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.

The Grey-headed Flying-fox, Pteropus poliocephalus , is listed as a threatened species in NSW, Victoria and nationally. The Grey-headed Flying-fox is a key species in maintaining forest ecosystems through the pollination of native trees and the dispersal of rainforest seeds. This threatened species is unique in that it is also recognised as a horticultural pest, predominantly in coastal orchards of south-eastern Australia. In times of native resource (pollen, nectar and rainforest fruits) shortage, flying-foxes are known to utilise commercial fruit crops. As such, the species is affected by control techniques employed by horticulturists to mitigate flying-fox damage, including shooting and netting. The NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change and the NSW Department of Primary Industries are working collaboratively to investigate flying-fox damage to commercial crops, quantify the levels of flying-fox damage (temporally and spatially), determine the factors contributing to trends in crop damage, and assess the effectiveness of mitigative measures employed by horticulturists to reduce flying-fox damage. The project is funded for two financial years through the Australian Government's Natural Heritage Trust Strategic Reserve funding and State Government contributions (cash and in-kind), and addresses several recovery actions of the draft National Recovery Plan for the Grey-headed Flying-fox. The project proposal was also strongly supported by the NSW Flying-fox Consultative Committee. The project commenced in October 2006 and focuses on commercial crops in the western Sydney Basin. To date (May 2007), preliminary evaluations have been conducted, including total yield loss, damaged fruit (including that specifically attributable to flying-foxes and birds), flying-fox crop visitation indices and crop architecture. These parameters will be compared throughout the fruit season across different stone fruit and apple crop types and between netted and unnetted crops to examine spatial and temporal trends. The process of establishing and implementing the collaborative project is discussed, within the framework of flying-fox conservation and management in NSW.

Five claims about Eastern Grey Kangaroos Macropus giganteus , or their management, are tested with evidence. Most of the evidence is drawn from three populations of M. giganteus located on reserved land in or near the ACT, which have the highest measured densities of any kangaroo populations. Additional evidence is drawn from four ACT grazing properties where kangaroo populations are suppressed by shooting. Conclusions reached in relation to the five claims are: (1) M. giganteus does not give birth continuously all year; (2) kangaroo shooting in south eastern Australia can be timed to minimise the number of young that are orphaned at a vulnerable age; (3) winter starvation of sub-adults is common, it is an important demographic process, and in some places it provides a rare opportunity for public education; (4) in this temperate environment, M. giganteus continues to produce young-at-foot in drought years in spite of food shortage or high density. In testing the claims against the evidence, age-specific fecundity, demographic sensitivity, and age structure of M. giganteus populations are quantified. The hypothesis of Arnold et al . (1991) and Dawson (1995), that mortality of sub-adults is the population-limiting demographic rate, is supported by relating the observed stage-specific mortality to the result of a demographic sensitivity analysis.

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.

On 4 May 2001, the NSW Scientific Committee made a Final Determination to list the Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus as a Vulnerable species in New South Wales on Schedule 2 of the Threatened Species Conservation Act. The Committee made this determination because, in its view, the species ‘is likely to become endangered unless the circumstances and factors threatening its survival or evolutionary development cease to operate’ (TSC Act, Section 14). In this paper we first describe the procedures for nominating species for inclusion on the Schedules of the TSC Act and the role of the Scientific Committee in the assessment and listing process. We then chronicle the steps taken in the listing of the Grey-headed Flying-fox, and briefly review the evidence on which listing was based. This evidence included data on the overall decline in numbers of the Grey-headed Flying-fox in New South Wales, numerical declines at regularly-visited camps, continuing loss of habitat, and culling. Listing the Grey-headed Flying-fox as a Vulnerable species triggers the need for preparation of a Recovery Plan. By having regard to the biological, social and economic consequences of making the plan, it should be possible to obtain broad participation of stakeholders to achieve effective species recovery.

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.

The NSW government has seen fit to list the Grey Headed Flying-fox (GHFF) as Vulnerable. The listing will limit the ability of fruit growers to protect their crops from damage by this species. The GHFF has been protected by government on behalf of the community. In my submission, it is then equitable that the whole community, which benefits from the protection of this animal, help the fruit grower cover the cost associated with the protection. There are several ways this could be accomplished: by funding research into methods by which GHFF can be deterred from damaging crops, by making it possible for the grower to net his crop where feasible, by allowing him to protect his livelihood through judicious and timely culling, or by compensation for loss. There are a number of instances where the community currently meets, or will soon be required to meet, the extra costs of conserving biodiversity. In my view it is only right and just, and indeed may even be an obligation, for the community to assist and/or compensate fruit growers with any extra costs associated with listing the GHFF as Vulnerable.