The Kritic

‘Animal Welfare’ Category

Grey-headed flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus)

Flying-foxes are taking refuge in populated areas, and people are deciding they don’t like them.Photo: James Reed

Animosity towards the grey-headed flying-fox has intensified as their contact with humans has increased. Last month, the Queensland government announced that it would issue an annual quota of 1280 permits for farmers to shoot them where they are causing crop damage. Pressure to implement mass culls is also mounting.

Grey-headed flying-foxes (Pteropus poliocephalus) are highly environmentally significant. By spending their nights foraging over extensive areas, they disperse pollen and seeds throughout landscapes. With a diet of over 100 flowering and fleshy fruited trees – including numerous eucalypt, melaleuca and banksia species – the flying-fox fundamentally binds together various strands of life into an interdependent web.

Despite this, the flying-fox has a public relations problem. To many orchardists, they are much feared harbingers of lost productivity. Widespread vegetation clearing along Australia’s eastern coastal strip has left the flying-fox with limited natural foraging grounds, and in times of food scarcity they seek out horticultural crops. Because of the nomadic nature of their colonies, damage is generally low and intermittent, but in some years crop losses are substantial.

It has also become increasingly common for flying-foxes to use urban areas, where they can exploit cultivated plants in parks and gardens. But here too, they have often found themselves unwelcome. To most people, their raucous camps are noisy, smelly, disease-ridden, and generally incongruous with the austere and regimented control we have come to expect from our urban landscapes.

A grey area – vulnerable or not?

In 2001, the grey-headed flying-fox was listed as a “vulnerable species” under the national Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act. The population size at time of its listing was not low: there were around 320,000 to 400,000 individuals throughout their range, which spans the coastal regions of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria.

But rarity is only one aspect of vulnerability to extinction. Even abundant species can slip into extinction when faced with rapidly dwindling population numbers, as tragically illustrated by the North American passenger pigeon.

Census counts revealed the grey-headed flying-fox had declined by 30% since 1989, due primarily to loss of key winter foraging habitat. Based on this, it was listed as vulnerable to extinction. The listing heralded a major shift in management goals towards conservation; previously, there had been a long history of indiscriminate persecution.

The current status of this flying-fox is debated among researchers, and there have been calls for it to be de-listed due to an apparent expanding population size. A national census throughout its range has not been conducted since 2005. That survey documented 674,000 individuals – up from 425,000 the previous year.

The high count was attributed to inexperienced survey staff and inclusion of data from previously undiscovered camps. Certainly, such a rapid increase could not have been due to fecundity alone, since the flying-fox produces only one pup per year. Nonetheless, census data from 1998 to 2005 do not show a trend of systematic population decline.

In the absence of a comprehensive survey since 2005, it is difficult to determine the grey-headed flying-fox’s current conservation status. However, it is not inconceivable that they are one of the few native mammals that have found a way to thrive in human-altered landscapes when their natural habitat is stripped away. Sadly, even if such a resilience were documented in future census data, it could prove to be bitter-sweet.

Attack is not the best defence

Population recovery is the ultimate goal of threatened species management: a rare victory to be celebrated. But in the case of the grey-headed flying-fox, it would likely be used – erroneously – as a justification for expanding culling programs.

Culling is an ineffective way of responding to conflicts between flying-foxes and people. When a large aggregation of flying-foxes descends upon an orchard to forage, shooting by an individual farmer has a negligible impact on population numbers. It does little to prevent crop damage.

Achieving local eradication through mass culls is also doomed to failure. Because they migrate over long distances in response to food availability, culling a local population of flying-foxes creates a vacant niche. This draws in more animals from farther afield, which are then also culled. This vicious cycle has been described as a “pteropucidal black hole”.

More obviously, if grey-headed flying-fox numbers are recovering after a period of decline, it does not make sense to then beat them back into submission with bullets. We risk substituting the threatening process of loss of natural foraging habitat with one of human hatred. It would render wasted all the hard work by flying-fox conservationists over the last 10 years and lead us back to square one – or worse.

Our approaches to conflict with flying-foxes need to become more sophisticated than simply killing them. In the case of the grey-headed flying-fox, the vulnerable listing prompted discussion, research and funding for the implementation for non-lethal means of trying to resolve some of these tensions. If populations are indeed rebounding by taking refuge in human-altered landscapes, our commitment to finding ways of managing this – without reducing them to pitiful heaps of fur – will need to be just as great.

This article was originally published at The Conversation.
By Kylie Williams, Charles Sturt University
Read the original article.

European Honey Bee

Honey Bee (Apis mellifera)Photo: Ian S. King

Mystery of the disappearing bees: Solved!

Honey bees are widespread and are bred commercially for their abilities to produce honey and pollinate crops. Over the last 15 years, however, there has been increasing observations of bees disappearing in large numbers.

Christened “Colony collapse disorder” (CCD) with losses of between 29 and 36 percent in a year the concern economically, because many agricultural crops worldwide are pollinated by bees; and ecologically, because of the major role that bees play in the reproduction of plant communities in the wild.

There have been many theories:

  • Stress and Diet
  • Radiation from Mobile Phones
  • Genetically Modified Food
  • Pesticides
  • Global Warming
  • Abundance of bacteria
  • Viruses
  • A specific fungal disease

CCD has kept scientists busy and now there are three new studies pointing an accusing finger at a culprit that many have suspected all along, a class of pesticides known as neonicotinoids.

Wikipedia shows that Neonicotinoids are a class of neuro-active insecticides chemically related to nicotine. The development of this class of insecticides began with work in the 1980s by Shell and the 1990s by Bayer. The neonicotinoids were developed in large part because they show reduced toxicity compared to previously used organophosphate and carbamate insecticides. Most neonicotinoids show much lower toxicity in mammals than insects, but some breakdown products are toxic.

Neonicotinoids are the first new class of insecticides introduced in the last 50 years, and the neonicotinoid imidacloprid is currently the most widely used insecticide in the world.

An abstract from the report “A Common Pesticide Decreases Foraging Success and Survival in Honey Bees” Published Online 29 March, 2012 and on Science Journal website on 20 April, 2012 states:

Nonlethal exposure of honey bees to thiamethoxam (neonicotinoid systemic pesticide) causes high mortality due to homing failure at levels that could put a colony at risk of collapse. Simulated exposure events on free-ranging foragers labeled with a radio-frequency identification tag suggest that homing is impaired by thiamethoxam intoxication. These experiments offer new insights into the consequences of common neonicotinoid pesticides used worldwide.

The German chemical giant Bayer has come out in defence of its product and claims that the commonly used crop pesticide is not responsible for the global decline of bees. According to Bayer, the research is “factually inaccurate and seriously flawed, both in its methodology and conclusions”.

A second Science paper on Science looked at neonicotinoid pesticides’ effect on bumblebees, which have also gone into severe decline. The researchers subjected bumblebee colonies to “field-realistic levels of the neonicotinoid imidacloprid” and then “allowed them to develop naturally under field conditions.” The result: “Treated colonies had a significantly reduced growth rate and suffered an 85% reduction in production of new queens.” Their conclusion: “Given the scale of use of neonicotinoids, we suggest that they may be having a considerable negative impact on wild bumble bee populations across the developed world.”

In a third study, published in the American Chemical Society’s Environmental Science & Technology journal, researchers looked at what happens to bees when farmers plant treated seeds. Since seed coating with neonicotinoid insecticides was introduced in the late 1990s, European beekeepers have reported severe colony losses in the period of corn sowing. When foraging bees are exposed to neonic-containing dust the authors found “lethal effects compatible with colony losses phenomena observed by beekeepers.”

An abstract from this third study, “Assessment of the environmental exposure of honeybees to particulate matter containing neonicotinoid insecticides coming from corn coated seeds“, published 17 Feb, 2012 states:

As a consequence, seed-coating neonicotinoid insecticides that are used worldwide on corn crops have been blamed for honeybee decline. In view of the currently increasing crop production, and also of corn as a renewable energy source, the correct use of these insecticides within sustainable agriculture is a cause of concern. In this paper, a probable–but so far underestimated–route of environmental exposure of honeybees to and intoxication with neonicotinoid insecticides, namely, the atmospheric emission of particulate matter containing the insecticide by drilling machines, has been quantitatively studied. Using optimized analytical procedures, quantitative measurements of both the emitted particulate and the consequent direct contamination of single bees approaching the drilling machine during the foraging activity have been determined. Experimental results show that the environmental release of particles containing neonicotinoids can produce high exposure levels for bees, with lethal effects compatible with colony losses phenomena observed by beekeepers.

Both Germany and France banned neonicotinoids until further study, the rest of the world barely even blinked as more and more bees died. On 22 August, 2012 the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) made provided the following media release:

22 August 2012

In Europe and the USA there have been concerns for some time about the potential for insecticides to impact on the health of honey bees and other insect pollinators. Of particular interest is whether a particular class of insecticides, the neonicotinoids, might have sub-lethal effects on bees, which may reduce their ability to pollinate plants and produce honey.
These concerns have created some anxiety among Australian beekeepers who have noted that many of the neonicotinoids used overseas are also used here.
Accordingly, the APVMA has commenced an investigation of the scientific literature to determine whether:

  • use of neonicotinoids in Australia presents any more of a risk to honey bee health than other pesticides that have been in use for many years
  • current APVMA data requirements for testing of insecticides are adequate to address any potential effects of neonicotinoids on bees.

The outcomes of their investigation will be published by early 2013. Given the bans already in place in other countries surely this time frame can hardly be considered acceptable.

If you feel strongly enough about this issue to request APVMA to address this issue in a shorter time frame then contact the Chief Regulatory Scientist (Pesticides) on Phone: +61 2 6210 4701 or email at

The Kritic has approached them for a comment on the timeframe and will provide an update to this story if and when I get a response.

For most of us, what landholders use for their fencing is rarely given thought or, even rarer, a second thought.

However it is something that we all need to give thought to. Each year thousands of injuries are sustained by wildlife from the use of fencing that has had no consideration of what affects it may have on wildlife. These injuries range from the minor to horrific deaths.

More than 75 wildlife species have been identified in Australia as occasional or regular victims of barbed wire fences, especially nocturnal animals such as bats, gliders and owls. This problem is not unique to Australia and its occurrence in other countries is well documented.

Just take a moment to imagine what it would be like to be trapped, to die from exposure, thirst, fright or worse – to be eaten alive!

One example – Kangaroo ‘fencehanging’, occurs when a kangaroo attempts to jump a fence but misses the top. Instead its leg or legs pass between the top wire and the next one down. The body then flies forward over the top and as it falls towards the ground pulls the second wire over the top wire and trapping the leg(s) tight and acting like a tourniquet.

Fencehanging Roo 1      Fencehanging Roo 2
Photos: Rob Schmidt

As illustrated in the above photos it is not just barbed wire that causes havoc, however it is a major factor in injury and deaths. In many cases barbed wire does not perform an essential function in its inclusion in fencing solutions and where it is essential relatively simple measures could be utilised to reduce its impact. However because there is so much barbed wire in the Australian landscape, in both rural and urban environments, combined with little awareness of the issues it is a daunting task for those wishing to educate its users.

There are two main factors in Wildlife Un-Friendly Fencing: Design and Positioning. To aid in the education and use of Wildlife Friendly Fencing there are resources available for those willing to take an interest in providing the best possible solution for land management and wildlife. The main resource in Australia for this service is the Wildlife Friendly Fencing project.

The Wildlife Friendly Fencing website is at

Wildlife Friendly Fencing is fencing that is safe and effective for wildlife, people and livestock. It:

  • does not entangle or harm wildlife.
  • allows the appropriate free movement of wildlife across rural and urban landscapes.
  • may mean no fence at all.

What you can do:

  • Make your fences wildlife friendly.
  • Monitor barbed wire fences in your area and encourage landholders to go wildlife friendly.
  • Encourage the promotion of wildlife friendly fencing by natural resource management groups, Councils, fencing contractors and suppliers.
  • Help distribute the WFF brochure.
  • Visit for advice and information.

Report entangled animals to your local wildlife rescue organisation. You can find them at Rescue is best left to experienced carers with the skills to minimise further harm, and who can take the animal into care for assessment and rehabilitation.

Please do not attempt to handle flying foxes or bats by yourself.

There is no funding to run or coordinate the project. Tolga Bat Hospital was awarded a grant from the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) in 2006 to begin the project and continues to coordinate the project on a voluntary basis. They welcome donations to continue this work and all donations are tax deductible.

Jennefer Maclean of Tolga Bat Rescue and Research Inc (Tolga Bat Hospital) in Atherton Australia is the coordinator of the Wildlife Friendly Fencing project. “We are currently producing a new wildlife friendly fencing brochure to be accompanied by a matching wildlife friendly fruit tree netting brochure. Three videos will be put on the website on how to net your fruit trees without endangering wildlife.”

The information used to write this blog is freely available. The direct quotes and images from the website has been used with permission.