Yes, you are reading that correctly. 152 koalas killed by Alcoa, a US aluminium company that run a plant in Australia. It absolutely astonishes me that wildlife are being killed on such a massive scale as a result of the work of a single company.
I don’t normally write on matters such as this. But this is an example of everything that is wrong about our institutional care for wildlife. This event speaks to the moral failure of an entire industry, and the enabling actions of zoos, consultants and government authorities, who can’t ever say no to corporates, even when the consequences for human and environmental health are the most serious that could be imagined. It’s a sign of a political system that has lost its way and is no longer of any real value as it cheapens the purpose and leaves a path of destruction in its wake.
There is no imagineable social licence to do this. The only licence is given by the state government of Victoria. In addition, 79 females were sterilised. The health and nutrition of koalas is linked to human health through habitat deterioration as I have written about extensively before.
Larg-scale euthanasia
The reason for the massive euthanasia program is given as this, by journalists at Yahoo:
Assessors hired by Alcoa identified “significant over-population” and “declining health” in koalas living closest to the smelter. The checks were authorised by The ConservationWhy is animal conservation important? Animal conservation is important, because animals are the only mechanism to create biodiversity, which is the mechanism that creates a habitable planet for humans. Without animals, the energy from today’s plants (algae, trees, flowers etc) will eventually reach the atmosphere and ocean, much of it as carbon. The quantity of this plant-based waste is so More Regulator, a regulatory arm of the state environment department (DECCA). They form part of the company’s Koala Management Plan (KAP), which Zoos Victoria and several other organisations have assisted with.
152 koalas killed in private forest by US company: ‘Not good enough’
Lame excuses
Two reasons will continue to be given as excuses for the slaughter.
The first is ‘over-population’, which is a new pseudo-scientific buzzword in ecology, when there is no such thing. If a species’ population is too dense there is a reason for it. When numbers become inconvenient for us (because of our own wasteful behaviour), we call them pests. When they are forced to congregate in the last remaining habitat, because all around them has been destroyed by us, they cop the ultimate blame – death at our hands ‘for their own good’. Neither of these is a reasonable excuse for undermining the recovery of animals essential for humanity’ survival.
The second excuse will be because they were poisoned and in pain. But it should never have been allowed to get to this stage, where 152 animals needed to be killed. When the reason for that suffering is airborne pollution, how can anyone possibly then justify, giving a corporate entity who did it, a ‘get out of jail card’ in the form of an ongoing management plan and responsibility for the lives of another 120 koalas?
It’s guaranteed that you will hear these excuses given by the authorities and every other consultant, zoo and institution involved.
The role of zoos in the slaughter
It beggars belief that we would give a private company the role of custodian of priceless remaining biodiversityWhat is the definition of biodiversity? When we ask, what is the definition of biodiversity? It depends on what we want to do with it. The term is widely and commonly misused, leading to significant misinterpretation of the importance of how animals function on Earth and why they matter a great deal, to human survival. Here I will try to More, which is under threat, in the belief that ‘controlling’ the population, rather than controlling the impact of pollution, is the way to go. It’s even more surprising to find out that Zoos Victoria is part of this.
Anyone involved in these situations is complicit. Remember, they don’t have to agree to doing it. They can say no, on principle. There comes a point where an action becomes so unethical that anyone with any remaining scruples will absolutely refuse to do the work and instead, publicise the problem, holding anyone responsible to account.
In this case, any accountability has been green-washed away by replacing the problem with a paper-thin solution, permitting the perpetrators of the slaughter to continue.
Airborne toxic pollution isn’t enough evidence?
One of the principle sources of contaminant, which has led to bone disease among many marsupials in the area, is airborne fluoride deposition. Believe it or not, there are schools and people living close to this and similar plants, but the Victorian EPA has given the all clear despite concern from experts.
This brings to mind a section from my book Wildlife in the Balance:
‘Rachel Carson published the book Silent Spring, about the impact of notorious organochlorine (DDT) pesticides, which was credited to have launched a global environment movement … It took forty [more] years for scientists in The Lancet to publish work showing that the use of DDT pesticide (which also killed birds of prey) may have been the cause of one in six premature human births and deaths of babies.We already knew pesticides destroyed ecosystem structure and function(Of an ecosystem). A subset of ecosystem processes and structures, where the ecosystem does something that provides an ecosystem service of value to people. More and if we had addressed that problem from the start, maybe we would not have had a human health problem.’
Extract from Chapter ‘Value Wildlife and Humans Equally’ in my book Wildlife in the Balance
What does it take to establish that the cause of these problems aren’t the animals?
Why aren’t animals seen as important?
This is yet another example of animals being considered ‘curios’ for tourists. We’d rather gawk at or hug koalas or have them dead or in a cage to manipulate. The idea that wildlife is absolutely critical to the health of those local people seems to go unnoticed. The very ecosystemsHow ecosystems function An ecosystem is a community of lifeforms that interact in such an optimal way that how ecosystems function best, is when all components (including humans and other animals) can persist and live alongside each other for the longest time possible. Ecosystems are fuelled by the energy created by plants (primary producers) that convert the Sun's heat energy More that are under threat are places where people live too.
Government scientists and zoo scientists, consultants and others who are doing this work, are complicit. There are real dangers posed by their decisions. The losses to the local ecosystems are immeasurable. Rather than spend money on killing more animals why not address the cause instead? Rebuild, don’t destroy.
What will it take to be convinced that animals are humanity’s best hope and that these awful cases are the worst thing we can do for the animals and people alike?
