The Paradox of Euthanizing Koalas (Phascolarctos Cinereus) to Save Populations From Elimination

Abstract

SummaryThis advice considers the conservation status of the koala Phascolarctos cinereus at two levels -across its entire range, and for the Queensland-New South Wales-Australian Capital Territory portion of its range. This advice revises that previously given by this Committee in September 2010, through the consideration of new information mostly arising from the Senate Inquiry (Senate Environment and Communications References Committee 2011).

Identification of unusual Chlamydia pecorum genotypes in Victorian koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus) and clinical variables associated with infection

“…Our findings partially support this, but also suggest that these clinical signs are not pathognomonic of Chlamydia infection. This is an important factor for koala conservation, with recent research advocating the culling of infertile koalas and treatment of Chlamydiainfected koalas as a means to reverse population declines (Wilson et al, 2015). In female koalas we found that reproductive tract pathology is a significant factor for predicting the presence of C. pecorum.…”

Compassionate versus consequentialist conservation

“…These positive effects may be reduced suffering at an individual animal level (euthanasia [Wilson et al. ]), reduced negative impacts on ecosystems (Howland et al. ), a desirable outcome for humans through harvesting (Lewis et al.…”

“…Type 4 harms resulting if population reduction is ineffective will affect overabundant animals through loss of body condition, increased susceptibility to infectious diseases and parasites (Wilson et al. ), increased likelihood of unintended anthropogenic injuries (e.g., vehicle collisions [DeNicola & Williams ]), and starvation (Fig. ).…”

“…Another pertinent example is populations of koalas ( Phascolarctos cinereus ) of anthropogenic origin becoming emaciated in the absence of management actions (Wilson et al. ).…”

“…Under consequentialist approaches, contentious actions, such as killing, are considered ethically permissible if, when compared with alternative actions, they deliver a better balance of positive versus negative effects (Gamborg et al 2012;Dubois et al 2017). These positive effects may be reduced suffering at an individual animal level (euthanasia [Wilson et al 2015]), reduced negative impacts on ecosystems (Howland et al 2014), a desirable outcome for humans through harvesting (Lewis et al 1997), improved quality of drinking water (Bennett et al 2015), reduced vehicle collisions (DeNicola & Williams 2008), and desirable outcomes for other animals, either agricultural or wild heterospecifics (e.g., reduced transmission of disease [Warburton & Livingstone 2015]). So far, consequentialist arguments, with a focus on animal welfare, have been made to defend the use of lethal culling of carnivores in some situations (e.g., island conservation [Russell et al 2016]), but there has been less focus on management of herbivores, with notable exceptions, such as the advancement of the concept of "therapeutic hunting" (Varner 2011).…”