Australian Govt allows a species to go extinct

Hix

Wildlife Enthusiast and Lover of Islands
15+ year member
Premium Member
I think it's absolutely appalling that the government chose to do nothing and let this species become extinct without even attempting to save it.

Unmourned death of a sole survivor

:mad:

Hix
 
I think it's absolutely appalling that the government chose to do nothing and let this species become extinct without even attempting to save it.

Unmourned death of a sole survivor

:mad:

Hix

Terrible! There is only one thing that Christmas Island is famous for these days so it breaks my heart that the native species do not get the recognition they deserve.

The article in its entirety is worth a read, as it mentions some of the other species we allowed to go extinct - many of them, deliberately. I always find fascinating the fact that some of the most numerous and widespread of species could go extinct through human persecution in the blink of an eye.
 
An excellent article and i must say I am rather suprised it is in the quaterly article which generally seems to be a rather conservative document.
 
I agree that is a good article by Flannery.
One of his most important points is
First, the problem stems from the delusion that the simple act of proclaiming a national park or nature reserve will result in the protection of biodiversity. Parks must be proclaimed and effectively managed if biodiversity is to be protected.
Governments seem to overexcited about creating new parks without doing enough about managing the parks appropriately. Some parks are even created because of of an areas good environment and diversity, but in creating the park they change the management and destroy what they hope the park will protect.
 
I m reading the full essay now and it's very good, but quite sadening as well. The Australians could take some lessons from New Zealand.
 
Hands on management of endangered species, habitat management and predator control. All with quite some more succes then in Australia. DoC is far from perfect, but they are good in increasing the numbers of their endangered species. They have a very hands-on approach and some species are managed on an individual base. Yes there have been ****-ups before and yes they lost species they could have saved if some decission were taken earlier, but they took the lessons and used them.

I would like to see the number of staff members of DoC and compare them with the amount of staff of all environmental departments on state and federal level in Australia. And then as well see how much of these staff works on conservation programmes in both countries. To give a comparrison: In New Zealand there was a possible Kakapo sighting (or more a hearing) and staff are being send in. In Australia there were 2 night parrots found (yes dead ones but still) and nothing happens (to be fair in Western Australia possible sightings have been followed up although this did not lead to immediate action).

I have some more frustrations but I will leave it with this, but there have been some programmes not everything that is possible (with reasonable means) is being done. Or that some things that needed to be done only started very late. If you want I can give more examples by pm.
 
*The Thylacine, the White-Footed Rabbit Rat, the Toolache Wallaby, the Christmas Island Pipistrelle, different species, same story. Wiped out by man. The Thylacine could have been saved, too. They breed in captivity, the knowledge was there but the government wouldn't do anything about it. The thing I most disagree with in that article (I have to get ready for school soon so I didn't get to read the whole thing yet) so far is that they said the government thinks it's better to save an ecosystem rather than one species. Well, animals help make up the species and everytime a species goes Extinct the ecosystem is damaged more and more until they've failed their duty of protecting it by refusing to protect the little parts (sometimes huge parts) that make up the whole thing.

Is there anyone else that could have helped save the species without direct funding from the Australian government? WWF perhaps?

I don't know if it would do any good but all you members in Australia should have as many people as possible sign a petition asking the government to do more for the continents endangered wildlife.

*I'm leaving my personal opinions and beliefs out of this post guys.
 
The Thylacine could have been saved, too. They breed in captivity,...
Thylacines never bred in zoos. There are a few instances in which mothers were captured along with their cubs and transported to zoos, which has led some people to assume that those cubs were born in captivity. From memory one such instance of mother and cubs being caught together was by Walter Mullins in 1924.
 
Thylacines never bred in zoos. There are a few instances in which mothers were captured along with their cubs and transported to zoos, which has led some people to assume that those cubs were born in captivity. From memory one such instance of mother and cubs being caught together was by Walter Mullins in 1924.

I made an error there. That false information came out of a very fake TV show and I must have let it slip in, sorry. Still, the Thylacine could have been saved.

Hey, my 1,000th post!! I don't know wether to be happy or ashamed:D
 
Last edited:
ThylacineAlive;621963 Is there anyone else that could have helped save the species without direct funding from the Australian government? WWF perhaps? I don't know if it would do any good but all you members in Australia should have as many people as possible sign a petition asking the government to do more for the continents endangered wildlife. QUOTE said:
I have just returned from a two month visit to the nsw area and tasmania and was surprised and disapointed with the general lack of interest/knowledge of all wildlife and conservation issues among the many australians (shooting, fishing and eating seafood are all spoken of enthuasiastically) that I encountered. It is my view that the average north european would be far more savvy and concerned about general wildlife welfare. So it follows that the vote hungry politicians will shy away from real action to aid wildlife and enforce current laws re overfishing and other wildlife crime.
Having said that I have no doubt there are many wildlife supporters such as the posters who write so passionately on this site and the dedicated staff in such places as featherdale and devils@cradle etc. but in my admittedly limited experience the overall public support for real conservation action is weak and the mining/timber and economic interests are always going to sway the law makers and power brokers.
ps
Loved my trip to oz and nearly doubled my lifetime bird list and saw most of the main iconic animal species in the wild.
 
ThylacineAlive;621963 QUOTE said:
I have just returned from a two month visit to the nsw area and tasmania and was surprised and disapointed with the general lack of interest/knowledge of all wildlife and conservation issues among the many australians (shooting, fishing and eating seafood are all spoken of enthuasiastically) that I encountered. It is my view that the average north european would be far more savvy and concerned about general wildlife welfare. So it follows that the vote hungry politicians will shy away from real action to aid wildlife and enforce current laws re overfishing and other wildlife crime.
.

Unfortunately I have to agree. I have friends who live on an acreage with a largle number of trees. There are plenty of bird species that my friends proclaim that they love having around. In the next breath they then talk about how they want to cut the trees down because (list number of spurious reasons here). When I pointed out that if they lost the trees they wouls lose the birds as well they disagreed and pointing to the forest on the hills some half a km away. They can still live over there. I then pointed out that that mightbe the case but without the trees the birds wouldn't visit their property. We ended up agreeing to disagree.
 
Unfortunately I have to agree. I have friends who live on an acreage with a largle number of trees. There are plenty of bird species that my friends proclaim that they love having around. In the next breath they then talk about how they want to cut the trees down because (list number of spurious reasons here). When I pointed out that if they lost the trees they wouls lose the birds as well they disagreed and pointing to the forest on the hills some half a km away. They can still live over there. I then pointed out that that mightbe the case but without the trees the birds wouldn't visit their property. We ended up agreeing to disagree.

Did the trees end up being cut down?:(

Here I thought Australia was doing a lot for their endangered animals with their work with Tasmanian Devil, Gilbert's Potoroo, and Helmeted Honeyeaters but it appears I was greatly mistaken. As it said in the article I thought we lived in a more civilized and sofisticated age where we wouldn't allow species to go Extinct without a fight but it appears I was wrong. Shout out to those who tried to save the bat.
 
Did the trees end up being cut down?:(

Here I thought Australia was doing a lot for their endangered animals with their work with Tasmanian Devil, Gilbert's Potoroo, and Helmeted Honeyeaters but it appears I was greatly mistaken. As it said in the article I thought we lived in a more civilized and sofisticated age where we wouldn't allow species to go Extinct without a fight but it appears I was wrong. Shout out to those who tried to save the bat.

The article on this thread helps to explain why apathy is the norm rather than the exception. http://www.zoochat.com/65/morality-conservation-301202/
 
Back
Top