this "move the koalas to nz" initiative makes me want to eat my whole keyboard for several reasons but i think one of the most useful arguments is: koalas are already at risk from inbreeding depression and low genetic diversity. you guys seriously want to ship more away? 1/
the size of the founder population needed to establish a viable gene pool in nz would be pretty large. doable, maybe, but koalas are already geographically fragmented and highly susceptible to disease because of it. does reducing the gene pool further sound like a good idea? 2/
not to mention the effects on nz ecosystems, which a) are impossible to safely predict and b) really don't have a great historical precedent!! nz has no native mammals, and is already dealing with a marsupial-related disaster. come on, guys. think about this. 3/
nz animals deserve protecting too. they've been pushed around by colonisation and climate change as much as ours have. their collective existence is not worth risking for the sake of 1 mammal just because it looks like a teddy bear and generates tourist money. 4/
also, i guess this is a good time to remind people that we already tried translocating koalas once. it was a bad idea. introduced koalas on Kangaroo Island bred out of control and razed eucalypt forests, and managing that now is a social and political nightmare. 5/
hey, and while i'm on it: those KI koalas (introduced, inbred, destructive to local ecosystems) generated $250k of funding in the 3 days after the fire, while the dunnart (native, endemic, <300 left alive) barely made $10k. tell me that's not a problem. 6/
i promised myself i wasn't going to rant about disproportionate allocation of resources to koalas at 2am on a weeknight, but here i am again, so hey, what the hell. i think it's an important thing to be said. 7/
look. i love koalas too. and i love the outpouring of genuine care, and charity, and generosity in the wake of this disaster, which koalas seem to stand for. this has been amazing, and all conservation attempts are important. all the intentions here are good. 8/
but I'm not the only person to point out that there's a HUGE imbalance in where we're putting those intentions right now. how many fundraising drives, news articles, heartstring-pulling pictures have you seen about koalas in the past few days? 9/
what about the hip pocket frog? the potoroos? antechinuses? velvet worms? insects? everything in our ecosystems is suffering right now, but money and charity keeps pouring and pouring into one species, while less-glamorous ones quietly expire without us even knowing their names.
good news: as species go, koalas aren't even that endangered! there are 300 000 of them! KI dunnarts were barely at 300 even before the fires, and long-nosed potoroos have one (1) tiny colony left. and, by the way, they're a keystone species vital to fungal and plant dispersal.
i'm not saying koala conservation isn't important. it is. they need help right now, and people like those signing that petition are already giving so much of it. but other things need help too, and they need it in a strategic and scientifically-informed way. 12/
(and in a way that's informed by First Nations knowledge and priorities, which is something we should not forget about. how about we check how indigenous australians feel about moving their ancestral cohabitants overseas before we do that?) 13/
the destruction of ecosystems that has happened, and the destruction that is still coming, is unimaginable and irrevocable. there isn't enough money in the world to fix it. we need to be really smart now about where we put what resources we have, so we save as much as we can.14/
i get that charismatics like koalas are important poster children, easy symbols to sell, sure. they protect habitats for whole communities, and generate funds that can quietly be distributed to better, less visible causes. i appreciate that. but that's not what this nz plan is.
moving koalas to nz does not protect any animal or community other than koalas themselves. it won't help australian ecosystems, it will probably hurt nz ones. all those dollars & resources, which could be used to heal and rebuild, will basically go into a nostalgic zoo exhibit.
think about how much money that will cost! money that we could use for rebuilding ecosystems, establishing better burning regimes. or, get this: eradicaticating destructive introduced mammals, in both aus and nz. what a concept. 17/
this all sounds more aggressive than it should be (sorry, its 2am and ive been reading bushfire updates for 3hrs), and this shouldn't be an accusation against anyone. the people suggesting this care, and want to help. but as a scientist: there are much better ways to do that. 18/
by all means, keep donating to conservation causes, even koala-oriented ones if you must. but please, seriously, based on everything i know about my country and hear resoundingly from everyone in my field: don't send them to new zealand. it won't help. other things will. 19/
i know im living in a twitter echo chamber, and given my follower demographic im mostly preaching to the choir right now. But if anyone needs points for the sake of argument, feel free to find them here. 20/22
we're living in a time of high emotions and tough decisions, and if we have the scientific context and education to inform those decisions it's our responsibility to share that. so that good people who want to help know how to. 21/22
tl;dr: if you want to help koalas, don't send them overseas. donate to general wildlife groups, raise awareness, push for climate action. and consider helping out species who need it more. baby steps taken in daylight are heaps better than leaps of logic taken in the dark. 22/22
