Update: 1st May 2011

Here’s an update on a few of the ongoing issues that are affecting flying-foxes in NSW. It’s been a pretty grim few months and there’s not much good news.

Shooting of flying-foxes for crop protection

NSW is the only state that still allows flying-foxes to be shot as a method of crop protection. It’s a practice that an independent panel, commissioned by the NSW Labor government, found to be “unacceptable legally and ethically” because of the duration and extent of suffering caused to both the animals that are shot (many of which will not die immediately) and young flying foxes that are orphaned by the loss of their mother and will subsequently die of dehydration or starvation (a fact acknowledged by the NSW government department responsible for the issuing of licenses to shoot flying-foxes). 

Prior to the March NSW state elections, both Liberal and Labor parties committed $5m+ of support to orchardists in the Sydney and Central Coast regions of NSW towards the installation of full exclusion netting which offers far better protection against flying-foxes (and birds, and hail) than shooting can. This was the first glimmer of hope that perhaps we might actually see a reduction in the rate of shooting, and the cruelty associated with it. 

But post-election, things took a significant turn for the worse...... 

NSW Politics Part 1

In the lead up to the NSW state elections, the Liberals Environment Spokesperson, Catherine Cusack, had demonstrated a strong degree of support on the matter of shooting and there was some hope amongst conservation groups that she could bring some real passion to the Environment portfolio should the Liberals, as expected, be elected.

So it came as quite a blow when Cusack was omitted from the new cabinet and the Environment portfolio was handed to Robyn Parker, a junior minister with no apparent environment experience. 

Worse was to come. The NSW Dept of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) was disbanded and its functions transferred into the Department of Premier and Cabinet. NSW Premier O’Farrell claimed that this demonstrated an elevation in the status of environmental issues within his cabinet but few conservationists believe this and instead see it as a clear sign that the O’Farrell government has little commitment towards positive environmental outcomes. DECCW is now known as the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) and the former director of DECCW is now the head of OEH. This is clearly a demotion even though effectively she still holds the same job. And the Minister of Environment, Robyn Parker, seems to be little more than a figurehead as the OEH departmental structure reports not to her but to Barry O’Farrell. 

NSW Politics Part 2

Within weeks of the election, the new Minister for Primary Industries, Katrina Hodgkinson was describing flying-foxes as pests and vermin. This was in response to calls from farmers in the NSW Central-West region for the new government to make it easier for farmers to acquire licenses allowing them to shoot flying-foxes. 

NSW Farmers appear to have taken full advantage of Hodgkinson’s inexperience in the ministry and, in an apparent attempt to appease the increasingly strident (and unverifiable) claims of damage created by flying-foxes, her Department issued a press release indicating that she would pursue having the grey-headed flying-fox removed from the threatened species list. It would appear that her expectation was that this would make it easier to allow the farmers to shoot larger numbers of flying-foxes whilst ignoring the reality that the species is in decline and increasing the rate of shooting would inevitably hasten that decline. Hodgkinson’s media release on the issue contains some significant errors which suggests that she was either poorly briefed or was more focused on appeasing NSW Farmers than she was on getting her facts right. 

It’s worth noting that threatened species listings don’t even fall within Hodgkinson’s remit. They fall within Robyn Parker’s Environment portfolio and to the department now known as OEH that reports in to Barry O’Farrell.  In a further sign that Primary Industries interests have greater precedence than environmental concerns, neither Barry O’Farrell nor Robyn Parker made a single public statement on the matter, even with respect to those aspects of it that fall within their responsibilities and not Katrina Hodgkinson’s.

After the initial flurry of media, Hodgkinson has been silent in the last couple of weeks and it’s not at all clear what this means. Hopefully she’s now been adequately briefed on the issue and understands that her initial comments were poorly considered and that she needs to be more wary of being misled by vocal minorities in NSW Farmers. But of course, it’s entirely possible that behind the scenes, she’s pursuing the environmentally destructive policies that she’s already announced. In an attempt to get some clarity, peak welfare and conservation groups are urgently seeking meetings with Environment Minister Parker but have yet to have had any success in that regards. 

Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney dispersal

The project to evict grey-headed flying-foxes from Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney is now entering a very complex phase. The period from 1st May to the end of July marks the only portion of the year when the Botanic Gardens Trust can actively attempt to remove the bats from the Gardens because it is acknowledged by experts as the time of year when any action against the bats will have the least impact on their breeding cycle. And it’s important to be aware that this does not equate to NO impact, it just represents the LEAST impact. 

BGT appear to believe that 3 months gives them plenty of time to complete the project. In fact they claim that the project should achieve its goals within 2 to 4 weeks of the commencement of the dispersal. These claims are exceptionally optimistic and it's hard to understand what grounds they have for making such bold predictions. 

A cursory review of previous dispersals (including the one in Melbourne in 2003/04 that took six months to move the animals and which BGT claim, somewhat disingenuously, to be a success and a precedent for the Sydney action) indicates that three months is not, in fact, a vast window of opportunity. Rather, it is a period which is very likely to be insufficient for the project to achieve its stated objectives of removing the bats from the Gardens and (more importantly) moving them to alternate and acceptable habitat. It’s finding them a new and suitable roost site, not evicting them from the Gardens, that’s likely to take time. 

It would seem reasonable to suggest that the BGT would want to get the dispersal underway as soon as possible but all the signs are that BGT are some weeks away from being able to actually start the dispersal.  

Why is this? It's impossible to be 100% certain because BGT are playing their cards close to their chests but it seems likely that the delay is related to the "conditions of approval".

Both state and federal government approvals place a number of complex conditions on the project and it would appear that the BGT still has a lot of work to do to before they can claim to have met the conditions of approval and start the actual dispersal.

One of the most complex series of conditions relates to the use of radio tracking collars. We'll go into this issue a bit more in future but the bottom line is that fitting radio collars to a large number of bats is a very complex, expensive and time consuming process. It was difficulties with this aspect of the program that caused BGT to postpone the dispersal project in 2010. 

BGT appear to be having just as many problems this year and we believe that they will, if they haven’t already, apply to the federal government for a variation of the conditions of approval so as to make it easier for them to proceed with the project. Conservation groups have already voiced, to the federal Minister of Environment Tony Burke, their opposition to any variation of conditions that would allow the BGT to break their previous commitments.  Inexplicably, his department allowed a variation of conditions, also relating to radio collars, last year which compromised the objectives of the scientific program and conservation groups are keen to not see the conditions be weakened further by more variations. 

As a side issue to this, a grey-headed flying-fox with severe, life threatening throat injuries recently came into care with a Sydney wildlife care organisation., The injuries were caused by the animal losing weight after a BGT radio tracking collar was fitted around its neck. The weight loss allowed the collar to move around and chafe so badly that the animal’s jawbone was exposed. 

Dr Tim Entwisle, who until very recently has overseen the dispersal project in his position of Executive Director of the Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust has now moved overseas to take on a role at Kew Gardens in the UK. His replacement is Professor David Mabberley who will take on the role in August. Prof Mabberley appears to have broader experience in the field of biodiversity than Dr Entwisle so it will be interesting to see how he responds to the issue of the flying-foxes. 

Other Issues

A large number of bats in Ku-Ring-Gai flying-fox reserve colony (in the lower north shore Sydney suburb of Gordon) have apparently moved to a new location within the reserve that is increasing the level of conflict with some residents. Even in isolation, this is a concern but if many of the bats evicted from RBG relocate to the Gordon camp (as predicted by BGT), then the conflict could become a real problem. 

A small colony of grey-headed flying-foxes in the Sydney northern-beaches suburb of Avalon is under threat as Pittwater Council intend to trim back vegetation in the camp to an extent that it is unlikely to sustain even a small sized camp. The trimming is in response to the calls by a number of residents who find the bats to be unwanted neighbours. The action will almost certainly be sanctioned by the NSW Office of Environment & Heritage. The Federal Department of Environment will not step in as the camp, numbering only 300 or so animals, does not come into the category of what they consider to be a “significant population”. The current camp footprint is so small that it seems likely that any trimming will result in the animals moving on from the current site (which may of course be the unspoken intent of the action). As always, it’s impossible to predict whether the site they choose as a new roost will bring them into even more conflict with humans.

Welcome to an extinction

For Julia Gillard's party, the passing of Luke Hartsuyker's EPBC (Health and Safety) Amendment Bill 2010 in the Lower House of the Australian Parliament is a bit of an embarrassment because it demonstrates that the Opposition Liberal Party can get enough support to over-ride the wishes of the Australian Federal government. 

But for the grey-headed flying-fox, it's just another step on a gradual but accelerating journey towards what some ecologists consider to be inevitable extinction. If the species is a barometer for the effectiveness of environmental legislation, and the will of state and federal governments to make bold decisions to protect Australia's biodiversity, then it's fair to say that many of our iconic species are, quite simply, doomed.

In 2001, the grey-headed flying-fox was listed as vulnerable under the Commonwealth EPBC Act. Listing is meant to provide sufficient protection to the species being listed that the decline in population can be arrested and, hopefully, reversed. But it hasn't really worked out like that for the grey-headed flying-fox. A recovery plan, detailing the measures necessary to affect a recovery of the species, is supposed to be adopted within 6 years of the species being listed. That deadline passed 4 years ago and yet we still have no recovery plan in place (or even a draft that stakeholders can agree on).

The federal government allows grey-headed flying-foxes to be shot as a method of crop protection. Even the most sceptical anti-environmentalist would have to agree that shooting a threatened species is unlikely to be the best way to aid its recovery. Currently, only NSW actually issues licenses to shoot flying-foxes; Queensland banned the practice in 2009 as it was proven to be cruel and inhumane. Despite calls by both farmers and environmentalists for the NSW Government to provide support for netting, which negates the need for shooting, to be installed at farms that are at risk from flying-foxes, Premier Keneally and Environment Minister Sartor have kept their heads down and allowed the shooting, and the decline of the grey-headed flying-fox, to continue unabated. The NSW Liberals have not made their intentions clear in relation to the shooting of flying foxes but few environmentalists in NSW hold out much hope for a bright new way of thinking under an O'Farrell government.

It's not just politicians who are assisting the grey-headed flying-fox on its way to oblivion. Extreme climatic events play their parts quite effectively too. In February 2011 at least 1,300 grey-headed flying-foxes died in the Wingham Brush colony near Taree as a consequence of the prolonged heat and low humidity, conditions which caused fatal heat stress in a large proportion of this year’s juvenile animals. Some 3,000 died under the same circumstances in the Yarra Bend colony in Melbourne last year. Some may seek to diminish the signifiance of these mass mortalities as just being a "natural event" but the reality is that extreme climatic events are happening more regularly and the consequences of them are ever more serious for flying-foxes.

It's now widely accepted that the flying-foxes natural food sources have been badly compromised by excessive rainfall in their seasonal foraging grounds in the last two years. Flying-foxes are nectar and blossom eaters but when the rain is heavy, the nectar gets washed away and the bats have to find alternate food sources or they quite simply starve (or look to commercial orchards as an alternate food source and risk being shot). Many wildlife rescue groups report that the condition of animals coming into their care in the last year or so has been exceptionally poor with many animals 20% below minimum healthy weight.

Habitat loss has forced many flying-foxes to seek shelter in urban environments as these often provide access to more reliable, year around food sources than could be found in rural environments. This adaptation to urban environments brings the flying-foxes into conflict with people and peaceful co-existence is the exception rather than the rule. The Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney is the most well known instance of “not in my backyard” sentiment towards flying-foxes and, in May 2010, then Federal Environment Minister Garrett approved a proposal to disperse the flying-foxes from the Gardens. 

The approval of the project was challenged in the Federal Court on the grounds that the Minister failed to consider matters that he was obliged to consider. The challenge was dismissed and it would appear that the eviction will go ahead starting in May. The dispersal represents another government sanctioned action which seems to be at odds with the obligation to protect and recover the species. 

In fact more than being a government sanctioned action, it was an action proposed by the state government agency in charge of administering threatened species legislation in NSW. The Botanic Gardens Trust is part of the NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW). This relationship allows the department that proposed the action to also approve it. 

Which brings us to Luke Hartsuyker’s Bill. The colony of flying-foxes in Maclean has been a source of conflict for many years and Mr Hartsuyker’s Bill seeks to add an amendment to the EPBC Act to exclude the Commonwealth  from any decisions relating to the dispersal of flying-foxes from the Maclean area. The reality is that the majority of politicians that voted in favour of the Bill were probably more interested in embarrassing Gillard than they were in supporting Hartsuyker. And, as a result, one of the most significant pieces of Commonwealth environmental legislation has been undermined for cheap political point scoring. 

If the Bill passes the Upper House and the Commonwealth are excluded from the decision making process, it will be left to NSW DECCW (the department that both applied for and approved the dispersal of flying-foxes from Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney) to determine whether a dispersal at Maclean can proceed. The state legislation is far weaker than the Commonwealth EPBC Act and approval by NSW DECCW of a dispersal of flying-foxes from Maclean is almost a given. 

Looking forward, we can almost certainly see both federal and state politicians making a real and tangible contribution to the decline and inevitable loss of the grey-headed flying-fox. You don’t have to care about flying-foxes to be worried by this trend. If our governments have an inclination to write-off one species, it would be foolish to think that they wouldn’t be inclined to do the same for any other species.

[A previous version of this appeared on Crikey]