Conservation

Latest news from the AFF team.
User avatar
casehulsebosch
...............................
...............................
Posts: 552
Joined: 03 Feb 2011, 19:37
Location: new zealand

Australia is following a scheme introduced in NZ to decide which wildlife should be allowed to die off


It's conservation by numbers, or - as one headline writer put it - "survival of the cheapest". In a country with one of the world's highest extinction rates, scientists are using a mathematical equation to determine which species should be saved and which let go.

The approach, adopted by the New South Wales Government this month, reflects the practical impossibility of rescuing all of Australia's threatened plants and animals from the brink. Proponents call it a more efficient and effective way of targeting limited resources.

Critics, though, are uneasy about accepting some extinctions as inevitable, and say governments should be devoting more resources to the fight to preserve wildlife. They also fear that a "triage" system - used by hospital emergency departments to prioritise treatment - will favour "charismatic" species such as the koala over an obscure bat or stick insect.

The mathematical formula, devised by Queensland University scientists, involves multiplying the benefit (in dollar terms) of an endangered species surviving by the likelihood of a conservation programme succeeding, then dividing that figure by the programme's cost.


Species which score highly should be prioritised in terms of funding, according to the strategy, which has been adopted by New Zealand's Department of Conservation and is being considered Australia-wide.

Professor Hugh Possingham, director of Queensland University's Centre for Excellence in Environmental Decisions, believes many more plants and animals could be saved if a rational mathematical approach was adopted. While it might sound mercenary, and means certain species being written off, it's not any different from running any other business, Possingham told Fairfax Media. He added: "Everybody in the world, every day, is doing a cost-effective analysis."

Under the algorithm, species such as the masked owl and yellow-spotted bell frog would be prioritised by New South Wales, with the koala, which is worth an estimated A$1 million ($1.1 million) a year in tourism dollars. Those given a lower priority would include the purple-crowned lorikeet, which is rare in NSW but found across southern Australia.

More than 100 native plants and animals have vanished since European colonisation. The country has the world's worst record for mammal conservation, accounting for nearly one-third of mammal extinctions over the past 200 years.

Rather than directing funds towards species at greatest risk of extinction, the mathematical approach targets those with the best chance of survival. Calculation of "benefit" is based not only on economic value, but on factors such as the role of a species in an ecosystem. Flying foxes, for instance, perform a vital function because they disperse fruit and pollinate trees. Critics such as Belinda Fairbrother, NSW campaign manager for the Wilderness Society, say Government funding for conservation is grossly inadequate.

Possingham acknowledges that many more species could be saved if funding was increased. Writing in The Conversation, an online academic forum, he noted that about A$3 million is spent each year on conserving threatened Australian birds - a sum equivalent to less than 1 per cent of the weekly defence budget. If that sum were tripled, the number of bird extinctions over the next 80 years could be reduced to almost zero, he wrote, and the number of threatened species cut by about 15 per cent.

New Zealand was the first country to apply the algorithm, adopting it about five years ago. Richard Maloney, a senior DoC scientist who has been advising the NSW Government, said 300 threatened species had been identified as most likely to benefit from conservation measures.


So..... Welcome to our world.

Makes you wonder that if the Save the Gouldian Fund had not got off the ground and the programes introduced were so efficient we might have lost the Gouldian in the wild, eaven though it is one of the most popular aviary birds world wide.

And I have recently joined a struggling Western Ground Parrot and the Carnaby conservation programmes in WA. Are we too late?

Great news to end 2013. NOT!



cheers, Case
User avatar
gomer
...............................
...............................
Posts: 4484
Joined: 23 Nov 2008, 17:41
Location: Victoria
Location: Victoria Australia

Food for thought, thanks for sharing that Case. Its a pity they could not increase the funding to 3 % of the defense budget as you pointed out.
Keeper of Australian Grass Finches
User avatar
Craig52
...............................
...............................
Posts: 4979
Joined: 11 Nov 2011, 19:26
Location: victoria

gomer wrote:Food for thought, thanks for sharing that Case. Its a pity they could not increase the funding to 3 % of the defense budget as you pointed out.
Talking about defence forces,why doesn't the Government pay the the defence force in ebb times to go out and cull all the feral cats in the outback areas where these animals are decimating our wildlife,be it birds/mammals/amphibians and insects or what ever.
With millions of feral cats out there eating millions of our native animals a day,we aint going to have much left very soon.
Australia needs to hit the main source of our disappearing animals now as with an average of 30 feral cats living in a large out back tree they would be excellent target practice for our ground troops rather than blowing up the bush and starting bush fires.
I don't want to change this thread to a "i hate cats" post but common sense should prevail to the situation where our defence force should be doing just that"defending our native animals"in the time of their need.
Our parks managers haven't got the resources to manage feral cats,so why can't two government resources put their heads together,work together and cull as many of these feral cats as possible and make it an on going opportunity rather than sitting back saying orw we can save this one but not that one. :wtf: :wtf: Craig
User avatar
Brooksy
...............................
...............................
Posts: 508
Joined: 14 Mar 2010, 18:59
Location: Ocean Grove VIC

Well said Craig. The troops might as well shoot at something worthwhile, and do something that benefits the wildlife for a change
User avatar
BrettB
...............................
...............................
Posts: 470
Joined: 13 Jun 2012, 23:28
Location: Perth

Clearly this is an emotive topic.

In an environment of limited resources, surely it is better to target the funding to programs with a good chance of success rather than "wasting" the funding on programs with very little chance of success. If protecting the environment had unlimited funding, then this wouldn't be an issue, but it hasn't and never will have.

Habitat protection is the key, no point in "saving" a species that doesn't have a home to go back to.

Cheers
Brett
"We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are ." Anais Nin
User avatar
GregH
...............................
...............................
Posts: 1671
Joined: 17 Feb 2009, 08:20
Location: Brisbane
Location: Chapel Hill, Brisbane Qld

We Aussies have an amazing set of priorities. $3million for all avian conservation biology for the entire year, over the entire continent and in 12 minutes we can burn that at midnight over Sydney harbour. Given this type of prioritisation I doubt we can do better than Dr Possingham's funding model. I can only hope that the next generation does better at conserving what's left than mine, collectively & democratically, chose to do.
KiwiBigD

I've got to agree with you Greg, priorities really do need to change.

In NZ's defence previously they had done reasonably well previously with salvaging species from the edge of extinction, just look at the Black Robin which now has a small population that is actually making progress and slowly increasing numbers. Whether it is sustainable for long term is another story due to the limited genetic range. These days the country is pretty much going down the gurgler pretty quickly with reduced spending, projects being canned and the current and previous governments literally doing nothing but shutting things down. Plus they're bringing in some ridiculous legislation which means you can't give your neighbours anything that you grow and basically breaking down the culture.

I suspect in this case its a case of we only have this much money, what can we actually do with it that will give us a result? DOC aka Department of Conservation relies on a lot of volunteers to maintain parkways and tracks, something where the Military used to help out as we used those tracks and facilities so we helped to maintain, these days that doesn't happen either due to cut backs.

I really hope Australia doesn't go this route, there are so many beautiful and stunning species that need our assistance but unfortunately we're also part of the problem. The feral cat problem is a major issue and one that does need addressing. At least in WA you could simply claim a Feral Cat attacked a child, that would I imagine get a major cull underway. What do we do for the rest of the country?
User avatar
Red
...............................
...............................
Posts: 213
Joined: 08 Dec 2011, 07:39
Location: Tasmania, Australia

Government funding is often inconsistent which has negative effects on any long term projects, not just in conservation but other sciences as well.

When it comes to preserving rare poultry breeds, private citizens have provided a much more stable future than any government program. Poultry breeds have still been lost but if it wasn't for hobbyists almost everyone would be keeping imported commercial lines.

I am more curious about what the average birdkeeper can do.

Endangered species are probably out of reach for most of us, but endangered breeds and varieties are there for anyone who wants to start a project. The question about what varieties should be given priority is then side stepped because the issue is reduced to what varieties each individual birdkeeper regards as important.
Image
User avatar
Craig52
...............................
...............................
Posts: 4979
Joined: 11 Nov 2011, 19:26
Location: victoria

Red wrote:Government funding is often inconsistent which has negative effects on any long term projects, not just in conservation but other sciences as well.

When it comes to preserving rare poultry breeds, private citizens have provided a much more stable future than any government program. Poultry breeds have still been lost but if it wasn't for hobbyists almost everyone would be keeping imported commercial lines.

I am more curious about what the average birdkeeper can do.

Endangered species are probably out of reach for most of us, but endangered breeds and varieties are there for anyone who wants to start a project. The question about what varieties should be given priority is then side stepped because the issue is reduced to what varieties each individual birdkeeper regards as important.
I totally agree Red regarding Australian endangered species and breeders need to specialise in one or two these.I was lucky enough to purchase some of the last aviary bred WB crimsons in the country from a deceased estate and a couple of other single birds who had lost their mates from other breeders
The idea is to breed them up and get them out there before they are totally lost to the wild and in aviculture.With 2,000 odd in the wild and little if any support for them in the wild i am afraid they might not last long.
As Case said,if it were not for the save the gouldian organisation there might not be any gouldians left in the wild but there are thousands of them in aviaries all around the world,i would like to see the same situation with the WB crimson in Australian aviaries but i'm afraid we are going to lose them in the wild as there is not and will not be an organisation that can help them out in the wild. I know that this is only one specie and there is many more out there that need help and i can't understand why there are groups out there now saving foriegn finches from lose in Australia when many our own birds need help and specialising in,surely they can tell with these survey numbers going on which Australian birds are in trouble and need to be bred up to save them.
Craig
User avatar
casehulsebosch
...............................
...............................
Posts: 552
Joined: 03 Feb 2011, 19:37
Location: new zealand

23 bird species, 4 frogs, and 27 mammal species or subspecies strongly believed to have become extinct since European settlement of Australia in 1788.

The number of worldwide losses occurring are the greatest on the Australian continent! (Yes, we are good at something) This is mainly due to habitat loss.

cheers, case
Post Reply

Return to “Announcements, News & Rules”