koala protection organisations and the media have at times piayed on

public sympathy for the koala to the point where koala mamagement issttes have infiuenced voter

preferences and confused the conservation status of the species. Education is needed to change

the public perception of the koala as a cuddly national icon to a more holistic understanding of

the koala as one element in the ecosystem, the integrity of which must be maintained as first

priority. Such a view would reduce the pelitical sensitivity of koala management and enhance the

sustainability oi keala populations and their preferred habitat.

1. Introduction

Koala management is a significant, multi-faceted Australian environmental issue. Aspects of

the issue over the past decade have included the rivalry between koala conservation organisations,

the scientific debate over the koaia's conservation status, the cornmercial symbolism of the koala,

whether koalas are perceived as indigenous or not, and the community's attitudes and psychological

attachment to the koala. These factors, combined with the very public profile of the koala, interact

to make koala management an extrernely political and sensitive issue, not least in South Australia.

The ecelogical factors that govern the keala's preferred habitat are stiil unclear, but its range

frequently extends into urban areas and transport corridors, where it is visible to and keenly

protected by communities. Psychologically, kealas procure a deep emotional respon$e in many

peopie that elicits affection and an overprotective response toward the species. Politically, the

koala ls at the centre of intense point-scoring and power plays involving scientists, conservation

groups, media, politicians and the Australian Koala Foundation (AKF)(i).

* Department ef Geographical and Environmental Studies, University of Adelaide, South Australia

-50-




Koala Management in Australia

Keala populations in the eastern States of Australia may well be signiiicantly threatened by

various processes including the interaction of natural populations controls, the ongoing clearance

of their native habitat, and the hazards involved with living in close quarters with humans. However,

this is not the only ecological problem affecting wild koala populations in Australia. The

overbrowsing and degradation of highiy significant stands ef remnant native habitats by koalas

and severe defoliation of their preferred food trees has occurred in several locations around southern

Australia.

Management of koala populations has been one of the most contentious environmental issues

in South Australia over the past decade. On Kangaroo Island, 5,OOO koalas (2,OOO more than can

be sustained, according to the National Parks and Wildlife Service) are decirnating the endemic

stands of manna gum which have already been significantly reduced in extent by land clearance.

Koalas are being illegally shot by farmers, who are at risk of $5,OOO fines. So many trees have

been stripped that the manna gum itself is claimed to be a species at risk. Recently, the Mt Lofty

Ranges koala population increased greatly and dispersed into the "Adelaide

Hills" suburbs,

threatening a similar problem (Bryan 1995, 1996). This colony is nationally important as a reservoir

of animals, preserving the gene pool of the species that may be in direct threat of extinction in

the eastern States of Australia.

Elsewhere, selective culling of various managed species has been sanctioned by wildlife mapagers

to contrel populations, among them the kangaroo CMacropus spp.). The approach taken to preserve

some wild species is to commercialise the right to hunt them but this is clearly untenable in the

case of the koala. Ecologistl entrepreneur Dr John Wamsley (2)

predicted the situation with regard

to the Kangaroo Island pepulation in 1991, saying that "It's

time for some hard decisions" but that

culling is "politically

unacceptable" and would spark community outrage (Evans, 1991). An article

in Adelaide's daily newspaper TheAdvertiser, on 26 January 1993 entitled "tstand's

icoalas may

j?zce cutling" (Clausen, 1993) outlined the Department of Environment and Land Management plans

and fulfilled Wamsley's prediction, stirring an angry response in several letters to the editor. The

issue escalated and came to a head in early 1996. Koala managernent on Kangaroo Island needs

to proceed within the turbulent 'social and political environment, the programs and outcornes of

which will be discussed.

This paper examines the rekindling of the controversy and argues that community perceptions

of the koala and misconceptions of its conservation status caused by disagreements between the

rnajor koala conservation factions, fanned by the media, have hampered the management of koalas

in the southern regions of Australia. The lead-in to the latest episode of koala publicity is described,

as well as earlier events that characterise the stormy history of koalas in the Australian political

and social scene.

2. Koala Ecology and Overbrowsing

The fossil record reveals a 15 million year antiquity of the ancestors of the koala, the

Phascolarctidae. The koala's generic seientific name, Phascolarceos cinereus, means ash-coloured,

peuched bear (Lee and Martin, 1988, p.11). Ail modern koalas are grouped under this name and are

not bears as the narne suggests, but are marsupials. There are three subspecies which are

recognised by some authors, differentiated by size, muzzle shape and colour - Ac. adustus in

-51-




t-XFVV7fffi as10e 1998.6

Queensland, P.c. cinereus in New South Wales (NSW) and P,c. victor in Victoria, Victorian koalasare much larger and lighter coloured than their northern neighbours and are the genetic stock

from which the South Australian population was translocated earlier this century.

Koalas are arboreal fottvores, or tree-dwelling leaf eaters, and are highly selective of the type

of natural surroundings they choose to inhabit. Climate plays an important role in habitat distributionas koalas inhabit the crescentic band of moist coastal forests around eastern and southern Australia.The range of the koala spans nearly 22e of latitude, The species is absent in wet iorests, semi-arid

and arid areas, and uncommon above 600 m above sea Ievel in the south (Lee and Martin, 1988,

p.25). On a finer scale koalas are extremely fastidious users of habitat. Only about 33 of the 600(approx.) known species of Australian eucalypt are preferred and 45 utilised by koalas (Bryan 1997).This highly specific diet is occasionally supplemented by the foiiage of other eucalypts and non-

eucalypt species (Lee and Martin, 1988, p.26), Koalas eat up to lkg of gum leaves daily, and in

South Australia seems to prefer manna gum CEucatyptus vimtnalts) and swamp gum (E. ovata)C3),

The bellows of male koalas herald the onset of the breeding season of late spring-early summer,

Female koalas produce, on average, about one cub per year. The seasonal mating means that the

cub emerges from the pouch of the marsupial when the foliage is succulent, nutritious, and flushwith new growth (Lee and Martin,1988, p.51). However, if this is not the case, the female koala

has the ability to suspend the development of a fertilised egg in her body until food becornes more

plentifui (Eames, 1981, p.5).

Koala populations have no internal mechanisms of population control and rely on external

factors to maintain a dynamic equilibrium with their environment. Factors including the disease

caused by the bacterium Chtamydia, in addition to aboriginal hunting and natural wildfire have

been implicated in regulating koala populations{`). Where these mechanisrns are impeded or absent,

koala populations may expand at alarming rates (Tobin, 19831 Robinson et al,, 1989). Annual rates

of increase of disease-free populations have been found to be in the order of 65 (Tebin, 1983) to

79% (Robinson et ae.,1989, p.18).

Koalas are sedentary, nocturnal animals (Mitchell 1991) and spend much of their day restingto conserve the meagre amounts of energy gained from a diet of Eucalyptzts leaves, Koalas have

a complex social structure. Social groups are territorial and have well-defined home ranges. However,

individuals lead solitary lives for the most part and interact infrequently. Habitat is of utmost

importance to the species as they sleep in the forks of trees rather than utilising nests or hollows.Individual food trees which oceur in home range overlap zones are extremely important in thebreeding ecology of the species.

It is a natural function of koala populations to disperse, once a critical density(5) of animals is

reached, from the resident area into neighbouring areas of habitat. Koala habitat has been reducedby 44-98% in Queensland, NSW, Victoria and SA by the encroachment of modern society, agriculture

and a natural phenomenon known as dieback (caused by drought, insects, fire, grazing, salinity)

(Pahl et al,, 1989, p.22). With reduced avenues of dispersal, koala populations have concentrated inthe areas of favoured habitat which has led to problems of overpepulation and overbrowsing

(Phillips, 1990, p.69).

Artificial introduction of koalas into areas has resulted in the establishment of disease-freecolonies on isolated islands of favourable habitat <eg. Kangaroo Is., French Is.). With significantly

reduced predation, the Kangaroo Island koalas have a very high propensity for expansion. Koalas

-52-





tend to browse on a tree of the preferred species until all leaves and epicormic shoots are gone,which may result in the senescence of the individual tree. If the overbrowsing becomes systematicdue to overpopulation, the preferred Eucalyptus species in an area may become severely degraded,

Consequently, with their food source gene, the koala population will either: disperse into other

areas, often of inferior habitat resulting in a loss of condition and mortality; or they will remain

and starve, resulting in a population crash.

Kershaw (1915] 1934) and McNally (1957) were among the first to document the overbrowsing

of habitat by koalas. Other occurrences of overbrowsing and population crash have since been

documented by Eberhard (1972), on Kangaroo Island, SAi Frith (1978) in northern NSW; Braithwaite

et ae. (1980) on Quail Island, Victorial and Martin (1985a., b. and c.) at Walkerville, Victoria.

Potential for overbrowsing has also been assessed in the Mt. Lofty Ranges(6) (Bryan 1996). Thus,

the Kangaroo Island situation is not a new experience for Australian land managers although the

evolution of the environmentally conscious politicai and soeial envirenment in which decisions

must be made certainly is.

3. The Conservation Status of the Koala

Extinction is a natural process and is permanent. Species loss impoverishes ecosystems and is

generally thought to make them ecologically less stable(7) and less able tQ support life. The loss of

the koala from the Australian landscape would be perceived as severely impoverishing the natural

environment perhaps more than the loss of any other species, such is the high esteem in which

the koala is held. The conservation status of the koala has been at the centre of intense controversy

by various interests in Australia over the past 20 years and experts are stiil unable to agree,

The media, the public, and private enterprise gave the impetus to the `Save

the Koala' campaign

in the 197es. A Western Australian television station produced a documentary entitled `Llfoala

-

the Vttnishtng Australian," which was subsequently followed by a newspaper report (O'Reilly,1978), and later an editorial in the newspaper The Australian (1979) (Harding, 1990, p.493). The

editorial read 1

.,.anarchetypalAustralian,belovedofcartoonists,kidsandtourists.Butnotaccordingtoourstoryteday,byAustralians

generally. We have stopped slaughtering him Calthough only in recent years) but he is dying out... for no other reason

than nobody seems to care much. Probably though we do care. The Australian does - and we have to admit that we did

not realise the koala was in danger of extinction. Now that we know, we are concerned... and we think that most

Australians will be concerned too.

A response to the initiat publicity, from Australian Museum Research Fellow Ron Strahan

(1978), echoed the conclusions of the first symposium on koala biology held at the Taronga Park

Zoo in 1976, that the koala is net rare or endangered, but that its major problem is overprotection,

which hinders research into its basic biology (CSIRO Science Communication Unit, 1979, p.32).Subsequently The Australian (1979) reported the findings of Dr Steve Brown, a veterinarian and

Ph.D. in koala reproduction, and colleague Dr. Frank Carrick of the University of Queensland, that

up to 70% of female koalas in Queensland populations they had studied were infertile due to

`cystic ovary disease' (now recognised as chlamydial infection) and that this, in concert with

-53-



AustralianStudiesAssociation of Japan

t-xF7iJ7blfi rg10e 1998.6

habitat destruction, was threatening Australia's koala population (Harding, 1990, p.494). Their report

noted that they could not attract funding. Irnrnediately, Shell Australia provided the pair with a

$15,OOO grant to continue fertility studies (Harding, 1990, p.494).

Harding (1990, p.494), in a penetrating analysis, suggests that this period engendered three

significant aspects of the controversy: firstly, the ambiguity of the conservation status of koalas,

secondly, the role of disease among koala populations, and thirdly, the emergence of corporate

support for koala conservation.

The next stage in the `Save

the Koala' campaign began when Brown and Carrick (1985) reported

that an epidemic of Chlamydia was sweeping through Australia's koala populations (Dayton, 1990,

p,27) causing `blindness,

pneumonia, reproductive tract infections and other fatal complaints" (Brownand Carrick, l985, p.314). Dr Steve Brown, was principally responsible for the media uproar of the

mid-late 1980s and early 1990s. His activities were based in Queensland, where local populations

were declining through the impact of development. His comments were reported under emotive

headlines in the media such as the following (quoted in Harding, 1990, p.496):

"Fer

the price of a plush Sydney Harbour mansion Australia could help save its koala population from extinction"

(Daily Telegraph, 1988}.

"$5m

needed to save our koalas" (Sydney Morning Herald, 1988).

"Racked

by killer diseases and suffering from extreme habitat Ioss, the cute and cuddly koala is on a rapid, seerningly

unstoppable slide towards extinction" (Bicknell in New Idea, 30 January, 1988),

Public outcry resulting from the unprecedented media attention led to a flood of funds, mainly

from the corporate and public sectors, for koala research over the past ten years. This influx of

money went hand in hand with the establishment of large charity organisations whose goal is to

save the koala. These groups have aroused and fomented public concern with their alarmist claims

of imminent extinction of the koala.

Brown was the prime force responsible for the formation of the AKF in 1986, the major charity

organisation for koala conservation in Australia today, and the World Koala Research Corporation

(WKRC) in I987. In May 1989 Brown left WKRC to set up the Centre for Koala Research in Bond

University Research Park. Three other charitable organisations were also formed to assist koala

researchl the Sun-Herald Fund, the Australian Fund, and the Trainex Foundation (Harding, 1990,

p.496,7).

Today the AKF is the main player in the quest for public doilars for koala research. The

ambiguity of the conservation status of the koala in Australia has been maintained and the AKF

continues to attract substantial donations from the corporate and public sectors. The AKFconcentrates on specific populations and issues such as koala kills on freeways. It claims that

habitat destruction, combined with hazards of dogs and traffic, and stress resultant Chlamydia,

will result in local extinctions of many, if not all, koala pepulations from northern NSW and

Queensland, the largest in Australia, by early next century (Eccleston, 1995>. It maintains that

there is a paucity of knowledge of the koala. These claims update those made by Brown yearsearlier and are similarly emotive. Donating to the AKF gives people a chance to contribute to the

perceived saving of the koala which provides a sense of well-being, Large companies achieve a

compassionate and environmentally sensitive public image from their sponsorship, The AKF is

-M-





very open about its fundraising goals to provide a capital base to fund research in perpetuity.

The main opposition to the views of the AKF is a group of Victorian zoologists led by Dr.

Roger Martin of Monash University. The Victorian scientists reject the claims of their Queenslandcounterparts that the koala is endangered (Martin et at., 1987, p.30). They dispute the impact that

infection by Chtamydia has on pepulations in the absence of external factors and believe that the

infection is a natural population control, preventing overbrowsing of habitat (Lee and Martin, l988,

pp.85-90). They also believe that there is sufficient knowledge of koalas to facilitate the proper

management of the species. These southern experts are scientists with a holistic, ecological mindset,

and they come from an area where the problem is too many koalas. The koala is now firmly re-

established over much of its former range now in Victoria and overbrowsing has become a

widespread problem (Van Tiggelen, 1994, p.30). The following quotes illustrate the differing

vlewpolnts:

"It seems to me that the re-introduction of hunting, in the form of a controlled cull, is nQw the only sensible, humane

and ecologically responsible way te manage some Koala celonies. Unfortunately, any attempt by wildlife authQrities to

implement such a policy would provoke a strong public reaction, much of it sustained by a narrow and squeamish view

of ethics that has no ecological validity" (Martin, 1993, p.3 1)."[Martin]

has a blinkered view of the present day situation and is basing his notions on poorly considered cencepts,,.

There are not too many koalas in Victoria, there are too few trees (Deborah Tabart, Executive Director of the AKF,

quoted by Van Tiggelen, 1994, p.44).

Professor

ideologically:Ian

Hume from Sydney University is not only in the middle geographically but also

`T'here

are those who think that they are on the verge of extinctien, that the disease Chlamydia is going to wipe out

the remnants of the population. There are those of us with a more moderate viewpoint that as long as we look out for

the habitat of the animals, we should be OK. If we don't then we're geing to be looking at very, very smal1 numbers in

the future. And there are those that think everything's hunky-dory" (Dayton, 1990, p.27),

According to Van Tiggelen (1994, p.46), it is advantageous for the AKF to underplay interstate

differences in koala conservation needs in order to acquire greater financial support, since an

emotive plea of imminent extinction is more effective than academic ambiguity in the quest for

pubiic sympathy. Martin's flat. rejection of the claim that the koala is threatened in Austra]ia is

as erroneous as the opposite statement and may arise from frustration among zoologists at the

liberal amount of funding availabie for koala research in contrast with species more in need of

research.

Australia's koala population cannot be thought of as a homogenous entity when it comes to

defining its conservation status. Rather, regional populations must be assessed with respect to

threats and conservation needs. There is little doubt that habitats in Victoria and some partg of

South Australia are becoming overpopulated, and that some Queensland and New South Wales

populations are seriousiy threatened (Phillips, 1990, p.148,9; Pahl et at., 1989, p,21), Koala management

strategies must be tailored to the regional ecologica! situation of the population. The Federal

Labour Government in 1995-96 introduced the concept of

"bioregional

management" of natural

resources including native fauna and fiora. The priority accorded to this issue by the subsequently

-55-




t-XF7iJ7-X ig10? 1998.6

elected Federal Liberal Government has yet to be clarified. "

cross state boundaries. While ecologically rational, the politlcal

states and commonwealth of such a systern are unclear(S).

Bioregions" would in many cases

and economic implications for the

4. Protection of the Koala

Figures quoted for the actual number of wild koalas remaining range from 40,OOO-80,OOO <Phillips,1990) to 500,OOO (Eccleston, 19951 Hopkins, 1990). The largest population of koalas, perhaps 25-

50,OOO, resides in SE Queensland. Northern NSW supports perhaps 10-15,OOO, and Victoria and

South Australia support perhaps 10-15,OOO combined (Phillips, 1990).

Whilst legislation relevant to the protection and conservation of koalas and their habitat exist

at each of the three tiers of government in Australia (ANZECC, 1996a), official legislative protectionof the koala is primarily the responsibility of each State, Hence, protection laws and official

censervation status ratings concerning the koala vary significantly between States and parallel the

highly varied ecological situation of koala poulations in Australia. Generally, the species is protectedby the various State wildlife and nature conservation Acts. Other official mechanisms alse contribute

to the conservation of the koala and its habitat including special planning and development policiesand programmes such as the

`Koala Coast' and

`Koala

Speed Limits' in south-east Queensland. The koala is protected in all states and is classified as rare in New South Wales and SouthAustralia but elsewhere in Australia it is not considered rare. Kennedy (1990, p.52) lists the species

as "potentially

vulnerable". The proposal for placement of the koala on the USA Endangered Species

List sent a strong and embarrassing conservation message to the governments of Australia.

(Sources - AKF 1998a; ANZECC 1996a; Carrick, 1990; Jordan, 1990)

QUEg!YS!.ANQ "COMMON" Koala populations are native but are thought to be declining gradually due to the

continued clearing of iorest and woodland habitat. Koalas have declined severely in some areas where they may besignificantly threatened or locally extinct. Active deelines are still occurring (ANZECC 1996a).

In late 1994 the Koala was gazetted as "Common

Wildlife" pursuant to the Nttture Conseroation Act, l992, The

Iegislative implications ef this are that the koala has been effectively excluded from the protection provided by thisAct for species listed in higher conservation categories, The explicit intention of the governmnet te change the status

to VULNERABLE by the end of 1996 has not eventuated. Special previsions are inc1uded under the IVktture Conservattoza

CPVildlip) Regulation 1994 (ANZECC 1996a).

!SEMLSSQ!.!V±YYALES "RARE

AND VULNERABLE" The NatiQnal Koala Survey (NSW NPWS 1986-7) revealed that

native koala populations had disappeared from between 50-75% of their forrner range and the viability of the species in

this region is significantly th reatened,

The NSW government changed the official status of the koala to "rare and vulnerable" in 1992, This has been reaffirmedunder the Shedule 2 of the 71hreatened Spectes ConservationAct 1995. Because the koala now has this status, it must

be considered in a Fauna Irnpact Statement (FIS) for any proposed development in NSW likely to have a significant

effect on koalas. In recognition of the continuing deeline of koalas and koala habitat in NSW, in early 1995, the NSW

governrnent intreduced State Environmental PIanning Policy No. 44 - Koala Habitat Protection. This is the first speciesspecific planning policy introduced by any government in Australia,

-56-





AYS!BA!.LAIN-QAIILZAL][EB!ll] Q!3)C No OMcial Listing Koalas were common in the ACT until early this century

when factors including disease, bushfire, habitat destruction, hunting and drought combined to cause their dernise.The current koala population in the ACT is believed to have originated from re-introductions from Victoria (ANZECC1996a).

The koala is protected under the Nature Conservation Act 1982 from being kllled, taken, kept, sold, imported and

exported,

rw No OfiiOialListing Like the ACT, koalas were once widespread in Victoria although similar factors led to

their decline. The species is now successfully re-established ever much of its former range from Island stocks.

Chlamydia is present in many ef the re-introduced populations.

The species is protected under the Wildlife Act 1975 (ANZECC 1996a) however, there is no legislation concerning the

koala in Victoria that obligates government or developers (AKF 1998). Habitat is protected under a plethora of Iegislation

including the Planni7zg and EhzvironmentAct l987, the Forests Act 1958, the Crozv?z Lanct Clleservesi Act l975, the

National Parks Act l975, and the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987 (ANZECC 1996a).

UTH AU TRALIA "RARE"

Theecological situation is described in detail later in thetext.

The koala is protected and listed as RARE under Part 1, Schedule 9 ef the Ntttio7zal Parks and PVZildlijla Aet j9Ze,

However, the Act allows for the destruction of protected animals where they cause damage or for Qther purposes

consistent with the Act. Although no permits have been issued forthis reason (ANZECC 1996a). Habitat has been

protected since the introductien of clearance controls in 1983 and continues under the NitLttve Vopetation Act J991.

!>IAI[!QNA!. Environment Australia (formerly the Australia Nature Conservation Agency (ANCA)), Australia's federal

conservation department, considers the protection of gpecies to be primarily the responsibility of each State. The

Koala is not listed under the ANZECC (Australia and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council) List of

Threatened Australian Vertebrate Fauna (1995).

In July 1995, the Australian Koala Foundation and Humane Society International made a joint application to ANCA to

consider listing the Koala as Vulnerable under the Cornmonwealth Enctctngered Species Protection Act 1992. In April

1996, the Federal Environment Minister Robert Hill rejected this application and decided not to add the Koala to

Schedule I of the Act. The AKF warns this decision was politically motivated and that infbrmation and advice given to

the Minister on which to base his decision was out of date and incorrect (AKF, 1998a).

The Australian Koala Fbundatien has called upon the Federal Governrnent to instigate a National Koala Act to ensure

that the populations of koalas remain in their natural habitat remain viable indefinitely (AKF, 1998a).

INTERNATI NAL TheIUCN(InternationalUnionofConservationNations-undertheauspicesoftheUN)RedList

of Threatened Animals of the World 1996 lists the koala as Lower Risig IVear 71Pireatened, A taxon is Lower Risk when

it has been evaluated, but does not satisfy the criteria for any of the categories Critically Endangered, Endangered or

Vulnerable. Near threatened taxa do not qualify for the category of Conservation Dependent, but are elose to qualifying

fer Vulnerable (WCMC, 1998).

-57-




t-X57iJ7qM ig10e 1998.6

5. The Koala's Popularity

The koala is seen as a symbol representing the full range of Australia's native wildlife. Sighting

a wild koala commonly evokes delight and instils in people a sense of wellbeing. This is especially

true when wild koalas are seen such as those invading suburban Adelaide. Sighting a snake or

native rat does not, for the majority of people, evoke a similar response, The koala is biologically

and ecologically unique. Certain characteristics that it possesses, peculiar to the koala and perhaps

also to the giant panda, may account for the species' unparalleled popularity, which underlies the

political and marketing issues connected with the koala and makes management intervention

problematic.

The koala is an inoffensive animal and is not an agricultural pest <Strahan and Martin, 1982,

p.152) and altheugh koatas have caused environmental degradation through overbrowsing, this is

not widely perceived by the general public as being the fault of the koala but rather the problem

of the land manager. The koala is slow moving and non-aggressive towards people, does not have

sharp teeth and is small enough not to evoke fear in humans-in fact it is just the right size to

seem cuddly{9} (Strahan and Martin, 1982, p.152).

Psychological research suggests that the predominant reason why people ieel an affinity for

the koala is because it resembles a human baby. The koala evokes an innate and sub-conscious

caTe-Tesponse from human beings, embodied in the concept of neoteny as developed by Konrad

Lorenz (1934). Neoteny describes those positive reactions te protecting the young which those

animals with characteristics corresponding to Lorenz' Child Schema release in humans, including

a prominent forehead compared with the outline of the face as a whole, with relatively rarge eyes

positioned below the centre of the head, generally reunded form of head and body, short extremities

and soft eLasticity of body surfaceCiO} (Mullan and Marvin, 1987, p.24).

Other characteristics, common in the young of many species of mammals, that make the

animal more like a human baby are also favourabLe (Morris and Morris, 1981, after Mullan and

Marvin, 1987). Humans innately attribute the value of cuteness to something if it shares the

qualities of Lorenz' Child Schema] the more of these qualities it possesses the more aesthetically

pleasing it is (the reverse is also true). The infant koala exhibits all of the above characteristics

in the extreme. As the koala matures it retains most of these characteristics although its eyes

may decrease in size relative to its head. The koala carries most of these qualities threugh life

and hence enjoys immense popularity the world over.

Lawrence (1983, cited by Mullan and Marvin, 1987, p.25) argues that in neotenising animals the

gap that separates humankind and the animal kingdom in the modern industrialised world is

bridged, and a relationship begins. Lawrence believes that to neotenise is to gain control, but it

also relieves us of the responsibility to understand and respect the intrinsic qualities of the species

itselL She believes that this indicates a lack of interest in the animal itself which can lead te

misguided action. This anthropomerphic attitude suggests that the value of the animal lies in its

docility and charm as a human companion and any animal lacking in such qualities is deemed to

have less value (Mullan and Marvin, 1987, p.25).

-58-





6. Economic Value of the Wild Koala

The koala, Australia's arboreal ambassador, has been widely used as a promotional tool both

in this country and overseas. The koala is an unwitting marketing genius but its value is only

redeemable while viable populations exist in their natural environments. If the wild koaia became

extinct, international dismay would debase its economic value.

The number of Australian companies and interests that utilise the koala as a promotionat tool

is enormous. The koala is a universally recognised and attractive icon, not bound by language

barriers, and symbolises Australia's uniqueness. The image of the keala appears on a vast range

of products, two more prominent examples being Willy, Australia's Commonwealth Games mascot,

and Koala Brand Matches. The koala is also extensively used by large companies such as QANTASand American Express as an tourism drawcard, especially aimed at those with a penchant for

koala cuddling at fauna parks such as Cleland Wildlife Park in South Australia. As a measure of

the koala's worth in this capacity, American Express jointly funded the Australian National Parks

and Wildlife Service's 1988 National Koala Survey with a donation of $200,OOO (Phillips, 1990, p.17).

Surveys have revealed that around 75% of European and Japanese visitors are attracted by

Australia's natural features and koalas top the list of animals they want to see.

A recent study by the Australia Institute and the University of Queensland, commissioned by

the AKF into the economic value of viable populations of wild koalas in Australia revealed that "In

1996 alone, revenue of $1.1 billion was injected into Australia's economy by foreign tourists who

came here to see koalas. This translates into around 9,OOO jobs directly accounted for by koalas.

These are expected to increase rapidly over the next decade" (Dr Clive Hamilton of The Australia

Institute, 1996). The AKF question the proportion of the $1.1 billion that is put back into the

conservation of the species. This dollar figure is also provocatively compared to the woodchip

industry by the Executive Director of the AKF, Deborah Tabart, which she claims to be worth

around half of this figure in the same year (AKF, 1998b). Tabart, in an address to the Pacific Asia

Travel Association in 1997 is quoted as saying that "Australia

does not have a sustainable tourism

industry because our gevernments have failed to protect koala habitat" (AKF, 1998b).

7. The Australian Koala Foundation

The Australian Koala Foundation describes itself as "an

international organisation whose prime

focus and aim is the long-term conservation and effective management of the wild Koala in

Australia" (AKF, 1998c). The AKF is a non-profit organisation with branches in every state of

Australia, the US, Japan and transient branches in Germany. The primary objective of the AKF is

to identify and preserve the areas of remaining habitat of the koala. The AKF is progressively

funding the Kbala Hdbitat Atlas, which utilises Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to produce

a series of detailed maps used to lobby for protection of koala habitat Ci!). Funds are raised through

sponsorship, promotions, merchandising and donations, and approximately ene million dollars has

been provided for koala research since 1986. Public education, support for community carer groups

and a consultancy service to assess development impacts on koalas are also provided.

The AKF is unique in Australia as a non-government, iree-enterprise, charitable conservation

-59-

NII-Electronic




t-XFVi)7enfi rgIQe 1998,6

organisation with no reliance on governrnent funding. Politically, the organisational structure of

the AKF is elttist, with power arising not only through the technical expertise of the eleven staff

but through their exceptional skill in public relations and marketing. The AKF now functions asan efficient publicity and fund-raising machine. It is expert not only about koalas but at manipulating

public sympathy. The AKF has been able to maintain credibility and a substantial support base in

the face of significant criticism from academics, the conservation movement, the media and

government.

Many grass-roots conservation and animal liberation groups are suspicious of the operations of

the AKF and question whether their loyalty lies with the keala or the dollar. The AKF has been

accused of not funding animal hospitals or carers, ignoring the failure of governments to legislate

for protection of koala habitat or proper enforcement of management plans, and of not recognising

the effects of logging on koala habitat in some NSW forests.

Van Tiggelen (1994, p.43) states that conservationists protesting the logging of New SouthWales' southeast forests were dismayed when the AKF backed out of saving a resident koala

colony. AFK Director Tabart stated that it was a logging issue rather than a koala issue -a

turnaround on the NO TREE NO ME slogan publicised in the AKF Newsletter in 1994. The

general manager ef Boral Resources, a subsidiary of the cempany that holds the logging licences,aiso happens to be a trustee of the AKF (Van Tiggelen, 1994, p,43).

The South Coast Tollway issue in Queensland was a recent, major political issue involving the

AKF. In February 1992 the Goss Labour government in Queensland, which was facing an election,

scrapped the proposal to build a tollway between Brisbane and the Gold Coast after heavy lobbyingby the AKE because the road wouid bisect sensitive koala habitat. Newly elected, the governmentbrought the tollway back on the agenda in 1993. In July, 1995, Goss faced another election and

because of the tollwaylkoala habitat issue, lest the green vote that the Labour party had held

since 1983 (Hutton, 1994, p.69; Drew Hutton, 1995, pers. comm.). The AKF, in concert with

conservation and other groups such as VETO (Veto Eastern Tollway Organisation), rallied support

behind the coalition. According to the AKF, the tollway issue was the catalyst causing Labour tolose all four seats along the route. It seems the popular and highly favoured Goss government was

defeated because of people's passion to save the koala from local extinction,

On Monday 6 June, 1994, 11he 7.30 Roport (ABC TV) screened an emotive and extremely biasedreport on the AKF, The report attacked a perceived misuse of the $750,OOO collected through the

japanese branch of the AKF following the 1994 NSW bushfires. It was said that only $1,OOO wentto the Pt. Stephens keala carers, the focus of the Japanese media, the remainder part-funding the

Koala Habitat Atlas of the Pt, Stephens area. The report portrayed the AKF as charlatans, sucking

up all the funds in salaries, overseas travel and the Koala Habitat Atlas. Former QueenslandMinister for the Environment, Pat Comban, further discounted the Atlas with unsupported and

ambiguous rhetoric. 7bday Tonight (7 Network) aired a similar story a few days later.

Ms. Tabart described the reasons behind the damaging report as being highly political andcomplex. The report, she claimed, was an attempt te discredit the AKF and its work because ofits very public opposition to the South Coast Tollway.

To quote Van Tiggelen (1994, p.43) "koalas

can easily end up pawns in a game of money and

politics". The AKF rnay or may not be the altruistic saint some would have us believe but thereis no doubt that it is having a signutcant posttave czrtrect, not only on the conservation of potentially

-60-





threatened regional koala populations but also on nature conservation in general in these areas. By

highlighting the plight of the enigmatic koala the AKF has drawn public attention to the situation

of Australia's native ecology. The primary goal of habitat conservation has beneficial ramifications

for not only the koata but for other less-public but no less-threatened species and indeed entire

ecosystems.

8. Distribution of Koalas in South Australia

Aboriginal hunting in concert with Chlamydia kept pre-European koala populatiens in check

and several accounts tell of the dramatic increase in koala numbers that occurred with the decrease

in the Aboriginal population (Lee and Martin, 1988, pp.82-84). The southern population is also free

of the disease caused by the Chtamydta bacterium. In South Australia at the time of settlement

in 1836, koalas were only known in the lewer south-east of the state, where they were "by

no

means uncommon" (Wood-Jones, 1924). Europeans virtually shot out the koala from the south-east

and by the late 1930s the species was considered to be extinct in South Australia.

The koala is an introduced species in South Australia. In 1923, six koalas from Victoria were

transferred to an enclosure at Rocky River (now Flinders Chase National Park) on Kangaroo Island.

In 1925, six more males and six females were introduced. They escaped and by 1948 the park

ranger reported that "koalas

were present in hundreds and evidence of them is seen everywhere"

(Robinson et al., 1989, p.4). All subsequent introductions in South Australia, with the exception of

one deliberate introduction from NSW to Brownhill Creek near Adelaide, have been of Flinders

Chase stock (Robinson, 1978). Kangaroo Island koalas were moved back to the mainland in 1963,

to interbreed with three koala colonies set up in the Riverland district (Cock, 1996). Koala populations

now exist en Kangaroo Island, in the Riverland, Southern Eyre Peninsula, the Southeast and the

Adelaide Hills.

9. Perception of Koalas by South Australians

In the surnmer of 1995 koala sightings increased drarnatically in suburban Adefaide, suggesting

a significant increase in numbers (Altmann, 1995). Headlines in Adelaide's daily newspaper 77ve

Advertiser in early January, 1995, such as "The

gumteof gang hits town:' (Altmann, 1995), `tHang

on, we'Te everywhere" (Weir, l995a), `3y

Gum, It's Nice Here" (Weir, 1995b), and `ZecV21

suburbs

welcome close encounter of a cuddly icina" (Weir, 1995c), reflect the pleasure of the residents in

this migration.

Most South Australians know that koala populations exist in South Australia. A significant

proportion of these people however, do not perceive the koala as exotic because it is a native

Australian species and because it is an aesthetically pleasing component of the local environment.

The Oxford Dictionary defines exotic as introduced from abroad,, but Weir (1977, p.5) states that

defining an entity as exotic is a value judgement and a scientific explanation of the word is

difficult. Because it was introduced from other regions, the koala must be considered an exotic

species in South Australia (except the south-east region where it has been reintroduced) that may

have a detrimental effect on the endemic remnant forests.

When koalas move into suburbia in significant numbers as they have in the foothills suburbs

-61-

NII-Electronic




t--FVV7Mfi ag10e 1998.6

ef Adelaide, people tend to associate their abundance with general environmental health. The

environment is perceived to be in a healthy state because the koala population is flourishing.

Media headlines such as "By

gum, it's nice here" (Weir, 1995b) reinforce the irnpression that

koalas like living in close quarters with humans. On the contrary, the animals are frequently

harassed by dogs and are forced to remain in the same tree for extended periods of time. A more

accurate message is that koala colonies in the Hills suburbs may be reaching the upper limits of

density in areas of suitable habitat, with individuals being forced to disperse and migrate into

other suburban areas, often of less suitable habitat (Bryan 1996).

1O. The Kangaroo lsland Culling Controversy

On 17 March 1996 the Adelaicle tabloid Sunday Mail carried a story headed "Why

KI koalas

face bullet." The next day 711ve Advertiser headed its front page with

"2000

koalas may be on death

row" and invited readers to take part in a telephone poll as to whether koalas should be culled.

Overnight hundreds of readers responded, 88% with an emphatic "No!"

Politicians were quick to

respond. The recently elected Federal Environrnent Minister, Senator Robert Hill, urged a rethink

of the cull preposal. The Hon. David Wotton, South Australian Minister for Environrnent and

Family and Community Services, set up a task force on 19 March (see Kerin 1996) to investigatethe issue and declared,

"There

will be no cull of koalas while I am Minister." On March 23 the

South AustraLian Premier Mr Brewn announced a government revegetation scheme, A Greener

South Australia, which included mass plantings of manna gums, saying he was hopeful of getting

Commonwealth funding for the greening strategy.

During the intense politicking and media attention that fellowed, claims were made that koalas

smuggled eff Kangaroo Island were being sold overseas for up to $5000 each (Morgan & Steene,

1996). Minister Wotton ridiculed this allegation and urged Australian Democrats leader Mike Elliet

to "come

down from the trees" when he raised this concern. Elliot said that new South Australian

legislation(i2) before the Upper House, would, in its present form, allow the harvesting of native

animals from national parks, which Wotton emphatically denied.

David Schultz, senior veterinarian at the Adelaide Zoo, suggested that reducing the peputation

by shooting was the rnost humane method of control and that if such a program was approved use

of the carcasses for research or other uses should be mandatory (Schultz, 1996). He saw this as

a short term selution to be considered before the situation became critical and koalas died of

starvation.

Vincent Serventy, naturalist and president of the Wild Life Preservation Society, championed

translocation (Serventy, 1996). Senior representatives of the New South Wales National Parks and

Wildlife Service, Victorian Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and the Australian

Nature Conservation Agency[i3} sent representatives to discuss translocation and other solutions to

the problem with the South Australian Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

Professor Hugh Possingham, a distinguished Adelaide University ecologist and leader of the

task force, and Dr John Wamsley, listed the options but did not commit themselves publicly.

Possingham predicted the taskforce would eventually recommend a combination of translocation,

fertiiity control and culling (Cock, 1996).

The Australian Koala Foundation rejected any culling and oppesed the translocation proposals,

-62-

NII-Electronic





the Executive Director Ms Deborah Tabbart was reported as saying that existing koala colonies

would reject the newcomers and that it was likely the Kangaroo Island population was genetically

inferior (Ramsay, 1996). She allegedly said the population would be better controlied through"selective

removal of younger individuals or the introduction of a stronger mainland breed." Ms

Tabart was quoted as suggesting the introduction of Chtamydia as "a

natural solution" to the

problem, since the disease was effective in controlling populations in the eastern states (Pengelley,1996). However, the issue of koala overbrowsing does not seem to be a priority of the Australian

Koala Foundation and only passing reference is made on its World Wide Web site. The official

position is that the "problems

on Kangaroo Island are rnan-made and require well-considered

scientific management to be solved" (AKF, 1998a).

1 1. Current Koala Management

The Task Force on Kangaroo Island Koala Management made a series of recommendations

including a combination of culling, fertility control, habitat protection and restoration, and

translocation to the south-east of the State. They also recommended a public education campaign

and an extensive research program into koala ecology on the Island (Possingham et al. 1996).

Wotton, the South Australian Minister for Environment at the time rejected the recommendations

of the task force in a very public and political excercise,

In response to the volatility of koala conservation in Australia, the draft National Koala

Conservation Strategy was prepared by ANZECC for public review in November 1996 (ANZECC,

1996b). An inforrnation paper summarising the current approaches to koala conservation and

management in Australia was also released to assist public comment (ANZECC, 1996a). The primary

goal of the National Strategy (ANZECC, 1996b) is to "conserve koalas by retaining viable populations

in the wild across their natural range". The Strategy (ANZECC, 1996b) proposes six objectives to

guide koala management in Australia which are as followsl

1. To conserve koalas in their existing habitat.

2. To rehabilitate and restore koala habitat.

3, To develop a better understanding of the conservation biology of koalas,

4,Toensurethatthecommunityhasaccesstofactualinformationaboutthedistribution,conservationandmanagement

of koalas at a nationa!, State and local scale.

5. To manage captive, sick or injured koalas and orphaned wild koalas to ensure consistent and high standards of care,

6. To manage over-browsing to effectively prevent both koala starvation and ecosystem damage in discrete patches of

habitat.

The AKF (AKF, 1998d) have been scathingly critical of the national strategy and claim that the

draft National Koala Conservation Strategy implies that koala habitat is safe thanks to federal

conservation initiatives such as Greening Australia, Landcare and the One Billion Trees programme.

-63-




t-XFVT)7erZ rg10e 1998,6

Tabart states that:

The Strategy glosses over the processes that cause habitat fragmentation and says that community groups will

revegetatedamagetokoalahabitatoncedevelopmenthasoccurred...TheNationalStrategysaysthattheseprogrammes

aim to revegetate 250,Ooo hectares of degraded land but with the Queensland government approving the ctearing of

1,OOO,OOO hectares of virgin bush in 1997 alone, this country is in a 750,Ooo hectare d,eficit already.

The National Strategy does rely heavily on revegetation initiatives in koala conservation. Tabart's

objection to this is ecologically well-founcled for twe reasons. Firstly, the conservation of ecosystems

and communities with the full range of component species and established structure is ecologically

preferable to successional revegetated areas. Secondly, there may be a lag period associated with

the replanting scheme as koalas have been found to only feed on older trees, presumabLy because

as the tree gets larger and older the need to produce phenolics in defence against herbivores

becomes less. The branches of young trees may also be too weak to support the weight of an adult

koala. It is unclear when young food trees cease to be toxic to koalas but it is probably more than

eight years (D. Frankham, 1995, pers. commi)･

A management plan for Kangaroo Island koalas was developed in accordance with the National

Koala Conservation Strategy (ANZECC 1996b) by the conservation arm of the South Australian

governmentCi`), The strategy was presented with little publicity to a conference of Environrnent

Ministers in June 1996, The key elements of the program include controlling the fertirity of the

Kangaroo Island koala population though a sterilisation program] translocating sterilised koalas

from high impact areas to other areas, predominately the south east region of South Australia;

and restoring and managing koala habitat (DEHAA, 1998). Conspicuously, culling is not an option.

Kangaroo Island koalas are physically removed from trees and the fertility of females addressed

by tubal ligatien surgery and males by vasectomies. A microchip is also implanted to yieldinformation about their movements. After sterilisation, koalas are either returned to the same tree

which they were captured from, or relocated to other suitable habitat. DEHAA claim that the

sterilised and translocated koalas are showing no signs of stress. As of April 1998 2,155 Kangaroo

Island koalas had been sterilised and 711 had been translocated to the south-east (DEHAA, 1998).The Advertaser (25 February, 1998, p.11) reported a DEHAA koala project officer as saying

"the

project was `well

on the way' to maintaining a suitable koala population on Kangaroo Island and

in the South-East". Updates on the project can be seen on the World Wide Web at http:11www.koalarescue.npf.org.au.

t2. Conclusion

The innate psychological response engendered in humans by the koala has fostered overprotective

community attitudes toward the species across the globe. This has led to the generation ef

substantial funds for koala conservation and the establishment of a political and economic culture

surrounding this charismatic animal. The economic value ef the koala is protected as diligently as

the biological species itself by reputable environmental organisations such as the AKF, geared to

promote the scarcity of the "product"

worlclwide. The political undertones, founded Likewise in the

economic value of the koala, are exposed when government, AKF, tourism interests and other

-64-





corporate power-brokers see their various agenda disrupted or aims thwarted by the evaporation

of the mistique surrottnding the koala. The ethical questions arising from options for managing the"population

explosion" of koalas in parts of southern Australia, and consideration of their possible

death from starvation due to decimation of their preferred habitat, will continue to be argued by

managers and the whole community,

Leopold (1949), in his "land

ethic," attributed rights to both the living and non-living components

of an ecosystem. Fox (1990, p281) extends moral consideration to species that have interests in

regenerating their activities and structure, as long as this does not interrupt the proper functioning

of the ecosystem. In this way of thinking, the preservation of the integrity of the Kangaroo Island

and other ecosystems subject to overbrowsing is the highest priorfty, Preserving the gene pool

and a viable population of koalas is also necessary as they may be threatened in other parts of

Australia, but is of second priority in these regions. Government policy and regional management

strategies should be guided by this order of priority. The focus oi community education sheuld be

upon a more realistic perception of the koala's place in regional ecosystems, making clear the

actual situation of koala colonies in each state and emphasising the differences between regional

populations.

Although the South Australian management approach goes beyond the resource value of the

koala towards considering the interrelations within the ecosystem, it nevertheless remains

"profoundly anthropocentric", being

"committed

to the conscious management and manipulation of

nature" (Vincent, 1993, p.263). Human intervention such as culling or fertility contrel is justified,the managers hold, because the problem was caused by humans in the first place. Kangaroo Island

residents and general public expect the government to act decisively to prevent further habitat

degradation and koala starvation as non-intervention is politically and ecologically risky. Whilst

controlled professional culling is ecologically the best solution as the current management may

merely shift the problem elsewhere, it would be political suicide for the South Australian

government, and economic suicicle for the Australian tourism industry. The human psyehological

attachment is such that voter backlash against a government-sanctioned koala cull would be

significant. Further, the feverish interest of the worldwide media such an issue would arouse

would decimate the 1.1 billion tourist dollars the AKF claims that the koala draws,

The very public face of the Australian Koala Foundation and the policy of koala protection

have had ramifications for wider nature conservation in Australia. The publicity fer koalas has

indirectly drawn public attention to the plight of Australia's native animals and the extreme situation

of many of them, but on the other hand, has diverted funds from other less charismatic but more

threatened species such as the Hastings River mouse (Pseudomys oraeis) or the red-tailed

phascogale (Phascogate calura). Preserving koala habitat is also preserving the habitat of other

species and hence is a significant conservation effort. The AKF has worked hard to raise the

public profile of the koala and in doing so has drawn unprecedented political attention to its plight

in Queensland and New South Wales. This has fostered a misconception of the status of the koala

in Victoria and South Australia and has hampered koala rnanagement strategies in these states.

Whilst koalas may not be threatened in these regions, overbrowsing remains a koala conservation

issue and requires management. Population dynamics and threats to koala populations in Australia

vary significantly between regions and must be managed within a bioregional context in the face

of the intense socio-political environment that has enveloped the conservation of this most valuable

-65-




t-XFiTJ7ffZ es10e 1998,6

specles.

References

Altmann, C. (1995), `The

Gumleaf Gang Hits Town', Adelaidel 77zeAdvertiser, 4 Jan, 1995, p, 1,AKF(AustralianKealaFoundation)(1998a).ÈndangeredorNot?'.http:lfwww.akfkoala.gil.com.auldanger,html

AKF (1998b). tKoala

worth $1 billion and 9000jebs'. http:1/www.akikoala,gil,com.aulbillion,html

AKF (1998c), Àbout

the Australian Koala Foundation'. httpllfwww.aktkoala.gil.com.aufakf.html

AKF (1998cl). `Media

Release', http:lfwww.akikoala.gil.com.au/, Now withdrawn from World Wide Web site.

ANZECC (Australia and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council) (1996a), Òverview

of the current approaches

toconservationandmanagementofkoalasinAustralia'.http:!lwww.anca.gov.aulplantslmanagernefkoalans1.htm

ANZECC (1996b), `Draft

National Koala Conservation Strategy' http:1!www.anca.gov.aul plantslmanagemel

koalans2.htm

Braithwaite, R,W., Lumsden, L.F. and Dixon, J,M. (1980), À

shogt history of Quail Island', in Sites of Zoologicat Signipcance eln the PVestermport Regton: intertm Report, `7bp

of the Bay' Area. National Museum of VIctoria,

pp.44-8.

Brown, S. and F. Carrick (1985), `Koala

Disease Breakthrough: Vaccine to be Tested This Year',Austratian IVdtural

History, Vol. 21, No. 8, pp,314-317.

Bryan, B, A. (1995), 71}Le Ecological, Psychological and Politicat lssues Surroundtng the filanagemont of1foalas in

the Southern Mt. Lctfty Ranges. M. Env. Studies Dissertation, Mawson Graduate Centre for Environmental Studies,

The University of Adelaide.

Bryan, B. A. (1996), `Koala

Ecology in the Mt. Lofty Ranges: Another Kangaroo Island?', Seuth Austratian Geogrophical

Jbumat 95, pp. 36-49.

Bryan, B. A. <1997), À

generic method for identifying regienal koala habitat using GIS', Australian Geographical Studies

35(2).pp.125-139.

Carrick, F, (1990), `Towards

a rational debate on koala conservation issues', in D,Lunney, C.A.Urquhart, and P.Reed

(eds .) ifoala Summtt - Mauaging 1foalas in Nezv Sottth Wkxles, Proceedings of the Koala Summit held at the University

of Sydney 7-8 November, 1988. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville, NSW. pp.149-56.

Cock, A. (1996>, `Koala

Man May Have Answer to Island Rescue', Adelaide: 7Vze Adverttser, 27 Mar. 1996.

Clausen, L. (1993), Ìsland's

Koalas May Face Culling', Adelaide] 71he Advertiser, 26 Jan. 1993, p.6.CSIRO Science Comrnunication Unit (1979),

`Koalas Hold On", ECOS, No,19, p. 32.

Dayton, L. {1990>, `Can

Koalas Bear the Twentieth Century?', Nlew Scientist, Vol. 22, September, pp. 27-29.

DEHAA (South Australian Department of Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs) (1998), Koala Rescue. http:!/ www.koalarescue.npf.org.aul

Eames, R. C1981>. `Koalas:

some questions need answering', Habitat Australia 9(4), p.5.

Eberhard, I.H, (1972), Ecology of the koala, Phascolarctos ctnereus (Goldwss), on the FMnders Chase, Klingaroo

lsland.AthesissubmittedforthedegreeefDoctorofPhilosophy,DepartmentofZoology,TheUniversityofAdelaide,

Eccleston, R. (1995), `Keala

Bare', Sydneyl The Austraeian., 19 Jun. 1996,Evans, S. (1991),

`Koalas Chew Their Way into Trouble', Adelaide: The Advertiser, 20 Mar, 1991.

Fex, W. (1990), fbuiarcts a Trqnspersonal EceCogy: Deveeoping IVezv Foundattonsfor Environmentalism., Boston:

Random House.

Frith, H.J, (1978). ualdlofb Conservatton. Angus and Robertson, Sydney.Harding, R, (1990>,

`Koala Politics: Good or Bad for Nature Conservation?", in K. Dyer and J. Young (eds.), Changing

Aaletaicte Dtrections: Proceedtngs ofEcopelitics IVCo7oference, Uiziversitgy ojAdeiaide, 1989, Adelaide: University ･

ofAdelaidePress,pp.493-504.

Hopkins, H. (1990), `The

Cute-and-cuddly Factor in South Australia', Adelaide: 7heAdvertiser, 8 Mar. 1990.Hume, LD. (1990),

`Biological

Basis for the Vulnerability of Kealas te Habitat Fragmentation', in D. Lunney, C.A. Urquhart

and P. Reed (eds.), Kbala Summit - Managing Kbalas in IVew South PVttles, Proceeelings ofthe Kbata Summit held

-66-

NII-Electronic Mbrary





at the University ofSydney, 7-8 Nov. 1988, Hurstville NSW: NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, pp.32-35.

Hutton, D. (1994), `The

Record of the Goss Government on Biodiversity',Austraeian Eiologtst, Vol,7, No.1, pp.69-71,

Jordan, W. (1990), ℃ oncern in Britain for the koala', in D,Lunney, C.A.Urquhart, and P.Reed (eds,) Kbala Summit -

Managtng Kbatas in New South PVtetes. Proceedings of the Koala Summit held at the University of Sydney 7-8

November, 1988, NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville, NSW. p.185,

Kennedy, M. (1990),Austratia's Endangered Species, NSW: Michael Kennedy and Ausworld Publishing.

Kerin, J. <1996), `Specialists

in Crisis Talks Over Future of Island Koalas', Sydney: The Wizeicend Austratian, 23 Mar.

1996,p.3.

Kershaw, J.A. (1915), Èxcursion

to National Park, Wilson's Promontory', Victorian IVaturatist 31. pp.143-52.Kershaw, J.A. (1934),

`The

keala on Wilson's Promontory', Victortan IVttturalist 51. pp.76,7.Lee, A.K. and R.W. Martin, <1988), The Koala:A IVdtural Htstory, Australian Natural History Series, Victoria: Australian

Print Group,

Leepold, A. (1949),A Sand County Atmanac, USAI Charles Scribners Sons.

Lorenz, K. (1934), "Die

angeboren Formen moglicher Erfahrung', Ztetscier(fXjur 7iie7 psychoeogte, Vol. 5, pp. 235-409.

Martin, R.W. <1985a.), ÒverbrQwsing,

and decline of a population of the koala, Phascolarctos cinereus, in Victoria: I,

FoQd preference and food tree defoliation',Austrattan VVitdtde ReseaTcPu 12. pp. 355-65,

Martin, R.W. (1985b.), Òverbrowsing,

and decline of a population of the keala, PhascQlarctos cinereus, in Victorial II.

Population Cendition',Attstraeian VVildtijte Research 12. pp. 367-75.

Martin, R,W. (1985cJ, Òverbrowsing,

and decline ef a pepulation of the koala, Phascolarctos cinereus, in Victoria: II,

Population dynamics', Austratian ualdlafla Research 12. pp. 377-85.

Martin, R. (1993), Òf

Koalas, Tree-kamgaroos and Men', Australtan Natural Htstorzi, Vol. 24, No,3, pp, 23-31.

Martin, R,, K. Handasyde and A, Lee <1987), Ìs

the Koala Endangered?'Austratian Science Maga2tne , No. 4, pp.26-30.

May, R. (1973), Stabittty and Complexitu in Mbdel Ecosystems. Princeton: Princeton Univer$ity Pre$$.

Mitchell, PJ. (1991). `The

home ranges and social activity ofkoalas -a quantitative analysis' in A.K,Lee, KA.Handasyde,

and G.D. Sanson (eds.) Biology of the Koala. Surrey Beatty and Sons, NSW. pp. 171-187.

McNally, J. (1957). 1foaea imnagement in Vtctoria. Fisheries and Game Department, Victoria. Wildlife Circular No.4.

A, Dunbavin Butcher M. Sc.

Mergan, H. and M. Steene (1996), `KI

Koalas Smuggled Overseas', Adelaide: 7heAdvertiser, 22 Mar. 1996.

Merris, R. and D, Morris (1981), fhe Giant Panda, London: Macmillan.

Mullan, B, and G. Marvin (1987), Zoo Culture, London[ Weinfield and Nicho}son,

Noonan, D. (1994),fbward a Bioregtonal Policy and Practicefor the Conservatton of flhreatened Biodiversitg, M.

Env. Studie$ Dissertation, Mawson Graduate Centre for Environmental Studles, The University of Adelaide, South

Australia (unpublJ.

O'Reilly, D. (1978), `Bear

With Us While We Kiss the Koala Goodbye', Sydney: 17zeAustraetan., 16 Jun, 1978,p.2.

Pahl, L.I., F,R. Wylie and R. Fisher (1989), `Koalas:

the Prospects for Survival', HdbitatAustratia, April 1989. pp.21-23.

Pengelley, J, (1996), `Disease

Call to Control Koalas', Adelaide: 11Fbe Advertiser, 3 Jun. 1996.

Phillips, B. (1990>, 'Koalas:

the Little Australian We'd All Hate to Lose', Canberra: Australian National Parks and Wildlife

Service, Australian Governrnent Printing Service.

Possingharn, H., Barton, M., Boxall, M., Dunstan, J., Gibbs, J,, Greig,J., Inns, B., Munday, B., Paten, D., Vickery, E, and

St. John, B. C1996), Koala Management 7kxsk Force: Final Report.

Pressey, R. (1995), `Bioregional

Planning for the Conservation of Biodiversity - Putting Theory into Practice', (Abstract),

in Approaches to Bioregional Ptanning Co7uierence Program and Abstracts, Melbourne, 30 Oct.-1 Nov. 1995,

Canberra: Biodiversity Unit, Department of Environment, Sport and Territories.

Ramsay, A. (1996), `Koala

Group SIams "Seft

Cull'' Reiocation, Sydney: TheAttstraiian, 21 Mar. 1996,

Robinson, A.C, (1978), 'The

Status of the Koala in South Australia', in TJ.Bergin (ed.), The KOata - Proceedtngs of the

Taronga Symposium on KOaCa Biotogy, Mtinagement and Medictne. Sydney, 11 and 12 Mar, 1976, Artarmon,

NSW: John Sands Pty Ltd, pp.132-143.

-67-




t-JkF7iJ7MX aglee 1998.6

Robinson, A.C., R. Spark and C. Halstead {1989). `The

Distribution and Management of the Koa]a CPhascolarctos ctnereus)

in South Australia', Sou th Australian NLzturaltst No. 64, 1 Sept. 1989, ppA-25.Schultz, D. (1996),

`Shooting

Most Humane Option', Adelaide: T7zeAdvertiser, 19 Mar. 1996,p.11.

Serventy, V. (1996), `Relocate

to the Mainland', Adelaidel 711ze Advertiser, 19 Mar, 1996, p.11,

Strahan, R. (1978), Letter to the Editor. Sydney: The Australian, 22 Jun, p.28,Strahan, R. and Martin, R. (1982), The Koala: Little Fact, Much Emotion', in R.H. Greves and W.D.L. Ride (eds.), Sz)ectes

at Rtsk.' ReseaTch in Austraeta. Proceedtngs of a Symposium on Rare and Endangered Species ioz Auscralia,

Canberrai Australian Academy ef Science, 1981, pp, 147-55,

The Australian (1979), 'Koalas

Threatened by Infertility', 9 Aug. 1979, p.4.

Tobin, M, (1983), `Keala

population at risk?, PVildtde in Australia 19, June 1986. pp. 38-41.

Van Tiggelen, J. (1994), `Unnatural

Selection', TheAustvatian Mcrgazine, Jul. 16-17, 1994, pp.4I-45,

Vincent, A, (1993), `The

Character of Ecology', Environmental Politics, Vol.2, No.2, 248-276.

Wood-Jones, F, (1924), The immmals ofSouth Australia, Part 11] 71Pie Bandicoots and HeTbtvorous Marsupiats (The

SyndactylousDidelphioj,Adelaide:GovernmentPrinter,pp,133-27e.

Weir, J.S. (I977), `Exotics:

past, present and future; in D. Anderson (ed,}, Exottc 8pecies inAustralta: 77betr listabtishwnt

and Success, Proceedings of the Ecological Society of Australia Symposium held in Adelaide, May, 1977., Vol, 10,

pp.4-14,

Weir, L. <1995a), `Hang

on, We're Everywhere', Adelaide: TheActvertiser, 5Jan. 1995.Weir, L, <1995b),

`By

Gum, it's Nice Here'. Adelaide] TheAdvertiser, 6 Jan. 1995,

Weir, L. (1995e>, `Leafy

Suburbs Welcome Close Encounters of a Cuddly Kind', Adelaide: flhe Advertiser, 7 Jan, 1995.WCMC (World Conservation Monitoring Centre) <1998).

`Threatened

Animals of the World: IUCN Red List Categories'.

http:11www.wcmc,org,ukfspecies/anirnalslcategories,html

(1} Formed in 1986, the Australian Koala Foundation (AKF) is based in Brisbane with branches in 5 states of Australia

and overseas. The AKF is supported by numerous corporate sponsors including Upjohn, Qantas and Westpac. The

history and principal figures of the AKF and the several other charitable organisations subsequently established to

sustain the 1ink between public sympathies, corporate public relations, and scientific research on the koala, including

the World Koala Research Corporation Pty Ltd, the Trainex Foundation, the Sun-Herald Koala Fund and the

Australian Wildlife Fund are critically scrutinised by Harcling (1990).(2) Wamsley, a flamboyant figure who often wears a cat skin hat, is the Managing Director of Earth Sanctuaries Ltd

which among other initiatives operates the Warrawong Sanctuary in the Adelaide Hills, comprising 14 hectares of

rehabilitated bushland - a haven for nat ive flora and wildlife and a successful tourism venture.

(3} Preferred species vary regionally, locally, seasonally and between gender and individuals, therefore describing and

defining what constitutes ideal koala habitat is no easy task. Many studies have shown that koalas forced to browse

in sub-optimal habitat suffer rnalnutrition and lose condition. Eucatyptus foliage contains an array of chemicals

that are toxic to other species. The koala has adapted to this highly specialised diet, browsing selectively to avoid

cyanide precur$ors and possessing a liver capable of detoxifying oils and phenolic compounds.

(4) The major catalyst fer an outbreak of chlamydial infection is stress, Hume (1990) showed that habitat removal

causes nutitional stre$s among koala populations. Koalas respond poorly to sudden interruptions in their food supply.

Habitat modiiication can lead to nutitional stress, reduced fertility and vulnerability to parasites and pathogens

such as Chtamydia.

(5} Keala migration is a complex ecological phenomenon and tends to vary according to a number of factors including

the density of favoured food trees, quality of the surrounding habitat, structure of the social group, presence of a

dominant male etc,

(6} Bryan (1995; 1996; 1997), using the Arclnfe Geographic Information System, generated a model and detailed maps

of koala habitat suitability Ln the southern Mt Lofty Ranges, based on preferred eucalypt species and soil properties.

He concluded that the koala sub-pepulatien seuth of the major freeway that crosses the ranges had colonised most

-68-




Keala Management in Australia

of the available optimum habitat and a significant area of inferior habitat, a sign that the population may be reaching

a critical density.

{7) This assertion is feunded in the widely accepted intuitive view that the mere species there are in an ecological

system, the higher the number of connecting Iinks and the greater the stability, hence conversely, having fewer

species results in decreased stability. On the contrary, May (1973) showed that in general mathematical models of

multispecies communities, the opposite i$ true[ increased complexity results in instabtetty (the fluctuations in

population numbers are amplified).

(8) Bioregional planning as a means of protecting the genetic, taxonomic and ecological diversity oCAustralia's unique

biological resources has progressed in statutery organisations such as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

and the Murray-Darling Basin Commission whose jurisdiction spans four states, but has not advanced far in the

management of endangered, threatened and vulnerable species (Noonan, 1994). Pressey (1995> has developed an

effective operational framework for bioregional planning which is dependent on improved approaches to community

involvement and (he believes) on new institutional arrangements.

(9> Brave souls who have nursed a koala know that their sharp clawed digits and toes and their propensity to relieve

their bladders without notice give the lie to this image.

(1op The changes over time in cartoon character Mickey Mouse sirnilarLy illustrate the mechanism of neoteny, Mickey

's

appearance has altered over the decades - his limbs have grown plumper, his eyes are bigger and rounder and his

face flatter, i.e. he has gained more of the qualities of Lorenz' Child Schema, increasing his endearing qualities and

evoking the care-response.

"Though Mickey tells us little about mice, he tells us a great dieal about ourselves"

<Lawrence, 1983, p.19, quoted by Mullan and Marvin, 1987, p.26).

{iO The Atlas combines information derived from satellite imagery and aerial photography with topography, soil types,

rainfall, aspect, cadastral boundaries, detailed vegetation data ancl tree-use by koalas, ascertained by raclio-tracking,

It is designed to be a rigorously accurate tool on which planners can base informecl decisions and which can be used

Ln court cases involving development in sensitive koala habitat areas.

(12b The legislation referred to was passed as an Amendment to the South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Act

1972. It allows farming <as distinct from harvesting) of native fiera and fauna outside the reserve system, conducted

according to least harmful methods and subject to a licensing process requiring assessment of the impacts.

asi The Australian Nature Con$ervation Agency (ANCA), now Environment Australia and formerly the Australian

National Parks and Wildlife Service, is the federal body responsible for nature conservation in general, and in the

case of kealas, for their protection and export.

(14> The then South Australian Department for Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), now renamed the

Department of Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs (DEHAA), is principally responsible for the koala

management strategy.

[1998#6n18Heff]

-69-



Australian 　Studies 　Assooiation 　of 　Japan

オーストラリア研究　第 10号　1998．6

オーストラリアにおけるコアラの個体数管理

　　　　　　一

生態系保全か、政治的利害か一

ブレット・ブライアン，ジャン・ケアリー，大倉よし子

　　　　　　　［アデレード大学文学部地理・環境学科］

　オーストラリアにおける生物多様性の保全は、多くの問題を抱えている。特に、土地固有種の個体数

を管理しようとする野生生物管理計画は、極端に個体が増えすぎた場合駆除することを認めることから、

論争の的となっている。ここではコアラを例にとり、問題点を探った。

　コアラの個体数は一部で深刻な減少を招いているが、他方南部の生息域では個体数が増えすぎ、土地

特産のユーカリの群落の多くが消滅しつつあるケースも起こっている。コアラは選り好みが激しく、こ

のユーカリ種を彼等がもっとも好むことから、将来的には食糧不足による個体数の激減が心配される。

このためエコロジストや環境保護者の一

部からは、適正な規模の個体数にとどめるため、駆除、すなわ

ち銃による猟が提案された。しかし、コアラ保護団体やマスコミはコアラに対する同情心に訴えて運動

を展開している。またほとんどのオー

ストラリア人はこうした駆除策には一

線を引いていることもあっ

て、コアラ管理の問題は政治化してしまった。

　オー

ストラリアの自然な生物相を守るためには、かわいい、抱きしめたくなるといった感情から離れ

て、生態系全体の中でのひとつの要素としてのコアラという、全体論的な視野が必要であり、一

般の認

識を変えるための教育が必要であろう。こうした考え方こそが、

コアラ管理という問題から政治を引き

離し、コアラの好む生息地の保全と個体数の維持を可能にするであろう。

一70一

N 工工一Eleotronio 　Library 　

koala management in australia - j-stage home

Documents