Following the fourth session of the forum, we held a question and answer session facilitated by Paul Willis. The presentations covered by this plenary session were: John Hadley (Western Sydney University) - Does a painless death harm an invertebrate? Trudy Sharp (Department of Primary Industries) - Killing pest animals: are all methods equal? Susan Rhind (University of Wollongong) and Murray Ellis (Office of Environment and Heritage NSW) - Euthanasia in the field. A compact and cheap system for field euthanasia of small mammals; the need, design and trial. Rosie Cooney (University of New South Wales) - The role of the IUCN in sustainable use of wildlife for conservation and livelihoods. Stephanie Hing (RSPCA), Jordan O. Hampton, and Troy. J. Gibson - Animal welfare and the killing of wildlife by captive bolt in Australia. (Paper included post forum.) Denis A Saunders (CSIRO) and Alison Doley - Culling farm wildlife for conservation and production on “Koobabbie”, a cereal and sheep growing property, in the northern wheatbelt of Western Australia. (Paper included post forum.)

Vehicle collision resulting in animal mortality is a common daily occurrence, although few studies have considered the impact on herpetofauna in urban areas. Over a 7 year period (2003 - 2010), 1.4 km of suburban streets of Falconbridge that interface with the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area, west of Sydney, was surveyed on foot two to four days a week, typically soon after dawn. Over the period a total of 86 reptiles that represented 20 species: 38% of the lizard and 56% of snake species known from the area were collected as road kills due to collision with vehicles. This equated to approximately one individual per month that was collected across the 7 years. Representatives of six frog species were also identified as road kills (33% of the local frog fauna). In Faulconbridge,20-30 km of 50 km/hr roadways interface with the national park and there are 26 towns within the World Heritage Area. Each of these towns has a network of streets that covers much more than just the perimeter of the town, and there are two major highways that bisect the World Heritage Area. Although an average death rate of one reptile per month may be considered negligible, the cumulative loss of reptiles due to vehicle collision in the region is an ecological disaster.

ABSTRACT In this paper we discuss the history of the koala and possum fur trade in Queensland, based mainly on material in Queensland Government archives, and review the development of legislation and wildlife management practices. The koala and possum harvests arose in response to a large increase in the abundance of koalas and possums in mid to late 19th century. A marked increase in skin prices in the early 20th century provided further stimulation to the harvests. Harsh rural conditions and economic downturns further raised interest in harvesting and the government regularly came under pressure to open trapping seasons for economic reasons. Regulated koala harvests operated intermittently from 1906 to 1927, whereas possum harvests were held more frequently and over a longer period, from 1906 to 1936. Fluctuation in demand was a major influence on the industry, leading to the expansion of the industry after 1900, and the eventual demise of the possum industry in the 1930s. Strong demand over about three decades resulted from a range of factors influencing the international fur markets, associated in particular with warfare and economic conditions after World War I. Successive Queensland governments supported the harvest because of its economic value, despite having serious concerns about the viability of the koala harvest. The legislation to control the harvest was aimed at protecting possums and koalas from extinction and establishing a sustainable industry. The principal legislative devices used to manage the harvest were close seasons and establishment of sanctuaries, supported by various other measures .Animals were taken by baiting (cyanide), snaring and shooting. Control measures were ineffective in preventing breaches of the regulations, and widespread take occurred during close seasons. The Department of Agriculture and Stock attempted to manage the trade as a sustainable harvest, with annual assessment of populations, and determination of open seasons in response to population levels and market conditions. The harvest was supported by population conservation measures including the establishment of reserves and attempts to conserve populations with a restocking (translocation) program for both koalas and possums in areas thought to be over-harvested. Koalas and possums were translocated to a number of mainland sites and onto islands. The take of possums ranged from about 400,000 to 3,000,000 per annum and that of koalas from about 450,000 to nearly one million. In good seasons, top quality skins could bring at least 60 shillings per dozen. The poorest quality skins brought as little as 2½ pence each. The industry was of considerable economic value, generating personal incomes substantially greater than the income from wages of many workers, and total returns comparable to those of the annual sales of gold for the State. The total number of trapping permits issued in a season varied from about 8,000 to over 9,000. Governments had serious reservations about the koala harvest, but supported the possum harvest much more strongly. Possum harvests were held more frequently, generated more income, and made an important contribution to the economy. Strong community opposition to koala harvests first arose in 1919, effectively signalling the end of the harvest for that species. By 1936, community opposition to the possum seasons had also become established. There was a market downturn at the same time and the possum harvest came to an end. Significant community opposition to harvests of both species arose in both urban and rural areas, the latter mainly because harvests were seen as interfering with grazier interests, causing death of stock from cyanide baits and disturbance to stock by shots and spotlights.

ABSTRACT Search the internet using “vegetarianism and environment” and you will find several articles by prominent people espousing the view that vegetarianism is bad for the environment. One of the recent articles on the subject by Professor Mike Archer entitled “Ordering the vegetarian meal? There's more animal blood on your hands” attracted a lot of comment when it appeared in the Conversation in 2011. Archer, in his article, argued that “if you want to minimise animal suffering and promote more sustainable agriculture, adopting a vegetarian diet might be the worst possible thing you could do.” He claims that if we stop eating grazing animals and turn to a vegetarian diet then we will need to farm an additional area the size of Victoria plus Tasmania to meet our nutritional needs. Compared to rangeland grazing, clearing such large areas for crops means a loss of the vegetation and many of the resident animals. The livestock industries must relish this free promotion. But, the logic is wrong – dangerously wrong! After providing a brief history of the Australian diet, food industry and animal industries, I point out, with some simple calculations, that as appealing as the argument may sound it has no basis. Instead, lacto-ovo vegetarians need to ingest about 30 kg of protein from crops in a year, which includes 10 kg fed to dairy cattle and laying hens. In contrast, before they eat any vegetable matter the average Australian omnivore will have indirectly consumed a staggering 38 kg of plant protein, just in the chicken and pig meat they eat. This increases to 48 kg of protein when we include eggs and dairy products. This should not surprise anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of ecology, who would know that eating at higher trophic levels elicits a loss of nutrients. The last thing we need is prominent people promoting dangerous agriculture with more land clearing and further decimation of native flora and fauna. Instead, a largely vegetarian diet makes environmental sense while also offering health benefits. I finish by elaborating on some of these issues.

Speciesism can be defined as the belief that non-human animals warrant no place, status or recognition in the world other than what is arbitrarily decreed for them by humans, whose material and other interests as the dominant species will always take precedence. Like most other ‘-isms’, the power of speciesism lies in its generally taken-for-granted, uncritically accepted, nature. In this paper, I examine the influence of this pervasive mentality in two otherwise quite unrelated incidents, one involving an unknown ex-fisherman from a peripheral part of South Australia, the other centred on one of the country's best known environmental entrepreneurs who lived in the public eye, as well as three shark attacks which took place in different locations on the Australian coastline. In conclusion, I suggest that the distinction between endangered and non-endangered animals is also speciesist in character, and should be critically assessed in that light, rather than being held up as a sign of enlightenment where environmental matters are concerned.

Our complex and contradictory relationships with animals is demonstrated in our relationships with donkeys Equus asinus . The Australian context exemplifies these conflicting attitudes: once exploited as a beast of burden in the Outback in colonial times, the donkey has since been constructed as a pest to farmers, a feral animal that does not belong, and vermin to be exterminated. The latest incarnation is interesting as the donkey is once again proving ‘valuable’ as the guardian animal of choice for some farmers and pastoralists seeking to protect their flocks from wild dogs Canis lupus familiaris. There is an interesting inter-relationship between the domestic animals in this context: the sheep Ovis aries (valuable to humans), the wild animals: the dogs, (valued as the usual favoured companion but in this context, as a pest to be destroyed) and the donkeys (valuable again in their guardian role rather than a feral pest to be shot). To add to the irony of this situation, some of the donkeys employed in this way are feral donkeys, which blurs the lines even further. What are the deciding factors in the status we assign to animals? I contend that utilitarian economic considerations outweigh any other.

ABSTRACT Koalas moving across open ground risk dog attacks and collisions with vehicles when crossings roads. Historical records from a resident survey, two regional wildlife carers and a state government department wildlife shelter returns database for Victoria, Australia, were examined to determine the importance of certain admission types. Koala Vehicle Collisions (KVCs) and dog attacks were important contributors to the overall intake of injured koalas. However, KVCs were the most numerous recorded cause of koalas entering a wildlife shelter, and the most frequently assigned cause of death. There were relatively high rates of admission into care, and of death, for male koalas. Furthermore, almost twice as many individuals were admitted during the breeding season; sex ratio was not a differentiating characteristic of road-kills between breeding and non-breeding seasons, or by individual months. Comprehensive, accurate and detailed data gathering are essential for effective evaluation of the success of rehabilitation and release, as well as post release survival rates. This, together with population studies would determine whether admission rates reflect the sex ratio of local populations, and whether the high number of injured or killed females has an impact on their viability. Analyses of wildlife carer databases have great potential for decision making in koala conservation.

ABSTRACT This paper explains a meaningful sense in which a painless death can be a misfortune for an invertebrate. The account presented is a logical implication of bringing together two distinct pieces of theory: the deprivation account of the harm of death and the biocentric ethical theory developed by the New Zealand philosopher, Nicholas Agar. Combined, the two theories support the following thesis: death harms an invertebrate because it deprives the individual of future biopreference satisfaction.

ABSTRACT Animal welfare is an important concern wherever people are called upon to kill wildlife. Notwithstanding the ethical dilemmas surrounding the killing of wildlife in various situations, if an animal is to be killed we have a duty to select the method that produces the best animal welfare outcomes. However, many wildlife professionals face practical challenges, a lack of peer-reviewed literature to inform evidence-based decision making and limited access to different methods such as free-bullet firearms and euthanasia drugs. Penetrating captive bolt devices are currently being used for the euthanasia and killing of some wildlife species in Australia. However, there remains a paucity of peer-reviewed literature about animal welfare and the use of captive bolt devices to kill wildlife in Australia. We explore animal, operational and equipment factors that may influence the animal welfare outcomes of killing by captive bolt and make recommendations for future investigation.

ABSTRACT Dingoes ( Canis dingo ) are known for hunting and killing animals to meet their energetic requirements, but like almost all predators they also scavenge animal remains. To improve our understanding of dingo scavenging ecology, we investigated the role of abiotic and biotic factors in shaping carcass utilisation by dingoes and further determined whether dingo scavenging influenced carcass persistence in the landscape. To do so, we monitored visitation and scavenging by dingoes using remote cameras positioned on 119 kangaroo carcasses in open and closed canopy habitats and in warm and cool seasons. The carcasses were monitored across multiple study sites, which incorporated forest, alpine and desert ecoregions in Australia. We found that season played an important role in shaping carcass utilisation by dingoes, as well as carcass persistence. Warmer seasons increased the rate of carcass discovery 6.3-fold in the Forest study site and 4.8-fold in the Alpine study site, and also increased the time dingoes spent feeding on carcasses in the Alpine study site. Further, across all study sites, carcasses persisted at least 4.7 times longer in cool compared with warm seasons. On the other hand, carcass utilisation by dingoes was not influenced by habitat, although carcasses were more likely to persist in open compared with closed canopy habitats in the Alpine study site. Finally, our study showed that dingo scavenging may contribute to substantial carcass removal in certain contexts. Indeed, decreased carcass persistence in the Forest study site was evident in the cool season, when dingo scavenging occurred during the first two weeks of monitoring. The variability in results highlights the complexity of patterns in dingo scavenging and, more broadly, of vertebrate scavenging. It emphasises the need to consider multiple abiotic and biotic factors to properly understand the functional roles of different scavenger species. Longer-term studies with additional seasonal replicates may also yield a more detailed picture of the role of dingoes as apex scavengers.