Features

In NSW much of our bushland heritage is being destroyed through government inaction on land clearing. Land clearing is the greatest cause of land degradation and extinction of animals and plants in this state. The NSW Government’s response continues to be slow and ineffective and threatened types of bushlands and grasslands are still being cleared.

The amount of vegetation being cleared is still much too high despite the fact that the NSW Government, through current legislation and planning, has the means to control inappropriate land clearing. Illegal clearing continues in addition to the tens of thousands of hectares being legally approved for clearing each year.

Photo: Andrew Sourry
Research and recovery can greatly enhance
the future of native bird species such as the Malleefowl

In 1995 zoological institutions worldwide collaborated to prepare the World Zoo Conservation Strategy, a document designed to focus zoos’ efforts in conservation. The traditional emphasis on maintaining populations of species as an insurance against their possible extinction in the wild was replaced with a new emphasis on education and in situ conservation. This change in focus is made quite explicit in the document:

The Strategy advocates the "complete integration of all zoo and aquarium conservation initiatives with those of other conservation agencies and institutions, governmentally as well as independently controlled. It cannot be stressed enough that, where there is still hope, the conservation potential of the zoo community will be aimed primarily at supporting the conservation of natural habitats and ecosystems".

Zoo involvement in both state and federal Recovery Plans is the embodiment of these principles. Recovery Plans are multi-disciplinary, multi-faceted and invariably aimed at recovering biodiversity, whether by ameliorating direct threats to a species, or recovering habitat by planting trees or removing weeds. They are usually led by the relevant wildlife agency but the team determines whether the recovery plan needs a captive component, and the nature of that need.

Zoo involvement in the recovery effort is not restricted to captive breeding, though when release to the wild is being contemplated the development of husbandry protocols and genetic management of the captive population may be the primary zoo role. In some instances, however, zoo involvement is precautionary; the recovery team may recommend setting up a captive population just to make sure that enough is known about the process to ensure the knowledge and techniques are available if there is a crisis and the wild population must be augmented.

Decisions must be made on how best to recruit specimens from the wild to a captive environment (whether to collect eggs, nestlings or fledged birds etc.), how to best transport, acclimatise to new surroundings, introduce to each other, and wean on to a new diet. Zoo involvement in Recovery Plans must be goal-focused and be undertaken in achievable time frames, delivering on measurable outcomes. The role of maintaining species over indefinite time frames in captivity with insurance as the sole aim is no longer an option – there are just too many species threatened.

The recent Action Plan for Australian Birds, for example, lists five species endemic to Christmas Island as Critically Endangered, and indicates that there may be a role for captive management in ensuring their security. Exactly what this role might be (or whether it is actually needed) is not known; but meanwhile zoos around Australia are making sure that they could, if required, maintain a population of each species whilst the yellow crazy ants are eradicated.

Another important, but more passive, role for zoos is in advocacy. More than a million people a year visit Taronga Zoo and, hopefully, interpretive material encountered in Sydney will have an indirect benefit on species recovery somewhere much more remote. Indeed, education and advocacy might, in the long run, be the most important role for zoological institutions.