Pic: Alan Lesheim
Miranda Gibson, Tasmania’s long-time treesitter in The Observer Tree (Miranda Gibson breaks Tasmanian tree-sitting record …) is today releasing footage of a baby devil in the threatened forest that Gibson is living in.
New footage captured in the forest surrounding The Observer Tree shows a healthy juvenile Tasmanian devil. Still Wild Still Threatened conservationists have been monitoring this area of forest for the past six months and in December 2011 captured footage of a devil believed to be taking food back to young in the den.
The new footage reveals a young devil that is of right age to be the offspring.
Still Wild Still Threatened spokesperson Miranda Gibson has been at the top of a tree watching over this area of threatened forest for the past four months.
“It is a significant find to see young healthy devils in this forest, adding to the already clear evidence that these areas need protection. Tragically we are losing this species to a rapacious disease (DFTD) yet everyday habitat and maternal dens are being destroyed by ongoing logging ” said Ms Gibson.
“It is not clear what happens to mothers and their young devils when maternal dens are destroyed by logging and heavy machinery. If logging had proceeded in this area, this young devil may have been trapped and died in it’s den. The habitat of the young dispersing devil is still under threat from logging, despite the area being verified as having world heritage values by the Government’s commissioned independent report by Jonathon West.” said Ms Gibson.
“The Jonathon West report showed that more than half of the proposed forest reserves are high priority for the protection of Tasmanian devils. Immediate and full legislated protection is required for these world heritage value forests and to ensure the protection of den sites which are passed on between generations of Tasmanian devils ” said Ms Gibson.
Still Wild Still Threatened releases this footage today coinciding with an International Day of Action for Occupy the Trees. An alliance of forest groups including Still Wild Still Threatened, Huon Valley Environment Centre and Code Green will join forest advocacy groups in the USA and conduct a calendar of events this week to highlight the destruction of wild places around the world and the irreversible impacts of climate change.
Robin Halton
April 22, 2012 at 13:40
For gods sake what is this madness ” International Day of Action for Occupy the Trees”. Get a life, really this nonsense is beyond belief.
Time for a visit by Qld and WA Premiers to investigate the lack of GST and poor employment figures coming from Tasmania.
Inaction by both Federal and State Government needs urgent attention to encourage young people to find real jobs.
Wining Pom
April 22, 2012 at 13:48
I thought baby devils were carted around in the mother’s pouch.
Dr Kevin Bonham
April 22, 2012 at 14:34
Gibson’s comments about DFTD are simply logically incoherent. If the disease is going to spread through the state to the extent that we are “tragically [..] losing” the species (a greatly overhyped fear anyway) then whether or not any given area of forest is logged is immaterial since the disease is going to reach that area and do its damage sooner or later anyway. To argue that an area is worth protecting as devil habitat is to argue that if there is no logging the devil populations have a future, which in turn is to argue that the disease is not such a big deal after all.
We are not losing the devil, tragically or otherwise. Those who want to worry about species we are [i]really[/i] tragically losing will find no shortage of them around the globe (even a few here) to worry about and try to save – it’s just a bit politically inconvenient that in no known case are they being tragically lost because of Tasmanian logging practices.
bob Palendrome
April 22, 2012 at 14:34
Miranda has broken the record for doing nothing up a tree.
I admire the personal commitment but the cause is pointless.
What zoological qualifications do SWST have in terms of wildlife monitoring? Does SWST have ethical standards sign off?
If not they have broken the very protocol which protects native wildlife.
Maddie
April 22, 2012 at 15:58
Good on you Miranda and SWST. Please keep doing what you’re doing. Many of us believe in your cause because it’s an unselfish one. More power to you.
#1 Robin Halton: You are well aware that Miranda Gibson has been occupying that tree for much longer than one day. I think she’s an amazing young woman. If you are truly concerned about young unemployed Tasmanians who aren’t actually looking for work, turn your mind to those who are roaming the streets or hooning about in clapped out cars. Miranda and her fellow activists are trying to achieve something that will ultimately benefit society.
#2 Wining Pom: Baby devils stay in the pouch until they are about 4 months old. Try googling so that you can learn about these threatened animals.
john hayward
April 22, 2012 at 16:01
Devil habitat destruction ranks far behind DFTD itself as a threatening process.
Probably more destructive is the anti-environment ethos promoted by the woodchip industry which saw Tasmania almost dragged into support for saving devils and which has the state government continuing to de-fund and de-prioritise conservation generally.
We have seen MPs on large public salaries lobbying against the protection of riparian zones, the teaching of environmental science, or controls on the use of 1080.
Tas Inc isn’t just indifferent to nature; they’ve been induced to despise it.
John Hayward
John Powell
April 23, 2012 at 00:55
Dr Bonham,
Someone in the 1930’s said a similar thing about the Tiger…”we are not losing the species (a greatly overhyped fear anyway)” …
Cheers
Dr John Powell
By the way have you ever seen a devil in the wild?…I have many on my property next to BA 388D; come and visit before they all disappear as a result of the loss of habitat/dens etc due to FT activity in a WHA.
Dr Kevin Bonham
April 23, 2012 at 14:05
John, since you state as fact that “someone in the 1930’s said a similar thing about the Tiger” then please produce the quote in question, the name of its author and the source of the quote so that we may examine it and see how similar it really is, and if it is similar, consider the merits of the source. Unless perchance they were talking about the feline variety? Anyway, when you do produce this alleged quote I hope you can render it more accurately than your mishmashed version of mine.
I’ve seen plenty of living devils in the wild, at least a few dozen in total, though I don’t generally go looking for them.
kim carsons
April 23, 2012 at 14:52
#3 Don’t you think that there is a difference betweeen an animal in its native habitat and one in captivity? You’re last comment seems to suggest otherwise.
Sue DeNim
April 23, 2012 at 15:38
#1. By get a life I assume thats one more like yours and what you deem to be an appropriately lived life? What types of ‘real jobs’ are we talking? Mining I assume? Whether it be for minerals or trees. The only reason these are considered ‘real’ jobs is because they make profits because the mining companies aren’t made to pay for the destruction of the environmental services that the lanscapes provide. Unfortunately your ilk are whats wrong with this country. The same old dig it up, tear it down sell it off mentality because its what we’ve always done and until now it has worked just fine. The mentality that environmental protection is ‘doing nothing’ (thanks Bob), because it isn’t making a profit. Well news flash Robin, it hasn’t been ‘working’ at all. We’ve got a Forestry GBE in the red. A depressed economy and a governement that abjectly refuses to show any leadership or innovation. Unfortunately the Government still doesn’t deem scientific study or environmental protection enough of a ‘real job’ that someone like Gibson could get because it supposedly doesn’t bring back the same profits that mining does because of the reasons I just mentioned. If some actual study, management and monitoring were done, maybe we could manage a sustainable product that people want to buy, and a pristine wilderness with iconic rare fauna that people want to pay lots of money to visit. Now there’s a thought?
Which brings us to the Tassie devil. I would love to know what qualifications Dr Bonham has regarding species genetic diversity and its relation to potential extinction? I agree that many species are at this stage more critically endangered but alot of the focus for those is to keep a species going in captivity when any real hope of survival in the wild is sadly all but gone. The Tasmanian Devil is a unique opportunity to revive a majorly important predator species, still at sustainable levels in the wild. A rapid genetic diversitifcation breeding program is needed to arrest the TD from going down the path of the thylacine where too little genetic diversity meant it was on the way out anyway. In this respect it may already be too late for the TD anyway, but to do anything less than going all out to make sure we did everything we could to extend the life of this creature so inexorably tied to our islands identity would be a travesty.
Habitat destruction across the globe is the major driver of species extinction. When the DFTD is spread by Devil contact, it should be a no brainer that reducing its habitat range will increase the likelihood of infected examples coming into contact with the non-infected. DFTD and Habitat destruction are one and the same problem. Its a genetic misfunction caused by lack of genetic diverstiy caused by in-breeding,(a telling metaphor for tasmania if ever I saw it) resulting from being isolated in Tasmania after the landbridge subsided. Further exacerbated by shrinking habitat range and greater exposure of infected individuals with non-infected examples. #4, I don’t believe Miranda was making any attempt at a zoological study, but merely confirming that healthy devils are in the area, hence the further justification for protecting the area. Do we need a zoological study for this? Also by that rationale, do we just log somewhere we can’t currently find any devils? Because if they aren’t there now, they won’t want to use the area later right?
Robin Halton
April 23, 2012 at 16:07
#5 Hello Maddie, No doubt Miranda is having a devil of a time perched up in a tall Swamp Gum in the Florentine.
I took note of your comments about young and unemployed in reply to my #1
Tasmania is in desperate need to create an economy that employs young people and also keeps not so young people in work till their retirement.
Forest protesting does not meld with me under the current unemployment crisis facing this state, in fact I find it a rather provoking to see youth of our nation chained to contractors equipment and timber processing plants when every day life is becoming a struggle for communities including many forest workers.
Without question FT needs to restructure, the industry is in crisis and needs adjustment to at least create a smaller but reliable industry for local wood supply. The pulp mill is dead, its not even worth worrying about anymore.
It would be most unwise for the government through the TIGA to hand over more State Forest into Reserves as much of the current native forest estate needs to be retained and managed for future use for Timber production and Special Values( similar to the undefined HCV term used by the ENGO’s).
Dr Kevin Bonham
April 24, 2012 at 00:47
Re #9 I have no idea why you would interpret my comment in that way, unless you’ve assumed that my previous comment implied that the devil would only not become extinct because there would still be captive populations.
To make it even clearer then, I do not believe the devil is actually at serious risk even of extinction in the wild, its official classification as “endangered” notwithstanding.
Wining Pom
April 24, 2012 at 02:53
Hi Maddie #5,
I did Google that and thank you for it. It is good to be educated. May I suggest though that you shouldn’t be so confrontational. Take lessons from Bob Brown. A voice of reason.
Dr Kevin Bonham
April 24, 2012 at 04:44
Re #10, it’s interesting that we have an anonymous commenter asking what my credentials are in the area of “species genetic diversity and its relation to potential extinction”. But in the same post the anonymous commenter declares as fact that “genetic diversity meant [the thylacine] was on the way out anyway.” No evidence is supplied for that statement and no evidence that the commenter has any credentials themselves. Indeed it would be very difficult for them to advance such evidence, since it would be unverifiable.
Assuming that the thylacine claims in #10 are really just piggybacking from the recent media reports, then bear in mind that Brandon Menzies has suggested the limited diversity was probably “part of a longer history of animals becoming less genetically diverse in Tasmania after its isolation from mainland Australia.” Yet the thylacine had survived for several thousand years so it is by no means obvious that lower genetic diversity would have doomed it to extinction in any particular hurry.
Making generalisations about habitat destruction does absolutely nothing to demonstrate its effects on particular species. There are species that are threatened (and not infrequently wiped out) entirely by other factors and even species of conservation concern that benefit from the disturbance caused by logging.
If logging really had the effect of forcing exactly the same number of devils into a smaller and smaller [b]continuous[/b] area of intact habitat then there would be some kind of point about it making the disease spread more easily. But that scenario is grossly wrong, for many reasons. Firstly, the assumption that the population level remains the same is just that, an assumption (and a rather irrelevant one in the context of a population that has probably long been unstable anyway). Secondly, because logging doesn’t reduce the species’ [i]extent of occurrence[/i] (this is an IUCN term, go look it up if you don’t know what it means) but may temporarily reduce its [i]area of occupancy[/i], logging is actually more likely to fragment rather than compress populations and could indeed create some degree of barrier against the easy spread of the disease. Thirdly the response of devils to logging is much more complex than some kind of crude-model ecology in which logging removes the species and it never uses the replacement habitat. Even Senator Brown was this weekend quoted as selling the pass on this one by pointing out that once heavily logged areas of the proposed Wellington-Styx walk contain devils among other natural values.
The last two sentences really come to the problem:
“Also by that rationale, do we just log somewhere we can’t currently find any devils? Because if they aren’t there now, they won’t want to use the area later right?”
It has just been reported that a live devil was found in [i]Battery Point[/i], a finding regarded as unremarkable in view of the way young devils disperse. Practically the whole of mainland Tasmania is either current devil habitat or potential future devil habitat. So if we’re going to not even accept a current lack of evidence for devils as an argument that devils do not obstruct plans to log an area, then that means we’re saying that because of one species that is declining because of a factor other than logging (and was booming before that factor came along, genetic diversity issues or not) all logging must cease. That basically shows that so far as some conservation arguments go, the Tasmanian devil can become simply a universal “trump card” to be brought out and used against logging of any area you like to use it for, when you don’t have anything better.
It is exactly what I suspected what would happen when the species was first listed. I only hope nobody with actual influence is falling for it.
I’ll also add that #10’s comment about the focus on captive rearing for critically endangered species is if anything too optimistic. There are a few successes, but the great majority of CE-classified species federally are not the focus of any captive breeding program, in many cases because it is impossible or impractical. I don’t personally believe that CE species are always basket cases in the wild and I’d rather spend money giving many highly endangered species some sort of chance than spend too much of it helping a species that may not even need our help at all.
Finally, we already know that when not being ravaged by diseases the Tasmanian devil can become a very common and successful animal. Therefore to deliberately [i]increase[/i] its genetic diversity to above its natural level for the Tasmanian habitat (as effectively proposed in #10) would be, in my view, an act carrying far greater environmental risks than likely benefits.
Sue DeNim
April 25, 2012 at 18:40
Dr Kevin, my species genetics credentials aren’t mentioned as I do not have any. Yours I might add also remain unmentioned.
A friend however is associated with one of the breeding programs and has informed me the DFTD is largely an immune response deficiency, mostly likely the result of poor genetics from in-breeding (most infected examples display a missing chromosome).
I quite agree that perhaps a shrunken gene pool for an animal in isolation and left alone, in and of itself may not necessarily mean it is doomed, however couple this with human contact and its disregard for habitat and as in the tigers case a long running bounty, already fragile populations (either due to numbers or poor diversity) often don’t need much push in the wrong direction. While I’m confident we won’t see a bounty on the Tassie Devil, I would argue that forest practices are a fair way more extreme now under FT than what the Thylacine had to deal with regarding selective logging practices.
You won’t get any arguements from me that there are perhaps more critically endangered, less cuddly animals that probably need more focus, but this should not take away from ensuring the Devil goes off the endangered list. Are you suggesting those who placed it on this list have no knowledge on the matter? Perhaps they were not aware of the single example found in Battery Point? Well we must be positively overrun with them then!
I would suggest that Battery Point is not a known breeding ground and this wayward (probably lost or disoriented) single example, possibly looking for food, is not the best example to raise a case of ‘not really endangered’ on. Its a bit like Alaskan’s saying the Polar bear is fine because they see heaps of them coming into the towns to scavenge the bins?
I was not advocating conservation of all ‘potential’ (roughly the whole of the state by your reckoning) habitat or mixing of species to increase diversity, though I was more referring to increased diversity among healthy animals. Obviously mixing healthy and unhealthy would be counter productive. There may be arguments for keeping north western and south eastern populations seperate as the latter is where most of the infected examples have been found. However I can’t think of many examples where creating isolated pockets of a species has been a boon for them, and while disturbance of a habitat particular to one species may sometimes impact other species advantageously, it rarely impacts the species in question (this time the Tassie devil) advantageously.
I am also not a great believer in captive breeding programs. Though mindful that some species do just die out, I suggest we wouldn’t need most of them if we hadn’t royaly stuffed up the animals habitat in the first place. But considering our appalling record regarding the thylacine, Its hardly surprising some may be going to what you seem to think are extreme lengths to make sure a species is (from our perturbations anyway) in the clear.
Let me be specific that in ‘logging’ I refer to the current practice of clearfelling, as opposed to specialty timber selective logging, for which I am an advocate. The Tasmanian Devil and its DFTD should not need to be an all-cancelling trump card and in this caes it is not. There are many other reasons why logging in this area should stop until the industry is changed. This is the reason first and foremost why Miranda is up the tree and why its not pointless.
I totally confess to generalisations, lack of references and quotes, so I guess if I don’t have the where-with-all to cover every arguement for and against with references in this meager comment thread, I probably shouldn’t bother. My apologies Dr.
Dr Kevin Bonham
April 26, 2012 at 02:34
Re #15 there may not have been too much intensive forestry in the 19th and early 20th century, but what there was – particularly in the thylacine’s best habitats – was worse. The northern midlands especially was widely trashed by broadscale agricultural clearances that permanently alienated areas of habitat without the slightest attempt to conserve the species. The current piecemeal and regulated logging with a large reserve system in place is simply not comparable.
In any case, habitat loss was probably not one of the major extinction drivers when compared with the direct persecution of a species that was always in rather low numbers to begin with (unlike the devil.)
When you make an argument about the thylacine that includes direct persecution and “already fragile populations” you are throwing in elements unrelated to the genetic issue and hence no longer making the case that the thylacine was doomed by its DNA alone.
The simplest way to get the devil off the “endangered” list would have been to have listing processes that focused more on species at really critical risk levels and did not allow for a species to be listed as “endangered” when the case for it being at that risk level was so speculative.
True, the devil meets the criteria for listing in terms of rates of decline and so on, but those criteria are advisory only. However, the tendency seems to be to use discretion in the direction of listing at higher categories rather than in the direction of caution about listing species as more threatened than they are. The devil’s situation does warrant conservation attention such as captive breeding, and study of the disease, but I am not at all convinced that it is unlikely to survive in the wild while the threatening processes continue (the supposed meaning of “endangered” listing). The whole business of threatened species listing in Tasmania needs a major overhaul since the excessive number of listings, and excessive level of some of the listings, is doing no favours to the management of the species that most need help, and there are far too many species listed that we probably couldn’t exterminate if we tried.
While I do believe that the devil isn’t really endangered, my comment about the Battery Point devil had nothing to with whether the species is endangered or not, and your suggestion that it does is just strawmanning. Rather, I was using the Battery Point devil as an example against your claim:
“Also by that rationale, do we just log somewhere we can’t currently find any devils? Because if they aren’t there now, they won’t want to use the area later right?â€
…which certainly read a lot like an argument that even potential devil presence is a significant obstacle to logging.
Keeping the NW and SE populations separate is completely impractical – devils disperse too much for that to be possible. And since your inability to think of “many examples where creating isolated pockets of a species has been a boon for them” (not what I was suggesting anyway) is supposedly relevant, feel free to answer this: how many examples can you think of where a species that was common and widespread across a substantial area became extinct as a result primarily of a disease?
I’m sure some Tasmanians are indeed spooked by the demise of the thylacine and hence particularly cautious to avoid losing other species. But if that leads to undue focus on those that are not at most risk, then that only increases the risk of species losses.
Now you “clarify” that by “logging” you only mean “clearfelling”. What about aggregated retention, increasingly used as an alternative to broadscale clearfelling? What about selective logging which is the major mode of logging in many of the state’s dry and open forests? What about if there is a choice between clearfelling one coupe and selectively logging three? Not everyone is in the nice position of being able to imagine that logging practices are all either selective timber harvesting or else “clearfelling”, so at what level is the devil a trump card for you?
Sue DeNim
April 26, 2012 at 18:06
Well you are obviously no slouch Dr Bonham, indeed your re-buttals are truly expansive to the point of exhaustion. However someone like you should appreciate how this works. Like the tiger, the polar bear, panda, whale, dolphin and elephant, the Tassie devil is just another iconic fauna example used to tug at our heart strings and make us feel fuzzy about protecting. But the point is the gains are resounding for the other species within the habitat niche of that particular species. As we are specifically talking about forest dwelling mammal habitat, can we assume (gasp blasphemmy!) that other species that use this same habitat are also aided by conservation. Of course there are many bird, fish, insect species etc that may not fall into these bounds that require urgent protection, but I thought forest protection was what we were discussing.
If you are correct that the endangered listing is flawed, along with the whole system, then I agree it should be looked into. However I gather this is why there are levels to the system (threatened, Endangered, Critically endangered, extinct in the wild etc.)so we can make a judgment call over provision of funding. Mind you haggling over where the Devil should sit on this list seems a little obtuse. Hight rates of decline doesn’t really sound trivial to me. Better to not have it on a list at all I suggest. If forests were reserved first, followed by actual study, monitoring and assessment undertaken independantly to assess how it should be used and how much product it can sustainably provide (which to my knowledge is not currently done) we might be putting the horse before the cart. Rather than the people having to fight to prove forestry shouldn’t go in, forestry should have to fight to prove why it is sane and (actually)sustainable to do so. Creating a demand and feeding it whether its sustainable or not just won’t do anymore.
Dr Kevin Bonham
April 26, 2012 at 20:55
Aha, the “point” is shifting in #17; what a surprise. It was about the devil, and now it’s not about the devil but is instead about the gains made by using the devil as a “flagship species”, to protect other species. Given that the devil occurs statewide, if the idea was really to use the devil as a flagship for conservation of other species, then it would be accompanied by a rigorous process to assess which areas of the state – where devils occurred and impacts of whatever kind were happening – were areas of the highest value for other fauna.
Instead we find that the use of the devil as a flagship species crops up most commonly in exactly the kinds of areas activists have wanted to save for far more superficial and pre-existing reasons. Criteria like old growth, wilderness value, rainforest, tall forest (etc) do not necessarily indicate high species-protection values. Sometimes the highest species-protection values occur in unglamorous and already degraded/fragmented areas on private land – the same areas neglected in the IGA hoohah.
There has never been a strong relationship in Tasmania between levels of threatened listing and funding. Many endangered-listed species get little or nothing no matter how endangered they are. Certain species, typically selected mammals or birds at whatever level of threat, get lots.
I don’t see much connection between your “If forests were reserved first,” section and the rest of your post but in any case if areas become reserved, do you imagine that it will really be accepted to unreserve them decades later when the studies have all been done? No amount of evidence will satisfy opponents of the industry anyway. It’s common for people to assert a precautionary-principle style approach to the possibility of forestry doing various levels of harm, but I’d like to see that even one of those people adopts the same approach to all other political issues. If they did they would probably never do anything.
William Boeder
April 26, 2012 at 22:16
You have made your point quite clearly Sue DeNim, I cannot see any need for further equivocation.
Your last two sentences exactly describe the ridiculous modus so enthusiastically engaged in by the hierarchy of this plagued State government GBE.
Any contrary comment is but mere shallow posturing to justify the height of the hollow mountain that this GBE has now shown itself to have become.
The current theme of our befuddled Bryan Green and the Executive Board of Forestry Tasmania is as folows: we log because we want to display that we are seen to be important, further then to justify our overpaid employment positions, even if we do so at enormous financial loss to the State of Tasmania and the enormous loss of this State’s Ancient Forested terrains.
john hayward
April 27, 2012 at 20:04
Comment challenged and deleted on the following grounds: False personal attack, Playing the man, with strawmannning thrown in.