Week 2- 26/10/10 - 2/11/10 (Part 2) Mammals

The most notable thing to appear this second week, however, was a Numbat (Myrmecobius fasciatus) (above) which popped up on Wednesday morning, crossing the track on the outskirts of a belah patch. One of the few diurnal small mammals in Australia, this iconic denizen of the outback is now highly reduced in range and mostly survives in secure areas like Scotia with a high degree of feral animal control. Later in the week, we were taken for a drive around to see some of the other mammals on the sanctuary. Scotia harbours populations of several highly endangered Australian natives, five of which [the Greater Bilby (Macrotis lagotis), Burrowing and Brushtail Bettongs, also respectively known as Boodies (right) and Woylies (Bettongia lesueur & B. penicillata), Bridled Nailtail Wallabies (Onychogalea frenata) and the Greater Stick-nest Rat (Leporillus conditor)] were historically found in the region but had been exterminated, primarily by feral predators and habitat destruction. Other species were not native to the region, but were introduced to maintain insurance populations. This was true for an animal which we were especially privileged to see, the Rufous Hare-wallaby or Mala (Lagorchestes hirsutus).


One of Australia’s rarest native marsupials, the mala is considered extinct in the wild and only exists in captivity as well as tiny reintroduced populations on offshore islands and the Scotia sanctuary. So many of Australia’s native mammals had been driven over the brink by the suite of factors -introduced predators, habitat degradation both anthropogenic and by introduced ungulates, hunting, disease, erratic climate, all exacerbated by eccentric evolutionary traits and behaviours- that combined to make Australia a conservation nightmare; pulled through by a surge in effort and interest, this one barely made it, yet its existence, like that of so many other species, is precariously balanced and, as some might say, ultimately an exercise in pointlessness. A selfish outlook, no doubt, but so much of Australia’s wildlife is under pressure and funding so limited that it has almost become necessary to pick and choose, to place an economic and charisma value upon species and delegate funds and effort accordingly.

Greater Bilby

If such a statement should invoke stirrings of emotion [and rightly it should], then know that the situation is as much to do with apathy amongst the citizenry as it is anything else. Sure, everyone knows about environmental crises such as the Mary River dam and the Launceston pulp mill, but only because in both these and other such situations, people would have been directly affected: the Mary River dam would have drowned properties and forced the relocation of several thousand people, and run-off from the pulp mill would have threatened Launceston’s main harbour, in addition to affecting employment in the area. Certainly, people did become aware of the effect such developments would have had on native habitats and wildlife, and obligingly flew the banner, but it is doubtful that they would have if they weren’t directly affected.

Bridled Nailtail Wallaby

It is increasingly the case that conservation and conservation of species are, in the heads of ignorant people, mutually exclusive. How many of those same people who fought so vociferously against the pulp mill know that at this very moment, less than 40 Orange-bellied Parrots struggle to maintain a foothold in northwest Tasmania? That the same bushfires so gleefully lit by arsonists in Victoria that devastated towns and lives also ravaged huge swathes of sensitive habitat and threatened to decimate wildlife, including the entire remaining population of Southern Corroboree Frogs? That not too far away from Launceston, at the mouth of the Derwent River, the same suite of problems that have people afroth at the mouth continue to threaten the only known wild population of Spotted Handfish? I wager very few do, and not only that, but as I find most damning, people will wilfully impinge upon nature, for no other reason than a belief that it is their right.

In late November I watched a fire, deliberately lit on the boundaries of a farm property, sweep into Mt Chinghee NP, burning hillsides that were among the last known habitat for Eastern Bristlebird in southeast Queensland. Did the land owner know that, if nothing else, his fire was in prime position to leap the fence into adjacent national park land? Probably. Did he care? Stupid question. Would he have cared any more had he known of the existence of a dumpy brown, inconsequential-looking bird? Someone stop me asking stupid questions. But propose to dam the adjoining valley and see what sort of reaction that might elicit. Doubtless the very same man would pump endless energy and money into campaigning to stop the dam, the same way such resources were pumped into stopping the Mary River dam, the Franklin dam and the Launceston pulp mill.

Sanctuaries like Scotia and other conservation efforts: High on requirements, short on cash

It just goes to show that Australia’s biggest environmental miscreants are not located in its upper echelons [which are inevitably its easiest targets], but amongst its general citizenry. The environmental management may be in some ways inadequate, but by developed nations’ standards its infrastructure and grassroots awareness are the envy of much the rest of the world; the main problem is there are still a lot of minds to change out there, a far slower process than just instituting legislative and policing change. Expenditure must also be wrought with more influence, and again with greater priority than it is currently afforded. I would wager that the expenditure made to screen five seasons of Big Brother or bring Oprah over for her frivolous jaunt would keep a station like Scotia running for a couple of months. So the all-important question Australians must ask is: which do they want, a healthy, environmentally balanced country with sufficient protections in place for its wildlife, or Oprah? In a perfect world, you can’t have it both ways.