This scientist is grumpy with his scientific colleagues and the conservation agenda driven by green groups. Scientists are too conservative and lack the skills to communicate effectively with the community. Scientists need to assume moral responsibility for the application of their science and not allow multinationals and politicians dictate science policy or interfere with the communication of science. This requires fundamental changes in science education in Australia. The conservation agenda is anthropocentric with too much emphasis on conservation reserves for human recreation, and on wilderness, threatened species, and alien (exotic) species. The result is a fragmented reserve system that cannot conserve continental biodiversity in the long-term, and inadequate funding for less charismatic species or preventing common species from becoming threatened. A whole-of-landscape approach, such as WildCountry and Wild Lands, is needed; the conservation paradigm should be inverted with the entire continent seen as a nature reserve and human activities managed with nature conservation as a priority. However, nothing will be achieved without policies to limit and then reduce the human population and its consumption of resources. Humanity needs to share Earth with all other species regardless of those species economic benefits or costs.

In the plenary sessions of the Royal Zoological of NSW forum Science under siege: zoology under threat , Charles Krebs and Gordon Grigg expressed the view that scientists should speak up about the crisis in biodiversity. Indeed, they asserted that scientists should act as the ecological conscience of a nation. Their opinion became the organising theme of this book. The importance of this idea emerges clearly from the writings of Aldo Leopold: “If we grant the premise that an ecological conscience is possible and needed, then its first tenet must be this: economic provocation is no longer a satisfactory excuse for unsocial land-use (or, to use somewhat stronger words, for ecological atrocities).” Since Leopold's initial publications in the late 1940s, his powerful ideas have affected thinkers in a variety of fields, including theology, agriculture, journalism, philosophy, and psychology. This paper examines how thinkers in these fields have engaged with the idea of an ecological conscience. It also examines media coverage of environmental issues in early 2013, and shows that although media stories are valuable in publicising issues which may otherwise receive little attention, these stories rarely convey the idea of an ecological conscience. Although the grumpy scientists in this book belong to a variety of disciplines, they share a belief in the critical importance of an ecological conscience. They contend that we need a shift in values away from human exceptionalism - the belief that humans are superior and in control of a passive world - and towards the acceptance of human responsibility for environmental degradation. The collective voice of the grumpy scientists adds valuable weight to the already compelling case for the urgency of developing an ecological conscience.

Including marine and fresh water fish, nearly 1200 species of native vertebrates occur or are reported to have occurred as wild or free-living animals within the Greater Sydney Region; an area of more than 2,500 km 2 encompassing both the most densely populated city in Australia and World Heritage Wilderness. Sydney Harbour alone has a fish fauna of nearly 600 species. Almost all of the free-living vertebrates found in the Region are native to Australia, with fewer than 40 species being introductions to the continent. To a considerable extent, the Region owes the biological richness of its native vertebrates to large expanses of native vegetation on the urban perimeter, with many fewer species maintaining breeding populations in the Region's urban, suburban and rural terrestrial habitats as commensals of human society. A large proportion of the latter, particularly among birds, are species exotic to the region or which originally occurred in small numbers and have benefited from Sydney's urbanization. However, the greatest vertebrate biological diversity in the Region's more developed areas is the vast array of exotic fish, reptiles, birds and mammals, including Australian species exotic to the Region, kept by people as companion animals, pets and working animals (e.g., racehorses, livestock, those in zoos and animal parks, laboratory rats) and their feral counterparts. These animals constitute by far the greatest diversity, if not abundance, of terrestrial vertebrates in the Sydney Region and interact significantly with the city's culture, ecology and economy. They also pose a continuing risk of establishing feral populations or acting as conduits of disease and pathogens into native wildlife suggesting a need for much better accounting and monitoring of their numbers than currently occurs. Together with the Region's indigenous flora and fauna, Sydney's exotic plants and animals create a ‘hot spot for biodiversity’ exceeding any natural area in its richness, with a total species richness of higher plants and vertebrates in excess of 10,000 species. Recognition of the importance of non-native animals (and plants) to urban society and ecosystems is overdue. Moreover, in an era of accelerating habitat loss, human population growth, urban expansion and climate change the role of cities in conserving global biodiversity may prove critical. Zoologists and conservation biologists already accept the role of zoos in international and national conservation efforts and it is time to accept the importance for conservation of all the other species held in captivity by people. We may be unwilling to accept companion animals and exotic species as ‘wildlife’, but we cannot deny their existence as part of the urban fauna nor their importance to urban lifestyles. Equally, the urban landscape can be important for the conservation of continental biodiversity by providing additional habitat for native animals and plants and by bringing city dwellers into contact with native species which they might not otherwise encounter or even be aware of. Thus, the conservation and management of an urban fauna is fundamentally different from that required outside the urban environment, with not only a far greater diversity of species to be responsible for, but one with very different cultural, educational and social objectives.

Forest wildlife management in Australian eucalypt forests emphasizes the retention of tree hollows for fauna requiring hollows for nesting or denning. This overlooks the requirements of birds in eucalypt forests for a variety of resources for nesting and foraging other than tree hollows. Some birds nest only on vertical or horizontal dead branches, while others require shrubs or dense ground vegetation. There are significant differences between plant species in the foraging resources available to birds. For example, bark type and the associated arthropod fauna differ between tree species, as do the arthropods found in the canopy. This complex array of resources is not necessarily provided by management plans which emphasize the conservation of trees with hollows. Not all eucalypts readily form hollows and those that do differ in bark type, epiphytes, canopy arthropods and nectar production from those that do not. Comparable differences occur among types and species of shrubs and ground vegetation. Additionally, logs, coarse woody debris and litter, and their associated biota, are important components of forest ecosystems and provide essential resources for forest birds. If the full complement of forest birds is to be conserved, each of these resources must be managed across the entire forest estate and not just where logging is taking place. It is equally important to manage the impacts of fuel reduction burns. The availability of foliage, seeds, fruits, nectar, lerp, arthropods and vertebrates used by forest birds as food changes seasonally and from year to year within and between forest areas and the pattern of resource abundance, which is partly a consequence of fire history, must be part of all plans of management. If the goal is the conservation of forest birds in perpetuity, then site and industry specific management protocols are inadequate. Instead, management must be regional and involve all land tenures with close co-ordination of conservation programs between regions at a continental scale. Rehabilitation, conservation and tree planting programs in urban and agricultural areas must be integrated with the management of birds on state forests, conservation reserves and private lands.

Kings Park is a 400 ha reserve near the centre of the City of Perth, Western Australia. Two-hundred and sixtyseven hectares of the park remain as native vegetation and the park has a rich flora and fauna. Contributing importantly to the naturalness of Kings Park is its birdlife with more than 80 species having been recorded within the park's boundaries. Despite the large amount of native vegetation, Kings Park is not pristine and has been changed in many ways by human activities since the settlement of Perth by Europeans in 1829. These changes to the park, as well as changes to the urban matrix in which the park is found, coupled with regional changes outside the urban environment, have produced a dynamic and changing avifauna. Census data are available for a transect through Kings Park from 1928 to 2002. Between 1928 and 2002, 61 species of birds, excluding waterbirds, were recorded along the transect. Of these, 20 % increased in abundance and 40 % decreased with 10 species proceeding to local extinction. Since 1928, Kings Park and the urban landscape of Perth has been increasingly dominated by large nectar-feeding and seed-eating birds. Small insectivores, particularly ground and shrub foragers, have declined in abundance or become locally extinct. Despite the array of changes in the avifauna, the birds of Kings Park are as rich and probably as abundant as they were in 1928 when censuses commenced. The avifauna is just different. Keeping birds in Kings Park and the urban environment requires no special attention. However, if small birds and insectivores are desired, changes need to be made not only to the management of the park, but to the way vegetation in the urban matrix is managed. Foremost among the changes needed is the progressive replacement of exotic trees and shrubs along roads and in parks and gardens with indigenous species and the creation of complex foliage structures. This is necessary to foster an abundant arthropod fauna for insectivores to feed upon and to provide the kinds of habitats such birds require. Whether such changes are essential or even desirable depends on the reasons why people want birds about them in the city and suburbs. It may be that it is only important to have birds and not important as to which species are represented.

Suggestions that Australia can advance the conservation of native fauna by encouraging people to keep native animals as pets and have pastoralists replace sheep and cattle with kangaroos are not revolutionary. As with the preoccupation of environmentalists with endangered species, national parks and wilderness, these are limited options which will achieve little in the way of conserving Australia's flora and fauna. It is far more important to end land clearing and habitat fragmentation in terrestrial environments and to cease building dams, diverting rivers and trawling for fish in aquatic environments. Even these suggestions are far from revolutionary. A real revolution in nature conservation requires a change in national priorities from ones of increasing economic growth, resource consumption and population growth to becoming an ecologically sustainable society. Achieving ecological sustainability means that Australia needs to adopt population policies which will ultimately reduce the size of the population by half. Population reduction needs to be accompanied by reductions in energy and resource consumption. Landcare needs to return a minimum of 30% of existing cleared land to native vegetation with an additional 20 to 40% placed under deeprooted perennials with a primary objective of providing other species with the resources they require to achieve their evolutionary potential. Only by a revolution of this magnitude can Australians meet their responsibilities to the other species with which we share the continent and begin to meet the requirements of ecological sustainability. Only by caring for other organisms can Australians say they are worthy of sharing Australia with other species. Eating jump steak and keeping native animals as pets are steps in that direction, but only small ones.

Ecology is not a precise science, and ideas and predictions based on ecological data are qualified and explained in the context of constantly changing and variable environments. This poses difficulties for the ecologist called to testify about the possible or probable effects of any given development proposal. Courtroom procedures create an environment in which it is difficult to give appropriately qualified answers to questions without appearing to contradict one’s own evidence or that of others. Being challenged as a witness during cross-examination and suffering the accompanying anger or embarrassment discourages many ecologists from testifying as experts. This reluctance to appear in court is based not only on the personal experience of ecologists, but is also a result of the way scientists are trained in Australian universities. In particular, the lack of appropriate training in the humanities, economics and the law is poor preparation for understanding and communicating with the rest of the community. Courts that deal with environmental issues require ecological data and the interpretation of those data by ecologists. If the courts want the best ecological expertise, they need to recognize the limitations of both ecological data and ecologists and adjust courtroom procedures to uncover all the data available and to encourage ecologists to appear as witnesses.