Tasmanian devil mainland reintroduction

DesertRhino150

DesertRhino150

Well-Known Member
15+ year member
At least twenty-six Tasmanian devils have been released during September into a 400-acre fenced reserve at Aussie Ark in the Barrington Tops Region of New South Wales. These are among the first Tasmanian devils to live wild on the mainland in nearly 3,000 years. The animals will be monitored through regular surveys, camera trapping and radio collars. Additional releases of twenty devils per year will be done over the next two years to help build up a sustainable population.

Aussie Ark was previously known as Devil's Ark, and have bred over 400 Tasmanian devils in captivity of which some returned to Tasmania for reintroduction.

Information comes from the Aussie Ark Facebook page, Rewilding Australia Facebook page and the Aussie Ark website below:
#DevilComeback - Aussie Ark
 
Great news. I hope devils are soon released elsewhere in mainland Australia which has no dingos.
 
toothlessjaws said:
Interesting, given our recent discussion on the topic and devil ownership @MRJ
Click to expand...
The press, or maybe the press release, exaggerates. The 26 animals are in a 400 acre pen. The average home range of a single devil in the wild is 3,200 acres. This is not a release into the wild. Still it is a great experiment.
 
MRJ said:
The press, or maybe the press release, exaggerates. The 26 animals are in a 400 acre pen. The average home range of a single devil in the wild is 3,200 acres. This is not a release into the wild. Still it is a great experiment.
Click to expand...

True, I'm not sure it even counts as a soft release as I don't know if there are any definitive plans for releasing these animals outside of this enclosure after the data has been obtained and analysed.

Even so, I agree, an interesting ecological experiment.
 
MRJ said:
The 26 animals are in a 400 acre pen. The average home range of a single devil in the wild is 3,200 acres.
Click to expand...

This comment raises an interesting concept. As we begin to blur the lines between wild and captive, creating semi wild breeding centres all whilst shrinking isolating and enclosing wild spaces, we are getting closer to requiring a clearer definition of “captivity”. I might be behind the ball here, but the space relative to the species known home range is a great measure.
 
toothlessjaws said:
This comment raises an interesting concept. As we begin to blur the lines between wild and captive, creating semi wild breeding centres all whilst shrinking isolating and enclosing wild spaces, we are getting closer to requiring a clearer definition of “captivity”. I might be behind the ball here, but the space relative to the species known home range is a great measure.
Click to expand...

I don't think you are behind the ball with this comment at all.

Even some National parks are increasingly becoming "zoolike" as tiny pockets of green stranded amongst urbanization.

Wild meta-populations of many species are increasingly dependent on forms of management similarly to how they are in zoos.

I think this phenomenon will only increase over the course of this century.
 
Last edited:
I remember having a discussion with someone else who posts on this forum years ago on his work on Mauritius. He already told me then that they blurred the lines between wild and captive by supplement feeding, providing nesting spaces and doing predator-control to support the populations of reintroduced birds.

Now many years later I have seen it myself with many species and it can vary from supplement feeding, to moving elephants between protected areas to facilitate gene-flow. With many other endangered species or populations there is veterinary support or active protection from predators. It strengthened my belief in the role zoos have to play in doing research on the species they work with and to strengthen the links between in- and ex-situ to support biodiversity. And therefore it is unfortunate that outside the zoo sector this is often seen too separate.
 
DDcorvus said:
I remember having a discussion with someone else who posts on this forum years ago on his work on Mauritius. He already told me then that they blurred the lines between wild and captive by supplement feeding, providing nesting spaces and doing predator-control to support the populations of reintroduced birds.

Now many years later I have seen it myself with many species and it can vary from supplement feeding, to moving elephants between protected areas to facilitate gene-flow. With many other endangered species or populations there is veterinary support or active protection from predators. It strengthened my belief in the role zoos have to play in doing research on the species they work with and to strengthen the links between in- and ex-situ to support biodiversity. And therefore it is unfortunate that outside the zoo sector this is often seen too separate.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree, the lines are continually being blurred and with many species it is almost becoming a false dichotomy to make any marked distinctions between the two.

I should say that like you this fact has also has strengthened my belief in the importance of the role that zoos should play in conservation.

toothlessjaws said:
To clarify, I meant that "i might be behind the ball" in thinking it's new to consider the natural home range size vs enclosure size as rule to determine if a species is defined as "wild" or "captive".

But thanks! yes, the lines are becoming blurred more and more.
Click to expand...

Ah I see, well I think that this distinction between "wild" and "captive" in these cases is often just semantics.
 
MRJ said:
Not reintroduced, not wild. A fenced population under management. Worthwhile and commendable but not as claimed.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I think the press and PR department got their terms quite quite the wrong way around. I wish they would read up on semi captive fenced under management versus reintroduction guidelines as per IUCN criteria and guidelines before they put out newspaper headlines like that. It is certainly not helping true reintroduction programs from developing if ignore what surely is not a reintroduction effort (it could be quite damaging to future projects in this arena, think hoax - think term - think conspiracy - all these conservationists are no-gooders ....).

SUFFICE: This endeavour however commendable nowhere near can be termed a reintroduction program.
 
How supported are these fenced devils? Are they fed or they forage on their own (probably there is way too many of them in the enclosure)? Are there plans to release them ion the mainland?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top