
Australian State culls 700 starving koalas after bushfire, stoking controversy
Snipers in helicopters have shot more than 700 koalas in the Budj Bim National Park in western Victoria in recent weeks. It's believed to be the first time koalas have been culled in this way.
The cull became public on Good Friday after local wildlife carers were reportedly tipped off.
A fire burned about 20% of the park in mid-March. The government said the cull was urgent because koalas had been left starving or burned.
Wildlife groups have expressed serious concern about how individual koalas had been chosen for culling, because the animals are assessed from a distance. It's not clear how shooting from a helicopter complies with the state government's own animal welfare and response plans for wildlife in disasters.
The Victorian government must explain why it is undertaking aerial culling and why it did so without announcing it publicly. The incident points to ongoing failures in managing these iconic marsupials, which are already threatened in other states.
Why did this happen?
Koalas live in eucalypt forests in Australia's eastern and southern states. The species faces a double threat from habitat destruction and bushfire risk. They are considered endangered in New South Wales, Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory.
In Victoria, koala population levels are currently secure. But they are densely concentrated, often in fragments of bush known as 'habitat islands' in the state's southwest. Budj Bim National Park is one of these islands.
Over time, this concentration becomes a problem. When the koalas are too abundant, they can strip leaves from their favourite gums, killing the trees. The koalas must then move or risk starvation.
If fire or drought make these habitat islands impossible to live in, koalas in dense concentrations often have nowhere to go.
In Budj Bim, Victoria's Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action and Parks Victoria have tackled koala overpopulation alongside Traditional Owners by moving koalas to new locations or sterilising them.
But Budj Bim is also surrounded by commercial blue gum plantations. Koalas spread out through the plantations to graze on the leaves. Their populations grow. But when the plantations are logged, some koalas have to return to the national park, where food may be in short supply.
Animal welfare groups say logging is one reason Budj Bim had so many koalas.
It's hard to say definitively whether this is the case, because the state environment department hasn't shared much information. But researchers have found habitat islands lead to overabundance by preventing the natural dispersal of individuals.
So why was the culling done? Department officials have described the program as 'primarily' motivated by animal welfare. After the bushfire last month, koalas have been left starving or injured.
Why shooters in helicopters? Here, the justification given is that the national park is difficult to access due to rocky terrain and fire damage, ruling out other methods.
Euthanising wildlife
Under Victoria's plan for animal welfare during disasters, the environment department is responsible for examining and, where necessary, euthanising wildlife during an emergency.
For human intervention to be justified, euthanasia must be necessary on welfare grounds. Victoria's response plan for fire-affected wildlife says culling is permitted when an animal's health is 'significantly' compromised, invasive treatment is required, or survival is unlikely.
For koalas, this could mean loss of digits or hands, burns to more than 15% of the body, pneumonia from smoke inhalation, or blindness or injuries requiring surgery. Euthanised females must also be promptly examined for young in their pouches.
The problem is that while aerial shooting can be accurate in some cases for larger animals, the method has questionable efficacy for smaller animals – especially in denser habitats.
It's likely a number of koalas were seriously injured but not killed. But the shooters employed by the department were not able to thoroughly verify injuries or whether there were joeys in pouches, because they were in the air and reportedly 30 or more metres away from their targets.
While the department cited concerns about food resources as a reason for the cull, the state's wildlife fire plan lays out another option: delivery of supplementary feed. Delivering fresh gum leaves could potentially have prevented starvation while the forest regenerates.
Lessons for the government
The state government should take steps to avoid tragic incidents like this from happening again.
Preserving remaining habitat across the state is a vital step, as is reconnecting isolated areas with habitat corridors. This would not only reduce the concentration of koalas in small pockets but increase viable refuges and give koalas safe paths to new food sources after a fire.
Future policies should be developed in consultation with Traditional Owners, who have detailed knowledge of species distributions and landscapes.
We need better ways to help wildlife in disasters. One step would be bringing wildlife rescue organisations into emergency management more broadly, as emphasised in the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission and the more recent Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements.
This latter report pointed to South Australia's specialised emergency animal rescue and relief organisation – SAVEM – as an effective model. Under SA's emergency management plan, the organisation is able to rapidly access burned areas after the fire has passed through.
Victoria's dense communities of koalas would be well served by a similar organisation able to work alongside existing skilled firefighting services.
The goal would be to make it possible for rescuers to get to injured wildlife earlier and avoid any more mass aerial culls.
Liz Hicks is Lecturer in Law, University of Melbourne. Ashleigh Best is Barrister, Victorian Bar and Honorary Fellow, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne. This article is republished from The Conversation.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Economic Times
5 days ago
- Economic Times
Understanding India's cultural representation: The impact of Operation Sindoor
As Shashi Tharoor's articulation in Victorian-era Wren and Martinese continues to bowl over the civil service examinee that lies inside each one of us, I was reminded of my elucidation of 'sindoor' a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. In the hoary 80s before Operation Bluestar, when googol was just a number - 1 followed by 100 zeroes - and General Zia-ul-Haq was Pakistan's president, I went to school in a small New Zealand town called Whakatane. My mother must have dropped me off once. A classmate later asked me, 'What's that red mark on your mum's head?' Now, one of my virtues as an 11-year-old was to paint a pretty picture of where I had come from - the thriving megalopolis of Calcutta. In the course of answering many queries of a distant land in those pre-Google days, I would dress up some facts with elaborate explanations. For instance, I told my classmates that I actually was a very ordinary student 'back home' and most young Indians of my age were quite brilliant. We also lived in large multi-storied buildings all to ourselves where house help was abundant. As you can make out, these were not really lies, but slight exaggerations to correct misrepresentations of India - especially Calcutta - abroad. In a similar vein, I had explained to my culturally curious classmate that the red mark on my mother's head - and she wore just a fine line of a comb-end dipped in sindoor - was called 'shidur' (I used the Bengali word for it) and was a streak of my father's blood that Ma freshly wore every week to signal that she owned him. I don't know what my friend made of that explanation, but she was suitably satisfied with my exposition of Indian matriarchic customs that treated married men as married women's chattel. Explaining cultural behaviour and practices to people unaware of them is as important as explaining political action and positions to them. So, in that sense, I get what the Indian version of the Harlem Globetrotters' 14-day explanatory mission to various capitals of the world was about. It was about highlighting India's stand on terrorism following Operation Sindoor. To anyone who was listening. As a travelling exposition, though, I wonder whether it succeeded in doing what it set out to do. Now, I'm not part of the crowd that believes that taxpayers' money was spent for MPs to have a nice 'world tour'. Public money has been worse spent on matters less measurable. And this travelling gig was more than just about explaining Operation Sindoor - it was about showcasing Indians who live India and updating their image from the land of 'Ghandi' (sic), Mother Teresa and customer service line voices to something modern, modular, and muscular. But what left me scratching my stubble were two things. One, in this day and age of much more enhanced avenues of communication, having outreach teams - one of them fronted by a gentleman's whose USP seems to be speaking in impeccable Jeeves-Wooster English in these multiculti times - seemed very Nehruvian. Two, our boys and girls calmly fingerwagging in foreign capitals to no one in particular barring Indian news outlets like ANI and PTI seemed to be in a different universe compared to the thunderbolt and lightning, very, very frightening here in India. The venerable home minister, for instance, saying earlier this week that Mamata Banerjee had opposed Operation Sindoor to placate her 'Muslim votebank' was doubly odd. After all, Trinamool general secretary and Didi's nephew Abhishek Banerjee was part of the MP delegation trotting about Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Indonesia (the country with the world's largest Muslim population), and Malaysia as part of the Sindoor tour. In effect, our Harlem Globetrotters were globetrotting to impress us sitting here in India. Much in the same vein I would return to India just before Kapil Dev would lift the World Cup and tell my new schoolfriends - and some 40 years later, tell you, my dear reader - how I served to upgrade the image of India to a world that needed it to be updated. Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. The answer to companies not incurring capex may lie in stock markets We are already a global airline, carry the national name and are set to order more planes: Air India CEO How Uber came back from the brink to dislodge Ola Banks are investing in these funds instead of lending the money. Why? Sebi, governing markets for 3 decades, in search of governance rules for itself F&O Radar | Deploy Short Strangle in Nifty to benefit from volatility, Theta Stock picks of the week: 5 stocks with consistent score improvement and return potential of more than 28% in 1 year These large- and mid-cap stocks can give more than 30% return in 1 year, according to analysts


Indian Express
5 days ago
- Indian Express
‘Happy families are all alike…': How Tolstoy's iconic opening line gave rise to the Anna Karenina principle—a universal rule for failure
The year was 1873. Leo Tolstoy, already Russia's most celebrated novelist, sat down to write the first line of what would become his masterpiece, Anna Karenina (1877). He began with a devastating truth: 'Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.' It was an observation so precise it felt like a law of nature. And in a way, it was. Before the term 'systems thinking' entered the lexicon and interdisciplinary studies became the academic norm, Tolstoy had unknowingly articulated a principle that would transcend literature—a universal theory of failure. Today, scholars call it the Anna Karenina Principle, and it governs everything from doomed startups to collapsing ecosystems, from broken marriages to extinct species. The 19th century birthed many grand theories— Charles Darwin's natural selection, Karl Marx's class struggle, and Sigmund Freud's unconscious mind. Where other Victorian-era ideas were eventually challenged or refined, the Anna Karenina Principle has only grown more relevant with time. The rule states that success is fragile because it requires everything to go right, while failure is inevitable because it takes only one thing to go wrong. Consider: a marriage thrives only with trust, communication, compatibility, and mutual respect. Remove one, and the relationship crumbles. Similarly, a startup needs product-market fit, strong leadership, funding, and timing. One misstep can lead to collapse. Finally, a species survives only if its environment, food supply, and reproductive cycle align. Disrupt one, and extinction follows. This asymmetry explains why failure is more common than success—and why Tolstoy's insight has been adopted by fields far beyond literature. The principle gained scientific legitimacy in 1997, when Jared Diamond applied it in Guns, Germs, and Steel to explain why so few animals have ever been domesticated. For domestication to succeed, he argued, a species must meet a strict checklist: the right diet, a calm temperament, a useful social hierarchy. Fail just one condition, and domestication fails entirely. The same logic applies to microbiomes (a single imbalance can trigger disease), business ventures (one flawed assumption can sink a company), and personal happiness (a single unresolved trauma can undermine a life). As Aristotle once said, 'To succeed is possible only in one way; to fail is possible in many.' When Anna Karenina was published, Russia was in upheaval—old family structures were fracturing under modernity. Tolstoy's novel doesn't offer a single truly happy family. The eponymous Anna is trapped in a loveless marriage with Alexei Karenin, a high ranking government official. She falls in love with the charming Count Vronsky, ending in a passionate affair that defies societal norms. As the relationship comes to light, Anna faces public scandal and personal turmoil. Parallel to her journey, Konstantin Levin, a landowner, seeks love and meaning in his life, marrying Kitty Shcherbatsky, an aristocrat. Even Levin and Kitty, the closest to an ideal couple, who find happiness within the bonds of family, struggle with doubt and imperfection. This begs the question: does the 'happy family' even exist? The novel dissects infidelity, jealousy, societal pressure, and emotional repression, each a unique path to unhappiness. Meanwhile, happiness, if it exists at all, is easily shattered. One might argue Tolstoy's principle was ahead of its time because the 19th century was obsessed with success—industrial progress, social utopias, imperial expansion. It took the 20th century's catastrophes (world wars, economic collapses, ecological crises) for us to truly appreciate his corollary: that understanding failure's many faces is more urgent than cataloging success's singular path. In an era of precarious careers, fragile relationships, and systemic failures, the Anna Karenina Principle feels more relevant than ever. Few ideas can bridge literature, science, and human experience so seamlessly. There is a reason, after all, that the line which introduces an 800-word Russian novel, remains popular across generations, cultures and continents in an era of reducing attention spans. Tolstoy's opening line, beyond being a truism, was a prophecy: perfection is rare and failure is always waiting. And in that, perhaps, lies its enduring power. ('Drawing a Line' is an eight-column weekly series exploring the stories behind literature's most iconic opening lines. Each column offers interpretation, not definitive analysis—because great lines, like great books, invite many readings.) Aishwarya Khosla is a journalist currently serving as Deputy Copy Editor at The Indian Express. Her writings examine the interplay of culture, identity, and politics. She began her career at the Hindustan Times, where she covered books, theatre, culture, and the Punjabi diaspora. Her editorial expertise spans the Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Punjab and Online desks. She was the recipient of the The Nehru Fellowship in Politics and Elections, where she studied political campaigns, policy research, political strategy and communications for a year. She pens The Indian Express newsletter, Meanwhile, Back Home. Write to her at or You can follow her on Instagram: @ink_and_ideology, and X: @KhoslaAishwarya. ... Read More


Time of India
04-06-2025
- Time of India
The Gilded Age Season 3 OTT Release Date: When and where to watch Carrie Coon & Morgan Spector's historical drama
The Gilded Age Season 3 OTT Release Date: Hold onto your corsets and cravats, New York's upper crust is about to clash again. After two addictive seasons of social ambition, secrets, scandals, and grand staircases, The Gilded Age returns for Season 3, promising more high-society drama than ever. Mark your calendars: the third season will stream in India on JioHotstar starting June 23, 2025. Viewers in the US will get it a day earlier, on June 22 at 9 PM ET, on HBO and Max. From creator Julian Fellowes, the genius behind Downton Abbey, this American period drama explores the glittering yet cutthroat world of 1880s New York, where old money and new money collide, and reputations can be built or destroyed with a single dinner invitation. What's the plot this time? In The Gilded Age Season 3, Bertha Russell (Carrie Coon) is aiming to control the whole ballroom. After conquering the opera wars in Season 2, she now sets her sights on cementing the Russell name in every pillar of high society. But don't expect the old-money elite to hand it over without a fight. Meanwhile, George Russell (Morgan Spector), our rail tycoon with a conscience, is teetering on a business decision that could make or break the family fortune. His grip on America's industrial future might be slipping, and he knows it. On the other side of the street, Agnes van Rhijn (Christine Baranski) and her much-too-spirited niece Marian Brook (Louisa Jacobson) continue their ideological tug-of-war. Marian is still stubbornly pursuing independence and possibly love (again?), while Agnes fights to keep the van Rhijn name wrapped tightly in decorum and Victorian morals. Good luck with that, Aunt Agnes. And if that's not enough, Peggy Scott (Denée Benton) finds herself navigating not just her journalism career, but a complicated new relationship with a doctor—yes, romance is back on the menu, with side servings of class and race politics. Who's running the show? Julian Fellowes continues to steer the ship, with the always-capable Sonja Warfield returning as co-writer and executive producer. Direction is in the hands of series regulars Michael Engler and Salli Richardson-Whitfield, who know how to shoot drama between teacups better than anyone else. The series continues to be a co-production between HBO and Universal Television.