Eighteen invertebrate species, all butterflies, are listed in schedules of threatened species under Queensland’s Nature Conservation Act 1992. The Nature Conservation (Wildlife) Regulation 1992 recommends recovery planning as part of threatened species management and is being implemented for one butterfly species. The development of more comprehensive lists may highlight the magnitude of the invertebrate conservation problem. Invertebrate conservation may also be addressed through habitat reservation. Protected areas cover 3.7% of Queensland. One third of regional ecosystems are not reserved, and 13% are adequately reserved. A combination of off-reserve conservation and continuing acquisition is needed to develop a comprehensive reserve system.

Eighteen invertebrate species, all butterflies, are listed in schedules of threatened species under Queensland’s Nature Conservation Act 1992. The Nature Conservation (Wildlife) Regulation 1992 recommends recovery planning as part of threatened species management and is being implemented for one butterfly species. The development of more comprehensive lists may highlight the magnitude of the invertebrate conservation problem. Invertebrate conservation may also be addressed through habitat reservation. Protected areas cover 3.7% of Queensland. One third of regional ecosystems are not reserved, and 13% are adequately reserved. A combination of off-reserve conservation and continuing acquisition is needed to develop a comprehensive reserve system.

Some form of land classification is essential for the conservation of fauna, as a surrogate for detailed survey data and as a framework for the spatial extension of survey results from sampled sites. Recent developments in systematic reserve selection have enabled us to design reserve systems efficiently and defensibly so that they are fully representative of the land classes of a region. Several questions remain, however, about the extent to which a region’s fauna can be adequately protected simply by reserving land classes. Five limitations of land class reservation for the protection of fauna are reviewed: (1) relationships between land classes and variations in the distribution and abundance of species are unclear and difficult to quantify; (2) species are patchily distributed within land classes so reserving a piece of a land class might miss many species; (3) additional attention is needed for species which are threatened or heavily reliant on a region; (4) land classes do not necessarily delineate or recognize areas of critical resources; (5) many species require a combination of habitats not delineated or recognized by land classification. These limitations can be minimized if the problems are addressed through survey and research. Some guidelines for addressing them are suggested.

Typically, reserve selection is based on representative community types classified primarily by vegetation. Whether they contain representative faunal communities has been little tested. The distribution and abundance of carabid beetles from 41 sites, representing a range of plant community types in two land systems in Tasmania, were used to classify sites by TWINSPAN. This study found that ground beetle distributions were not linked to plant community type. Communities defined by classification may predict only the presence of common and widespread species unless our understanding of carabid-habitat associations improves. Representation of all biota in reserves requires the inclusion of carabids in conservation assessments.

The most recent round of the forestry reform process in north-east NSW began in 1995 and resulted in the direct reservation of 737,602 hectares of forest as National Parks estate in north-east NSW, the exclusion of logging from all mapped oldgrowth forest (greater than 25 hectares) and rainforest in remaining State Forests, and the provision of 20 year, binding wood supply agreements to the timber industry in the region at 50% of 1995 levels. The forestry reform process is reviewed and a qualitative assessment of its impact on forest fauna conducted. The process was successful in using comprehensive spatial information on fauna distributions in the form of quantitative habitat models, in applying a rigorous method to set fauna reservation targets, and in employing recognised conservation planning software in reserve selection with fauna as one of the key parameters that determined reserve placement. These all represented important positive developments for the conservation of forest fauna in north-east NSW, which ensured that many of the areas identified for reservation were high priority areas for fauna conservation. However, the forestry reform process also included aspects that resulted in significant negative outcomes for forest fauna including; the use of timber commitments rather than fauna needs to determine the overall scale of reserves, the provision of long-term wood supply agreements to the timber industry at demonstrably unsustainable levels, the development of a substandard set of requirements for management on remaining State Forest areas, and the drastic weakening of legislative controls on logging operations which allow for increased intensification over time. Reservation targets set during the forestry reform process were used to provide an empirical assessment of reserve adequacy for fauna in the region. The assessment indicates that only 29% of priority fauna populations have fully achieved reservation targets in north-east NSW, and that across all populations, mean target achievement is only 49%. Therefore, the scale of the reserve outcome does not satisfy the national reserve criteria for forests and is considered to be inadequate to ensure the survival of priority species in north-east NSW. The target assessment indicates that the most poorly reserved habitats are dry coastal and dry tablelands sclerophyll forests, and habitat for species with large home ranges and species most vulnerable to threatening processes. While additional gains in reservation target achievement can still be made through the reservation of public lands, the large gains in habitat protection now required will have to be made on private land in the region. Future conservation efforts for fauna in the region should include; making full use of the current knowledge of fauna distributions and reservation status through appropriate publication and distribution of existing information; improving and refining the priority fauna habitat models, reservation targets and conservation requirements; and providing strong legislative protection for priority fauna habitat, as depicted by quantitative fauna models, across all land tenures. A clear lesson from the forestry reform process in north-east NSW is that independent ( i.e. non-Government) scientific involvement is crucial to the scientific integrity of conservation outcomes and assessments conducted by Governments via bureaucratic processes. Increased involvement by independent scientists in an active and direct way into the political process is also required to lessen the divide between science and politics into the future.

Most people in Australia live in areas that were forested in 1788. Much of it is a now a cultural landscape, and it may be hard to see it as habitat for forest fauna. The challenge of managing Australia's forest fauna across this cultural landscape will be a major test of our civilisation. The National Forest Policy Statement (Commonwealth of Australia 1992) opens with the statement: “The Governments share a vision of ecologically sustainable management of Australia's forests”. The Policy Statement launched the Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) process, with its emphasis on public forests, and the private forests consequently become the forgotten forests, even though all of it is habitat for forest fauna. One of the successes of the RFA process has been the development of reserve selection procedures. Yet, as necessary as the new reserves are to conserve forest fauna, they are not sufficient to conserve that fauna into the future. Another success is Australia's State of the Forests Report 2003 , and although it contains much valuable information, such as that 70% of Australia's native forest is privately managed, it is far too brief on the matter of forest fauna. The guidance for Australia provided by the British forest historian Oliver Rackham is to see each forest as a unique entity, with its own history, including its pre-European history, and each deserving of special study. If Rackham is right in describing Australia as a miniature planet, then we cannot go elsewhere and start again if we fritter away this opportunity, an ethic that lies behind the diverse chapters in this book. The World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development noted that forests contain at least two-thirds of the earth's terrestrial species. This second edition of the Conservation of Australia's Forest Fauna focuses on Australia's rich share of that international heritage and seeks to conserve forest fauna, wherever it occurs on the landscape, as part of a larger enterprise of conserving Australia's natural legacy.

The spatial patterns of Sooty Owl Tyto tenebricosa and Barking Owl Ninox connivens records, obtained from large owl surveys in the Victorian Central Highlands and the Pilliga Scrub in New South Wales respectively, allow the suggestion to be made that these species select territories with particular sets of habitat attributes. Estimated Sooty and Barking Owl territories in the Mountain Ash Eucalyptus regnans forests of the Central Highlands and the cypress pine Callitris spp-ironbark Eucalyptus spp forests and woodlands of the Pilliga Scrub were concentrated in areas with abundant tree hollows and other old-growth attributes and less frequent fires. Higher soil nutrients and plant productivity also appeared to be important attributes in the Pilliga Scrub. Territories of the large owls in both survey areas contained most of the sites where the highest nocturnal bird and arboreal marsupial species richness and abundance were recorded, enabling the proposal to be advanced that Sooty and Barking Owls could serve as indicators of high quality habitat for a range of forest and woodlanddependent vertebrates. In particular, they appear able to function as indicators for hollow-dependent and other specialised species disadvantaged by disturbances such as intensive logging and frequent fire. Territories of these large owls form a pattern that provides a natural planning template ideal for mapbased reserve selection aimed at maximising biodiversity conservation in the forests and woodlands of eastern Australia.

Ground-dwelling ants, beetles and spiders were surveyed at 239 forest sites in north-east New South Wales. The level of dissimilarity in species composition between these sites is analysed in relation to inter-site differences in a number of remotely mapped environmental and vegetational variables and inter-site geographical separation. Results of this analysis are compared with those obtained from analyses of spatial turnover in species composition of vertebrates and vascular plants. Biological dissimilarity between sites is correlated with inter-site environmental differences for all surveyed arthropod, vertebrate and plant groups. However, after controlling statistically for environmental differences, the correlation between biological dissimilarity and inter-site geographical separation is much stronger for ground-dwelling arthropods than for vertebrates and vascular plants. These results have important implications for the use of remote vegetation or environmental mapping as a surrogate for selecting reserves to conserve biodiversity. To reserve regional biodiversity in a biological group exhibiting high geographical turnover in species composition it is imperative that a reserve system not only include a portion of each mapped environment or vegetation class but that this sample is spread geographically to accommodate species turnover within each class.

Five large (greater than 35 ha) urban bushland reserves in Greater Sydney were selected where herpetofaunal assemblages could be deduced and there were recent herpetofauna surveys. Four reserves (Rockdale Wetlands Corridor, Wolli Creek Valley, Burnt Bridge Creek Corridor and Middle Harbour Bushland Reserves) had been surrounded by residential development for more than 50 years. The fifth (University of Western Sydney, Richmond campus) was surrounded by agricultural and peri-urban development. Records from the scientific literature, local natural history groups, amateur herpetologists and council archives were used to gather historic information on the frogs and reptiles. Interviews were also conducted with researchers and neighbours of the reserves. Eight extant species were common to all reserves while another, predicted to be in all reserves, was universally absent. Despite the relatively large size of these bushland remnants, in all reserves the number of reptile and frog species had declined since urbanisation. The largest losses occurred in the four urban reserves. Seven species predicted to have occurred historically were now only present in the peri-urban site. Some herpetofaunal groups were more vulnerable than others. Goannas were locally extinct in urban reserves. Tree frogs and geckos were depleted while ground frogs and skinks were reduced to approximately half their original species numbers. This is in contrast to the peri-urban site where there had been no loss of tree frogs or goannas and generally more than half of the species in each group were extant. Urban impacts that appeared to relate to herpetofauna decline were direct human intervention that resulted in death or removal of individuals ( e.g. goannas, large snakes), interference with habitat such as bush rock removal ( e.g. smaller snakes, geckoes, skinks), fire ( e.g. non-burrowing small residents), interference with the water cycle including infilling and pollution ( e.g. frogs) and exotic predators ( e.g. dragons, turtles, skinks). In general, herpetofauna with the least future prospects were those most susceptible to decline. These included the large, conspicuous fauna that required a substantial home range, attracted the attention of humans because of ‘pet appeal’ or due to their perceived danger; were vulnerable at some stage of the lifecycle to predation by feral species; and had specific habitat requirements for reproduction such as quality water or open sandy banks for egg incubation. Those that are small, generalist and unappealing to humans are most likely to survive. There is, therefore, little doubt that diversity in reserves will continue to dwindle unless strategies are devised to overcome the present trend. Current conservation strategies that generally target single species need to be expanded to ecosystem level to monitor threats and management implemented for their removal.

The forests of New South Wales (NSW) contain a diverse fauna of frogs and reptiles (herpetofauna) with approximately 139 species occurring in forests and around 59 species that are forest-dependent. Prior to 1991, this fauna group received scant attention in research or forest management. However, legislative and policy changes in the early 1990s have largely reversed this situation. This review documents the changes in forest management that now require closer attention be given to the requirements of forest herpetofauna. We also provide an overview of research that contributes to a greater understanding of the management requirements of forest-dependent species. The introduction of the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act 1991 in NSW led to the need for comprehensive surveys of all forest vertebrate wildlife and detailed consideration of potential impacts on forest species listed as endangered by this Act. This process was replaced in 1995 by Comprehensive Regional Assessments (CRAs) in States with timber industries under the National Forest Policy Statement. Herpetofauna featured prominently in this process overall, though poorly in the southeast (Eden) region of NSW. The CRA process culminated in the identification of areas to comprise a Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative system of reserves. Workshops with fauna experts were conducted to select habitat areas for reservation that aimed to conserve viable populations of priority species. Herpetofauna in two of four regional areas fared poorly compared to birds and mammals. In order to achieve Ecologically Sustainable Forest Management, as required under the National Forest Policy, forest management within areas remaining as production forest must establish conservation protocols that aim to minimise potential impacts on threatened species. Although such management is a substantial improvement on the situation pre-1991, its effectiveness rests with how appropriate individual protocols may be. This cannot be determined currently so we strongly urge research and monitoring to resolve this issue. Research on forest-dependent herpetofauna has been slow to respond to the challenge of providing insights to management but has gathered pace in the last six years. Only a small number of species have been targeted to any degree. It is inappropriate to assume that if species are now largely confined to protected areas that they are adequately conserved. Many forest reserves are now more likely to be subject to wildfire because of the change in forest management practices and the resources available to manage fire. An increase in the recreational use of the new reserves may also have an impact on the quality of some key habitats if not managed appropriately. Because the ecology of herpetofauna is intimately associated with temperature profiles, many species may be vulnerable to predicted climate change. We believe there is a need for a substantial increase in research so that forest-dependent herpetofauna can be adequately conserved in NSW.

Keeping native animals as pets has recently been proposed as a new strategy to enhance the conservation of wildlife in Australia. In this paper we critically examine the arguments put by the proponents of a native animal pet industry, discuss potential problems associated with it and cover a range of important related issues. The primary argument for a native animal pet industry is that it will generate major benefits for the conservation of Australia's biodiversity. However, the use of native animals as pets (and associated captive-breeding and re-introduction programs) will only ever focus on a small subset of species, will be unable to address larger biodiversity conservation issues, and will be unlikely to make more than a very limited contribution to nature conservation in Australia. Other approaches such as setting aside reserves and off-reserve conservation strategies such as landscape restoration will be far more important for nature conservation. Yet, a native animal pet industry has the potential to divert funds from these important activities, and may possibly even reduce public appreciation of the critical need for them. We provide a range of reasons why native animals are unlikely to replace domestic animals as pets. We also raise concerns about animal welfare and other issues that could flow from keeping native animals as pets. These include (among others):- potential for a significant incidence of stress-related and husbandry-related diseases, problems with access to appropriate husbandry and veterinary care, and the potential for inappropriate breeding to select particular anatomical traits. Keeping native animals as pets also has the potential to:- transmit disease to wild populations of the same species, transmit disease to other species in close contact, and spread disease from animals to humans (zoonoses). These problems have major negative implications not only for wild populations of Australian native animals, but also for human health in this country. It is essential these issues are fully addressed prior to the further development and promotion of the concept of a native animal pet industry. Indeed, for the establishment of such an industry to be justified, there must be substantial positive conservation outcomes for wild populations. It must also be demonstrated that any new industry would not have any negative effect on the status of wild populations.

Despite being classified as one of the world's mega-diversity hotspots, the basic biology and ecology of most PNG forest vertebrate species are completely unknown, which hampers sound planning for conservation of PNG's forest fauna. Although almost 70% of PNG still retains its forest cover, PNG supports a surprisingly high proportion of threatened mammals and birds, which are comparable to the proportion of threatened species in Australia - 27% of PNG's mammals and 4% of PNG's birds are considered critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable compared with 22% and 5% respectively of Australia's mammals and birds. Degradation and loss of habitat by the partial or total removal of forest cover (from clear-fell logging, selective logging and clearing for shifting agriculture and oil palm plantations) is the most significant threat currently posed to PNG's forest fauna. Hunting may also pose a threat for some of the larger, highly sort after game species, such as tree kangaroos and cassowaries. An overview is provided of PNG's legislation for protected areas development and we outline our experiences in the facilitation of community planning for Wildlife Management Area establishment and management by local landowners in the Mt Bosavi area of Southern Highlands Province. For Wildlife Management Areas, the ownership of the land, the development of management rules and the enforcement of management rules remains in the hands of the customary landowner. The participatory community planning process that we developed to try to overcome some of the factors which have led to failure of WMAs elsewhere in PNG is outlined in this paper. In our opinion the only successful conservation areas in PNG will be those developed on land still held in customary ownership by landowners committed to conservation. We also believe that the planning process we developed can be used by local communities (with minor alterations) to undertake sustainable land and resource-use planning that can achieve broad scale conservation outcomes that do not necessarily result in the establishment of protected areas. While establishment of conservation areas by committed landowners may be part of the answer to achieving conservation of PNG's forest fauna, we also highlight research priorities which will aid the assessment of the effectiveness of conservation areas, and help to determine what other off-reserve measures may need to be taken to ensure effective conservation of PNG's fauna. We believe that the key to answering some of the fundamental biological and ecological questions necessary for the adequate conservation of PNG's fauna lies in building the capacity of PNG biologists and in securing adequate funds for them to undertake long-term research

South-east Queensland (SEQ) was the target of 1 of 10 joint Commonwealth-State Governments comprehensive regional assessments (CRAs) conducted in preparation for Regional Forests Agreements (RFAs) in Australia during the 1990s/early 2000s. Work towards a SEQ RFA commenced in 1993, a SEQ Forests Agreement (so called because it did not in the end involve the Commonwealth Government as a partner) was signed in 1999, and is presently being implemented. Forests of SEQ are ecologically significant with high levels of faunal species diversity and endemism. Human population is high, and growing rapidly, placing habitats and species under threat. Improved conservation of forest biodiversity is a major goal of the SEQFA, stated objectives of the process include a world-class conservation reserve system and ecologically sustainable management of forests. The SEQFA has, on the face of it, achieved its goal. The total area of National Park in the Region has more than doubled with 425,000 hectares of forest changing tenure from State Forest immediately. Logging is no longer permitted in all publicly-owned (i.e. National Park, State Forest and leasehold land) rainforest and almost 100% of wet sclerophyll habitats. It is to be progressively excluded from the remainder of publicly-owned forest over the ensuing 25 years. A commitment to greatly increase the establishment of native species plantations also has some potential to provide additional habitat for native fauna. However, some compromises were required to reach agreement. Dry sclerophyll habitats were under-represented in National Parks in SEQ prior to the Forest Agreement (at 9% of pre-European extent) and remain so relative to other habitat types (at 20% of pre-European extent). Timber harvesting had traditionally been practised using the relatively conservative single-tree and small-group selection approaches. The Agreement has accepted the adoption of more intense harvesting practices to maintain woodflows to industry from publicly-owned forests (i.e. State Forests) during the phase-out period. Dry sclerophyll forests that comprise the majority of the area where logging is permitted will bear the brunt of this logging with likely short and long-term consequences for habitat quality, especially for hollow-dependent fauna. Native forest habitats on freehold land, where environmental controls on harvesting are less rigorous, are also likely to suffer from increased pressure as the timber industry seeks to counter the declining quality, and ultimately quantity, of logs from publicly-owned native forests. Pressure to maximise timber production from plantations in compensation for declining access to timber from publicly-owned native forests will also negatively impact on the quality of habitat they are able to provide

There is little doubt that the dingo is the most reviled of all Australian mammals. Former dingo trapper Sid Wright emphasised the enmity of people towards the dingo, but argued that this “wild, magnificent creature” should be conserved in our national parks and reserves. It is the only native mammal not protected in NSW by the State's fauna legislation yet, in a bizarre twist, it is currently under consideration by an independent scientific committee for listing as a vulnerable species in NSW. This Symposium on the Dingo was convened to explore the kill-or-conserve dilemma. Stock protection remains a primary matter of rural concern today, and this is a concern for all wild dogs and not just dingoes, although no distinction can be made between them in control programs because it is not possible to separate them in the bush. Thus there is no method of selectively controlling wild dogs. As journalist Peter Austin explained to the readers of The Land : “The problem is not made any easier for the National Parks and Wildlife Service by the fact that it is required on one hand to protect dingoes on its lands as a native species, while meeting its obligation under the recently amended Rural Lands Protection Act to control wild dogs (dingoes included) that pose a threat to domestic stock”. Recent research by geneticist Alan Wilton gave rise to his unambiguous position: “The dingo in the wild is endangered due to hybridization with domestic dogs”. This confirms earlier work by Laurie Corbett and Alan Newsome. The NSW NPWS recognises that “wild dogs, including dingoes, cause substantial livestock losses and there is an expectation by rural communities that damage by these animals be minimised … However, as the dingo is a native animal, there is a public expectation that dingoes should be conserved”. The Service, as the leading wildlife conservation agency in NSW, accepts this responsibility as spelt out in its policy on Wild Dogs. One conservation option being negotiated is the establishment of dingo management areas, as presented in an interdepartmental joint submission to the NSW Parliament in a “Report on the Regulatory Controls Relating to Dingoes”. However, the management of dingoes at the interface of public lands and grazing properties will remain a contentious issue because of the need to balance the conflicting objectives of protecting dingoes while meeting the obligations of public land managers under the Rural Lands Protection Act 1998. Under the changes, the Crown is bound to control pest animals declared through Pest Animal Control Orders “to the extent necessary to minimise the risk of the pest causing damage on any land”. Management dilemmas can paralyse the decision-making process for land and wildlife managers, so this paper aims to advance the debate by examining matters of great concern to the wildlife manager and to the land manager: respectively, they are scientific evidence for genetic hybridisation of the dingo, and innovative management options. This paper suggests areas of compromise and reiterates Alan Newsome's conclusion that “there are no simple answers, and sometimes no easy compromises between the two imperatives, to eradicate and to conserve”.