Page 1 of 1
Posted: Sat May 01, 2004 8:03 am
by Twilight_Star
SYDNEY, Australia (Reuters) -- A koala population explosion on an Australian island has prompted calls for 20,000 of the furry, native marsupials to be shot to stop them destroying their island habitat and end a koala famine.
Some 30,000 koalas on Kangaroo Island, off the coast of the state of South Australia, are stripping the island of its native gum trees, destroying the ecosystem and causing a koala famine, say environmentalists and national parks officials.
"We are talking thousands of starving koalas," said Sandra Kanck from the Australian Democrats, Australia's third major political party.
"While they may be cute and cuddly we need to get beyond emotion to reality...my suggestion is professional shooters do it quickly and cleanly," Kanck told Reuters on Friday of the proposed cull.
The South Australian state government has rejected calls for a cull, preferring sterilization and relocation.
The Australian Koala Foundation also opposes a cull of the koalas, which on the Australian mainland are struggling to survive as urban development destroys their habitat.
Kangaroo Island tourist operators say a koala cull would severely damage the island's tourist industry.
"The koalas are so hungry they are eating pine needles," said Kanck. "What will tourists think of a habitat of denuded trees with desperate, starving koalas roaming the damaged landscape?"
Ok now this just completely infuriates me~!!! Like there isn't many other options they have like shipping a few down to zoo's in other countries.
Posted: Sat May 01, 2004 1:02 pm
by phantom
In ecology, we deal with a theory called population threshold where a habitat can support only a certain population number of a species of animals. If the population exceeds the threshold then it will be okay for a little while but eventually there will be about a 70-80% sudden drop in the population since the habitat can't support so many. What we need to do here is find a way to bring the population below the threshold value before the big decline occurs. Relocation is probably the best way but not every zoo or wildlife park is capable of taking care of koalas. Sad to say but the best way might be to randomly shoot some of them, though I don't think 20,000 is neccessary. If the population reaches the threshold decline point then about 22,000 would die so maybe by shooting a small number now we can save the majority for the future. I hate to have to say that but it might be the best option IF relocation fails. But they should relocate as many as possible before they even consider shooting them.
Posted: Sat May 01, 2004 2:04 pm
by superlion
Yes, culling of a population like that tends to be the best option - better to shoot them now then have them dropping out of the trees from starvation in a year or so... I believe koalas are not native to that island as well, and they have no natural predators. In absence of natural predators, humans have to step up to the plate, like it or not, and the best option in an open population or a very large one like that is to cull them. Like they said, it may not be popular, but in the long run it's a lot healthier for the population.
Posted: Sat May 01, 2004 9:02 pm
by Jay
I agree that there are times when humans must step in to stabilize animal populations. I do not know enough about the state of koalas to give a definitive opinion. But I do have some random thoughts.
First, if there are zoos and parks that can take some, they should. (Even if the koalas can't be taken care of properly, some might still consider that to be a better alternative than certain death. But I don't want to get into euthanasia types of discussions, because that is a topic that will have supporters on each side and cannot be "won" by either side.)
Second, I don't know if koalas have a stable, natural environment elsewhere. If they do not, then I think the koalas should be relocated to some other natural environment to see if they can thrive there. The reason is that Kangaroo Island is too small (smaller than the state of Delaware) to rely upon in the future. If koalas were killed and then some unforeseen natural disaster occurred, there might not be enough diversity to survive the disaster.
Third, I trust the advice of animal organizations more than I trust the advice of poilticians and tourist organizations. But I do not know if the "Australian Koala Foundation" is an animal organization or a tourist organization. Does anyone else know?
Posted: Sat May 01, 2004 9:12 pm
by okapi_07
I think they should try to get rid of as many as possible first before they set the hunters on them i bet there are probably parts of the mainland that could have their populations boosted and im sure there are plenty of zoological institutions that could properly care for them and would like to acquire a pair or more of them they should do advertisments with large organizations (like the AZA) and try to promote collection expeditions to kangaroo island but i know there are too many to fit into zoos but they should remove as many as possible before the culling begins another good solution would be to sterilize most of the population to slow down reprodution and allow the animals to naturally die off but this could be more expensive then allowing people to hunt them
Posted: Sat May 01, 2004 9:19 pm
by superlion
Speaking of keeping koalas in captivity, it's incredibly difficult because they only like to eat the leaves of a couple species of eucalyptus trees, which really don't grow in most places. So no, there really aren't so many zoological institutions that can properly care for them, and the ones that can already have quite a few koalas. They might take a handful of koalas (maybe 20) out for genetic diversity in captive populations, but that's not going to even make a dent in the population on that island!
As for sterilization, that is pretty expensive for one thing and for another it only works in closed populations. While an island is a closed population, this population is far too large to effectively sterilize enough koalas to help at all with this problem. And it would be unbeleiveable trying to get that many koalas and sterilise them...
Posted: Sun May 02, 2004 8:51 am
by okapi_07
well it could be done it just isnt very realistic (too much man power and money needed)
and to get the koalas the eucalyptus it is possible to grow it in green houses (but would need a lot of trees to keep food coming all the time) or it can be flown in from areas where it grows(which is pretty expensive) the columbus zoo for example which is in a place where eucalyptus cant grow does a combination of the two (and it is very expensive-over $22,500 a year per animal) so it can be done most zoos just dont because of expenses
Posted: Wed May 05, 2004 5:58 am
by Capt.Rutlinger
it's always a sad thing to do but maybe it's the best option
but they can give some to our zoo because recently our Koala female died
Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:53 am
by kamikaziroo
Hi guys.
The koalas your talking about were introduced to that tiny island - not native to it.
So you can look at them like any other indroduced pest i guess. (yeah , i know they are cute)
They wont be letting any tom, dick or harry hunter on there it would be a controlled cull by National parks officers also.
I dont know about zoo's elsewhere but sometimes other zoos dont have room for animals - im sure they would look at that first. But when i worked at a zoo here there were animals kept in tiny cages out the back as there was no room for them and no other zoo's wanted them. (a very friendly gibbon, numerous small critters and birds ect ect).
Koalas are very territorial also. If they just go and plonk a few in another groups area there would be hell to pay.
Just thought id put this info in incase you wernt aware.
These things are slowly starving to death and thier makeup makes it extreemly hard to relocate them.
Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2004 8:52 pm
by Robbieb
i think we all can agree thaty saving as many as possible by sending to zoos in other countries is the best solution but destroying a section of the pouplation is still a acceptable solution although it seems harsh it needs to be done also australia has strict rules o nexporting wildlife and although it seems like this should be an exception its not that easy to make things like that happen
Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2004 12:56 am
by kamikaziroo
Yeah they were going to look into exporting as an option for sulpher crested cockatoo's and galahs but i dont know what happened there - i think they were culled or farmers given permits to destroy.
Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2004 12:48 pm
by Kielo91
I agree that culling a population like that would be the best option. In any case, of a population that large, shooting some of them (in a humanitarian way of sort) would be best in positions like this. Some zoos are able to care for koalas, but not every zoo is able to. My zoo has never exhibited any koalas since its development. It's quite difficult, after a major population obliteration, to bring an area to such an unadulterated stage. Not only does the expense count, but the huge amount of koalas. Shipping them would be fine, if only so many zoos could take them. But rather having them suffer and starve, I'd rather see them quickly put out of their misery. Which would most of you rather have best for animals in situations like these?
Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2004 1:04 pm
by Quicksilver
A couple years back the Omaha zoo had some koalas for the summer. They were about the laziest things I've ever seen, but oh so cute! It would be nice if we could take some permanently. I hope if they do engage in such a mission they make it as painless as possible for the animals.
Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 7:39 pm
by okapi_07
it is too bad about the koalas but it just has to be done im sure they would rather die almost painlessly than after the pain of starving for weeks or months
the columbus zoo has a permanent koala exhibit (that was just renovated and the indoor area has many more live plants and things in it) that is pretty neat but they are just incredibly lazy
the most ive seen them do is lift their heads to look around
Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2004 2:47 pm
by firelupe
I think (like many others
) that they should give as many koalas as they can to zoo's , then, if they have to, uthenize them. Or shootthem so they die instantly.