Which country has achieved more in conservation: Australia or New Zealaand?

I was thinking about this question the other day, and wanted to get the opinion of zoochatters on the issue.

Which country has achieved more in the conservation of biodiversity (both species and ecosystem conservation and in-situ and ex--situ) over the past half a century, Australia or New Zealand?

Thanks !

Look forward to reading your replies !

 

Comparing and contrasting I think New Zealand you could say is the "Pioneer" of a lot of the practises that Australian conservation uses, like fenced in ecosanctuaries and island eradications. while Australia really takes them to scale. with Malle cliffs at almost 10,000 hectares vs Maungatautari at 3,600 plus with a lot more large landscape free feral predator poof areas like Newhaven and the sort. with New Zealand they need to keep out more than just cats and foxes so that really restricts the size of these sanctuaries.

 

Hey Joe !

This thread wasn't really getting so many views or interest so thanks for the comment!

Yes, I agree with you and I sort of reached the same conclusion about New Zealand and its role in conservation and serving as an example for conservation interventions in Australia.

As you say, New Zealand has really pioneered the erradication of invasives on islands and translocation of threatened species to either islands or fenced in ecosanctuaries and I'm sure this success helped inspire Australian efforts.

Have you heard of the work of the "Arid recovery" group in Central Australia by the way ?

I think Australia has really proved to have risen to the challenge of conserving its native biodiversity and has done remarkably well with both ex-situ and in-situ conservation of numerous species of marsupials, birds, reptiles and amphibians.

However, in recent times there have been a few Australian species that have sadly been left to slip away into extinction by the Australian government (the Bramble cay melomys and the Christmas Island pippistrelle bat come to mind) whereas I'm unaware of any similar situation over the past 40 years or so that has occurred in New Zealand.

 

i have and its a really cool., projects like that are very interesting to say the least... i like the idea of teaching animal populations to deal with invasive but really feels like putting a band ad on a broken arm and not actually fixing the problem of feral cats and foxes, although i have heard about a "Fox Free 2050" being thrown about in the same vein as "Predator free 2050". The biggest issue I see with conservation going forward is introduced ungulates like deer, pig and goats, rabbits and common myra and this huge bias we have to forests and birds in pest free areas and the very polluted waterways with both runoff from farms and gamefish outcomepeting native galaxids

 

I am not too well versed in terms as to who comes out on top regarding conservation efforts but from what I’ve seen, Australia certainly takes their environmental protection efforts very seriously. Seeing the devastation we saw early last year not only shocked the world, but further endangered the unique species endemic to Australia. Millions of animals and plant lives were taken, not something we can see bounce back immediately or may ever truly be what it once was. I think that impact will be further felt for decades solely due to the enormity and scale of what happened. When I’ve seen in the media people of Australia in comparison to people here in the states talk about conservation issues, my general consensus is that in Australia it seems to be taken much more serious even if there may be some inconveniences. I’m also glad when they are severely strict as to importations of animals or exportation of their unique animals, not just sending animals out a drop of a hat. They want to make sure that whatever facility is to care for them, provides the best home possible and the welfare of the animals is being met or surpassed. Does it suck not seeing many of their wonderful species across zoos or aquariums around the world? Yes but it’s important that if international breeding programs or assurance colonies are to be established, that both governing bodies meet eye to eye. So while it’s frustrating for some to not see pop culture icons like the quokka or quoll in zoos at least here in the states, I rather know that they are living their best life and truly remain dedicated to their conservation programs in Australia. I apologize for not being able to add onto the side of New Zealand, I have no beef with them and it’s my own fault I can’t articulate better arguments on their behalf

 

Yeah i would agree there, there are a lot more large scale predator free fences and landscape scale projects. I would say its like that since there is a lot more flat land (malle cliffs is 9,500 hectares with 33km while Maungatautari is a third the size but with 47km of fences due to the hilly terrain, and the facts the need to deal with rats, mice, stoats which are better able to get in these fence. I hope to see projects like Predator free South Westland able to maintain without fences and have the landscape scale available to house healthy population of birds like kakapo or whio

 

As an Australian all I can say is that the approach to our natural heritage is truly colonial. We have state-owned logging companies illegally logging critically endangered species habitat.

Don’t admire us for anything.

 

Yes, I agree with you that ultimately the solution is nothing short of the erradication of the invasives.

However, I think that the idea of "assisted evolution" through conditioning to invasives is a really an interesting concept and could have some utility for populations that are being adversely impacted by invasive species before interventions are able to fully erradicate these.

I think that there seems to be sufficient commitment to the idea of "predator free 2050" in NZ and a lot of popular support too which is encouraging.

I do wonder in the case of Australia that if what you mention about the risk of "Fox free 2050" fizzling out could be ultimately due to logistical issues because the red fox as an invasive has spread across a huge area of the country / continent.

 

Yes, I totally agree with you on that point Julio.

I also have the same impression about both the legislation surrounding conservation / biosecurity and how engaged the populace of Australia seem to be on conservation issues and the awareness and pride that people take in their endemic fauna.

But of course that could be just our perspective as outsiders / foreigners and perhaps a bit of romanticism / "grass is greener" with conservation type thing.

 

I know that there are ongoing issues and particularly with recent governments in power and the logging in Tasmania but don't you think that is a slightly fatalistic view to have ?

What I mean is that yes there are systemic flaws with the Australian governments approach to the environment that are a legacy of colonialism and ongoing neoliberalism.

However, there are several initiatives on a State scale and with NGO's which are truly inspiring for other parts of the world in terms of what is being achieved and overall vision and commitment.

 

Predator free 2050 does have a lot of steam with entire cites and counties trying to go predator free, and about 50% of the country is already under some form of pest control, usually 1080 drops ever few years but there are a lot of innovations coming to market and in the testing phase, like AI traps, sound or sent lures, self resettable traps that only need to be checked 6 months-yearly, new poisons and even gene drives and Trojan females being considered. even just changes in ways we use existing tech like 1080 has given us some great results like Perth valley. there is still a lot of inovation needed but the backing and knowhow is there for it to happen, not so sure about Fox Free 2050 tho, might need to really invest in gene tech or species specific baits for that to happen

 

Absolutely, I think the drive towards an initiative like "Predator free 2050" is quite frankly incredible and I also find the overall vision and ambition to dream big and bold when it comes to conservation in NZ is notable.

It almost seems like there is a greater sense of civic duty and there isn't the same sense of fatalism that can cripple initiatives in other parts of the world.

 

Plus its so much bigger than just conserving wildlife, which of course one of the main selling point for people, but a lot of businesses will save a lot of money. Pests do about 1.8 billion NZD (about 2% of NZ GDP) of damage yearly to the agricultural sector, with TB spreading from possums to livestock, rats and mice getting in and contaminating crops and a bunch of other issues, so really it has more behind the movement than just conservation, although everyone is happy to see more native birds.

 

Of course, I totally agree and this in itself just adds to the argument in favour of the initiative and the way that the country is supporting it.

 

I agree that it can be our outsider perspective since it’s true that not all details of how serious environmental issues are shown in full detail. I don’t think there is any country that is complete “green” in practice but some that do take environmental impact issues much more serious to protect their biodiversity. I just say what I see as a distant observer

 

Yep, I know what you mean, I think when it comes to conservation Australia on the other side of the world we tend to build our perception through what we see and read in the media (which usually is quite positive with the exception of the bush fires) but the reality I'm sure is more complex on the ground.

Nevertheless, I do think that us outside observers are not too far wrong in our assertion that the Australian and New Zealanders are at least getting some things right.

 

I don't think arguing that we have a disgraceful record and continued attitude towards our environment is fatalistic. That would imply I think continued degradation of our various environments is inevitable. I haven't given up on fighting for a better approach.

Of course yes, like everywhere we have some fantastic people doing fantastic things to try and change this, but I just feel if we are judging us as a nation, as the thread's title implies, you must take into account our actions at an international level, our governments response and ongoing policy to the crisis.

But to avoid hijacking the discussion - one area of science I am truly excited - which will have huge implications for Australia and New Zealand is gene drives. Our Chief Science Agency is currently looking into testing the process on feral cats which I think is going have an amazing result if enacted.

 

100%, no place is perfect, there are still people trying to mine in public lands and national parks and 80% of waterways are unsuitable for swimming due to runoff from farming. not to say no good work is happening but its very hard when it get political.

 

No, dont worry about mentioning the topic of gene drives / CRISPR as it is definitely relevant to the thread as it relates to a matter of great importance for conservation in the Antipodes.

I am also quite excited about the research being done and particularly as this is essentially a bloodless biocontrol and so could have potential in terms of being more efficient logistically, mitigating all of the headache with animal rights activists and not inflicting any unintended collateral damage on other wildlife as poison does.

However, because this technology is still undergoing all of the necessary research I think that it is probably only going to become operational in the field in the short to medium term future. In the meantime it will be necessary to rely on more traditional and logistically intensive methods such as poisons and trapping.

In New Zealand because of the near absence of terrestrial mammalian fauna (I know they have their short tailed bats though) the use of 1080 poisons (and trapping) are probably a much more effective means of reaching the target proposed by the "Predator Free 2050" initiative.

Conversely because of the high mammalian biodiversity of Australia with its native marsupials and just the size of the continent and all of the logistical difficulties of erradication of invasives from large areas of territory I think the use of gene drives / CRISPR could be far more effective for this purpose and I do think it looks promising in this regard.