Grey-headed Flying-foxes can be difficult to capture and process in sufficient numbers for population studies, and here we describe a successful method to do both and evaluate its practicality. Over the year 2006/07 (24 nights) we captured and banded with ABBBS bands 466 flying-foxes from the Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney. Depending on weather conditions and net orientation, between 8 and 53 bats were captured per session as they returned to the roost site in the early morning. Animals were captured using a 12 m long mist-net on pulleys attached to two 13.2 m tall aluminium masts, individually assembled from 6 smaller poles. The poles were relatively light but required 4 people for safe net assembly. Data were obtained from 259 processed individuals, except juveniles, heavily pregnant females, and females with attached young, which were banded and released immediately. We anaesthetised each individual and recorded standard morphometric measurements. Pollen, faecal, and tissue samples (blood, membrane puncture and a tooth) were collected, and 6 animals were fitted with radio collars. The processing lasted within 10 minutes/animal and bats generally recovered from the anaesthetic within an hour. When fully alert, each bat was released back into the camp by flying it across a lawn to the roost trees. No casualties resulted from capturing or processing the flying-foxes, and no processed animal was subsequently found ill or dead as a result of this study.

Determining the population dynamics of the vulnerable Grey-headed Flying-fox, Pteropus poliocephalus requires accurate methods of estimating the age of wild animals. Traditionally, wild juvenile P. poliocephalus have been aged by comparing their forearm measurements to those of known-aged captive bred juveniles. To determine the degree of plasticity in the forearm growth rate and hence the reliability of this method, the forearm growth of two groups of captive-bred flying-foxes whose mothers were fed different diets was compared. The difference in diet, a protein supplement of pollen rather than milk powder, made no significant difference in the average length of the forearm at birth, but there were significant differences in the subsequent growth of each growth parameter tested, with the pollen supplemented maternal diet providing faster post-natal growth than the milk supplemented maternal diet. Maternal diet was also significantly correlated with a difference in the sex ratio with a majority of females being produced on the milk supplemented maternal diet and a majority of males being produced on the pollen supplemented maternal diet. There was no significant difference in the post-natal forearm growth of males and females independent of their mother's diet. The sigmoidal curve that best described the average post-natal growth rate of mother-reared P. poliocephalus was the Logistic Model Function. As the diet of wild flying-foxes varies from year to year it is likely that the growth rates of wild mother-reared flying-foxes vary from year to year along with the age of competent flight and independence. The plasticity in the forearm growth rate indicates that estimating the age of wild juvenile flying-foxes using growth rates of captive mother reared juveniles is unlikely to be an accurate method of ageing wild juvenile flying-foxes and other methods of ageing these animals should be investigated.

From the time of European settlement of Australia, flying-foxes have been treated as vermin and their management has focused on attempts to control numbers in local areas by culling and disturbance. The listing of Grey-headed Flying-foxes as vulnerable under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) heralded a controversial shift in management to accommodate conservation goals. The decision to list Grey-headed Flying-foxes was based on a decline in numbers related predominately to habitat loss and was taken after a lengthy and thorough review of evidence gathered from a range of experts and the public. Grey-headed Flying-foxes migrate hundreds of kilometres between successive areas of nectar flow, and the numbers present in a local area fluctuate widely between seasons and between years. Intensive episodes of crop damage or conflict at roosts occur intermittently in line with the irregular patterns of nectar flow and migrations. The practice of killing Grey-headed Flying-foxes in crops, and disrupting them at roosts, is carried out on the assumption that the species is organised as discrete local populations whose size can be controlled locally. They continue to be primary management tools despite their failure either to provide consistent protection to the commercial fruit industry or to resolve conflict at controversial camps. There is an urgent need to develop new approaches to flying-fox management. It is our view that effective methods of on-crop control and conflict resolution at camps are essential to the recovery of Grey-headed Flying-foxes.

The Grey-headed Flying-fox was listed in 2001 as a vulnerable species in NSW under the provisions of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. This paper outlines the legal implications which arise from listing a species as vulnerable in NSW. These include legal protection from harm or damage to habitat, the requirement to undertake environmental assessment of any proposed developments which are likely to impact on the species and the requirement to prepare a recovery plan within 5 years. Problems related to the conservation management of the species are discussed and some potential approaches which may be utilised in development of a recovery plan, including key habitat restoration, are considered.

Many fruit growers see flying-foxes such as the Grey-headed Flying-fox as a threat to their livelihood. Understandably, when large numbers of the animals suddenly enter orchards and cause significant damage, growers start to talk of “population explosions” of the animals. In this paper we describe the seasonality, longevity and low reproductive potential of flying-foxes, and show that rapid expansion of their populations, at rates comparable to those of small rodents, simply is not possible. Sudden incursions of large numbers of flying-foxes into orchards reflect migration of animals into a food source from elsewhere. The “natural” longevity of flying-foxes and low reproductive rate of only one offspring per female per year reflects the environment in which these bats evolved - one in which they suffered a low annual mortality and could afford a low reproductive rate. We show that the major factor which determines the rate at which flying-fox populations increase or decline is mortality, and that an additional annual mortality of 10%, “imposed” (for example by “culling”) upon the animals' “natural” mortality, could lead the entire Grey-headed Flying-fox population into decline. Because of the animals' mobility, localised culling (as in the Melbourne Botanic Gardens) will not solve problems caused by the bats and, if continued, will act as a pteropucidal black hole, attracting to their deaths a continuing stream of animals from far afield. If the community wishes to protect flying-foxes, then it must recognise the genuine concerns of growers for their livelihoods, subsidise non-lethal modes of protecting crops, and provide support for research into cheaper and more effective means of protection.

The Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus is a large (to 1000 g) bat, endemic to coastal, south-eastern Australia (Queensland, NSW, Victoria). Sustainable management of P. poliocephalus , recently listed at State and Federal level as Vulnerable, must ensure its conservation in perpetuity - and cost-effective and environmentally and socially acceptable ways of minimising conflicts with people in rural and urban contexts. Exclusion netting can achieve this in some, although not all, orchard situations but is usually inappropriate for managing camp occupation. There is a need for the development of approaches, other than netting, to suit a variety of problem situations. Attainment of this goal has been constrained by factionalisation of stakeholders at community and government levels, inadequate resourcing and ineffective evaluation and communication. Little attention has been directed toward the apparent ability of flying-foxes to learn - and, hence, the possibility of training flocks to avoid certain areas. Potential effects could be long-lasting given the P. poliocephalus life-span of at least 13 years. Adequate funding, coupled with effective communication across communities and governments, could enable development and uptake of much-needed, best-practice flying-fox management through participatory trials and rigorous and transparent monitoring.

In May 2001 the Grey-headed Flying-fox was listed on Schedule 2 of the Threatened Species Conservation (TSC) Act. The NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service (NPWS) now has a regulatory role in the protection of the ‘camps’, or roosting colonies, of this species wherever they may occur in NSW. Camps can be locally contentious, particularly in the Coffs Harbour area where four camps are found adjoining urban areas. The approach taken in this region in relation to the management of the camps has been pro-active and consultative. In essence there exist 5 main options for addressing community concern about Grey-headed Flying-fox camps. These options can be summarised as ‘do nothing’, ‘engage and discuss’, ‘modify habitat’, ‘attempt relocation’ or ‘cull’. By adopting the ‘engage and discuss’ approach public concern regarding the presence of this species in urban areas has been significantly alleviated. The adoption of this option then puts in place a sound foundation for information gathering and the development of site planning with appropriate community involvement.

The effective management of the Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus as a threatened species in NSW will depend on our ability to develop and implement policies that focus on habitat conservation and enhancement. The aim is to preserve a continuous food supply for the species and an integrated network of camps as stopover habitat during migration as well as suitable roosting environments. Several ecological attributes of the Grey-headed Flying-fox make this a demanding task, in particular, its wide-ranging and nomadic habits. The long distances over which flying-foxes travel mean that there needs to be an integrated response between states, as well as a shift in thinking that encourages setting aside habitats on a broad landscape scale, irrespective of current land tenure. These conservation initiatives will have to address many hard issues being faced throughout Australia, including the need to make conservation equitable by providing incentives to encourage private landholders to retain habitat and participate more fully in conservation initiatives. In order to involve the whole community in conserving habitat for Grey-headed Flying-foxes, the community also needs to be made aware of the value of the species, including its crucial role in dispersing seeds and pollen for forest regeneration. Community education and participation will be essential to the recovery process for the species. Further, the information currently available to management is inadequate for the task, and ongoing, adaptive management will need to be underpinned by sustained research on a variety of fronts to achieve the successful transition of the Grey-headed Flying-fox from pest to threatened species and ultimately to recovery. It will take a shift in perception to adjust to adopting a long-term vision in the management of this magnificent Australian bat.

We review the habitat, distribution and conservation status of bat species known to occur in Tasmania. There are eight resident species of native bat in Tasmania; Gould's Wattled Bat Chalinolobus gouldii , Chocolate Wattled Bat C. morio , Large Forest Bat Vespadelus darlingtoni , Southern Forest Bat V. regulus , Little Forest Bat, V. vulturnus , Eastern Falsistrelle Falsistrellus tasmaniensis , Lesser Long-eared Bat Nyctophilus geoffroyi and the endemic Tasmanian Long-eared Bat N. sherrini. In addition the Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus is a vagrant, predominantly recorded on the Bass Strait islands. The diversity of species in Tasmania is low compared with mainland Australia reflecting the state's island status, size, location and glacial history. There has been a limited amount of bat research in Tasmania and systematic surveys have not been undertaken across Tasmania. However, based on available information all resident species occur widely throughout Tasmania in a wide range of habitats and none are listed under Tasmania's Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 or Australia's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The vagrant P. poliocephalus is listed as Vulnerable under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.