Hundreds of Koala bears are being shot dead out of trees from helicopters in Australian wildlife cull
Koala bears are being shot dead by snipers from helicopters as Australian authorities look to cull the iconic mammals after a wildfire devastated their habitat.
Animal activists have expressed their fury as they claim over 700 koalas have been shot dead so far and fearing more will be killed in the coming days.
Aerial snipers from the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA) are patrolling the Budj Bim world heritage area in south-west Victoria after a lightning strike sparked a devastating wildfire last month.
The cull is being enforced amid fears the koala population will starve and die due to the loss of 2,000 hectares of the national park.
But Jess Robertson, president of the Koala Alliance, said that local communities were disgusted with the methods used, adding: 'There is no way they can tell if a koala is in poor condition from a helicopter.'
A Koala Alliance spokesman shared images of a helicopter circling over the devastated forest on Facebook.
They added: 'These koalas came from a blue gum plantation recently harvested near the national park. DEECA are still in there shooting. The death toll is rising.
'If koalas were shot out of trees, this means many joeys would be left to suffer and die. It's despicable. It's cruel. This is exactly why DEECA never wanted the public to know.'
Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan defended the policy, saying the koalas were 'severely injured and under a lot of distress'.
She said: 'I'm advised the department undertook extensive assessments in the context of a bushfire that went through this local community started by lighting strike.
'After an examination of the circumstances, this approach was deemed the way to really recognise the koalas were in a lot of distress.
'That's the advice I've received, and in terms of those assessments, they are made by wildlife experts.'
But koala researchers say the approach is just another example 'in a long line of mismanagement of the species and its habitat'.
Rolf Schlagloth, from CQUniversity Australia, told Vox: 'We can't eliminate bushfires altogether but more continuous, healthy forests can assist in reducing the risk and severity of fires. Koala habitat needs to be extensive and connected and the management of blue gum plantations needs to consider the koala as these trees are very attractive to them.'
Euthanasia should be used as a last resort when animals are severely injured, he added. But an aerial cull 'appears to be a very indiscriminate method,' Dr Schlagloth said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Australia confident U.S. will proceed with AUKUS submarine deal after review
SYDNEY — Australia 's defense minister said Thursday he was confident that the AUKUS submarine pact with the United States and Britain would proceed, and that his government would work closely with the U.S. while the Trump administration conducted a formal review. Australia in 2023 committed to spend 368 billion Australian dollars ($239 billion) over three decades on AUKUS, the country's biggest ever defense project with the U.S. and Britain, to acquire and build nuclear-powered submarines. A Pentagon official said the administration was reviewing AUKUS to ensure it was 'aligned with the President's America First agenda' on the eve of expected talks between President Donald Trump and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. In an Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio interview, Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles said AUKUS was in the strategic interests of all three countries and that the new review of the deal signed in 2021 when Joe Biden was the U.S. president was not a surprise. 'I am very confident this is going to happen,' he said of AUKUS, which would give Australia nuclear-powered submarines. 'This is a multi-decade plan. There will be governments that come and go and I think whenever we see a new government, a review of this kind is going to be something which will be undertaken,' Marles told the ABC. Albanese is expected to meet Trump for the first time next week on the sidelines of the Group of 7 meeting in Canada, where the security allies will discuss a request from Washington for Australia to increase defense spending from 2% to 3.5% of gross domestic product. Albanese has said defense spending would rise to 2.3% and has declined to commit to the U.S. target. The opposition Liberal party on Thursday pressed Albanese to increase defense spending. Under AUKUS, Australia was scheduled to make a $2 billion payment in 2025 to the U.S. to help boost its submarine shipyards and speed up lagging production rates of Virginia-class submarines to allow the sale of up to three U.S. submarines to Australia starting in 2032. The first $500 million payment was made when Marles met with his U.S. counterpart, Pete Hegseth, in February. The Pentagon's top policy adviser Elbridge Colby, who has previously expressed concern that the U.S. would lose submarines to Australia at a critical time for military deterrence against China, will be a key figure in the review, examining the production rate of Virginia-class submarines, Marles said. 'It is important that those production and sustainment rates are improved,' he added. AUKUS would grow the U.S. and Australian defense industries and generate thousands of manufacturing jobs, Marles said in a statement. John Lee, an Australian Indo-Pacific expert at Washington's conservative Hudson Institute think tank, said the Pentagon review was 'primarily an audit of American capability' and whether it can afford to sell up to five nuclear-powered submarines when it is not meeting its own production targets. 'Relatedly, the low Australian defense spending and ambiguity as to how it might contribute to a Taiwan contingency is also a factor,' Lee said. John Hamre, president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former senior Pentagon official, told a Lowy Institute seminar in Sydney on Thursday there is a perception in Washington that 'the Albanese government has been supportive of AUKUS but not really leaning in on AUKUS,' and that defense spending is part of this. Under the multi-stage pact, four U.S.-commanded Virginia submarines will be hosted at a Western Australian navy base on the Indian Ocean starting in 2027, which a senior U.S. Navy commander told Congress in April gives the U.S. a 'straight shot to the South China Sea.' Albanese wants to buy three Virginia submarines starting in 2032 to bring its submarine force under Australian command. Britain and Australia will jointly build a new AUKUS-class submarine that is expected to come into service starting in 2040. Following a recent defense review, Britain said it would boost spending on its attack submarine fleet under AUKUS. Former Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who struck the AUKUS deal with Biden, said Thursday that Australia should 'make the case again' for the treaty.
Spectator
5 hours ago
- Spectator
Could Donald Trump scrap Aukus?
America's policy undersecretary of defence, Elbridge Colby, is one of the brightest brains in Donald Trump's administration. Having served in the first Trump presidency, Colby has an outstanding reputation as a defence and strategic thinker. He is also, however, very much aligned with Trump's America First thinking in respect of foreign policy, and the United States' relationship with her allies. That would be a strategic disaster for Australia and Britain In tasking Colby on Wednesday with reviewing the Aukus nuclear submarine-centred strategic partnership between the US, the UK and Australia, the president sends a clear message to Britain and Australia: Aukus is part of his inheritance from Joe Biden, and its future therefore is far from assured. In a media statement, the Pentagon said: 'The department is reviewing Aukus as part of ensuring that this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the president's America First agenda. As (Defense) Secretary (Pete) Hegseth has made clear, this means ensuring the highest readiness of our service members, that allies step up fully to do their part for collective defence, and that the defence industrial base is meeting our needs. This review will ensure the initiative meets these common sense, America First criteria.' Colby himself has been ambivalent about Aukus ever since it was established by Biden, and then Australian and British prime ministers, Scott Morrison and Rishi Sunak, in 2021. Addressing a Policy Exchange forum last year, Colby said he was 'quite sceptical' about the Aukus pact, and questioned its viability and ultimate benefits. In a more recent interview with the Australian newspaper, Colby said Aukus's Pillar 1 – the nuclear submarine programme under which Australia would purchase several Virginia-class boats, pending the acquisition of new generation UK-Australian Acute-class submarines – is 'very problematic'. He did say, however, that Pillar 2 – the sharing of military intelligence and technical know-how between the partners – 'is great, no problem'. Colby's long-standing concern is the US's ability to take on China if it ever comes to conflict in the Asia-Pacific, especially over Taiwan. 'How are we supposed to give away nuclear attack submarines in the years of the window of potential conflict with China?' he told the Australian. 'A nuclear attack submarine is the most important asset for a western Pacific fight, for Taiwan, conventionally. But we don't have enough, and we're not going to have enough.' If this is the starting position for Colby's review, its scepticism contradicts the steadfast commitment to Aukus from the current Australian and British Labour governments. Indeed, Britain's latest Strategic Defence Review places high priority on the Aukus partnership as an integral element of British strategic and force planning. Given Colby's previous form on Aukus, the review may well recommend scaling back or discontinuing the nuclear submarine Aukus pillar. But that would be a strategic disaster for Australia and Britain, let alone for Colby's own strategic vision, outlined in his 2021 book, of an 'anti-hegemonic coalition to contain the military ambitions of China', in which he specifically envisioned Australia. Arguably, it doesn't matter which country mans the attack nuclear submarines assigned to the Asia-Pacific theatre, as long as the boats are there. But will Colby see it that way? In Australia, however, the administration's announcement immediately set a cat amongst the pigeons. Currently, Australia spends just over two per cent of GDP on defence, and the Trump administration, including Colby, is pressuring on Australia to do far more. This month, Hegseth, told his Australian counterpart that Australia should be committing at least 3.5 per cent of GDP to ensure not just Aukus, but that her fighting personnel and ageing military hardware are fit for purpose and contributing commensurately to the Western alliance. After his face-to-face meeting with Hegseth, Australian defence minister Richard Marles seemed open to the suggestion. His prime minister, Anthony Albanese, is not. In his first major media appearance since his thumping election win a month ago, Albanese was asked whether the US could renege on supplying nuclear submarines to Australia if spending is deemed inadequate. 'Well, I think Australia should decide on what we spend on Australia's defence. Simple as that', Albanese replied. It hasn't escaped notice here that the Pentagon announced its Aukus review less than 48 hours after Albanese made his declaration, and just days before the Australian prime minister is expected to have his first personal meeting with Trump at the G7 Leaders' Summit in Canada. That meeting, carrying the risk of a public Trump rebuke, surely will be dreaded by Albanese. Dealing with the Americans' insistence on a near-doubling of Australia's defence investment is politically diabolical for Albanese. He has just won re-election on a manifesto promising huge additional social investments, especially in Australia's version of the NHS and a fiscally ravenous National Disability Insurance Scheme. Albanese must keep his left-wing support base onside by expanding already huge public investments and subsidies in pursuing his government's ideological Net Zero and 100 per cent renewable energy goals. All that on top of a burgeoning national debt. To achieve Nato's GDP defence spending target of 3 per cent, let alone Hegseth's 3.5, something has to give. Albanese cannot deliver both massive social spending and vast defence outlays: to keep the Americans happy, and justify the continuation of both Aukus pillars, he will need to either prove himself a Bismarck-calibre statesman, or risk electoral wrath if he retreats on his domestic spending promises, and cuts existing programmes across his government, to afford adequate defence spending headroom. Australia needs America to be a strong ally in our troubled region, but the United States needs steadfast allies like Australia and Britain. Now the administration's scepticism about Aukus's value to the US is officially on the table, with a review entrusted to its biggest Aukus sceptic in Elbridge Colby, Australia and Britain must justify why all aspects of the partnership are a worthwhile investment with them, as America's partners, committed to playing their part in full. How well they do it will be a measure of their political and diplomatic competence.
New Statesman
17 hours ago
- New Statesman
Australia is no model for assisted dying
Photo by Kelly Barnes / AAP Image via Alamy Australian laws on voluntary assisted dying (VAD) are deemed so similar to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill that three quarters of overseas witnesses invited to give evidence to MPs were from Australia. 'This is not a revolutionary law reform,' Alex Greenwich, a politician from New South Wales, told the bill's scrutiny committee earlier this year. 'It has been tried and tested, we have appropriate safeguards in place throughout Australia, and they work.' Although Australian states extend the six-month life expectancy requirement to a year for those with neurodegenerative conditions, in terms of eligibility, process and safeguards, their laws are similar to the UK's bill. The two differ only in that self-administration of life-ending drugs would be permitted here, and a multidisciplinary panel would review cases. So when Kim Leadbeater, Labour MP and the bill's sponsor, responded with a heart emoji and '#ChoiceAtTheEndOfLife' to a Guardian article published on 7 June that showed the Australian system being abused, eyebrows were raised. An elderly couple had been granted VAD when neither were terminally ill; medics in New South Wales effectively greenlit their suicide pact. 'Looks like the safeguards didn't work,' Mark Taubert, an NHS consultant and the vice-president of the European Association for Palliative Care, responded on X. According to the palliative care doctor Rachel Clarke, the story 'could not highlight more starkly the dangers of the law we are currently debating'. MPs hearing evidence on the bill had little time with six Australian witnesses, all of whom were supportive of VAD. Their arguments didn't always stand up to scrutiny. 'The medications are completely effective. I have not experienced any failures,' said Chloe Furst, a palliative care doctor from South Australia and board member of Voluntary Assisted Dying Australia and New Zealand. But, MPs pointed out, there is no requirement that a doctor be present when someone self-administers, nor is there provision for reporting complications. In Western Australia, where this information is collected, complications were recorded in 4.3 per cent of deaths in 2023-24. Asked if it was a concern that a 'large proportion of people who opted for assisted dying cited being a burden as their reason', another witness, Meredith Blake from the University of Western Australia, replied this was 'not the evidence that we have got'. Except it is. Official state figures showed 35 per cent of those seeking VAD cited being a burden on family, friends or carers as their reason for doing so. Blake replied: 'If there are people who are saying they are a burden, that does not mean that their decision is not voluntary.' While MPs were told Australian palliative care doctors had 'embraced' VAD, I have spoken with medics in Australia who are troubled by how the legislation operates. Academics and politicians are, too. Robert Clark, a former attorney-general and MP in Victoria wrote to the committee twice with his observations: the second time after his fellow Australians had addressed MPs. Numerous aspects of their evidence were 'factually incorrect or incomplete', Clark claimed. There was not adequate palliative care available to all terminally ill patients in Australia. Evidence didn't show any reduction in non-medically assisted suicide. The right of doctors to object to VAD was not respected. Many doctors 'feel unable to raise concerns about VAD… lest they suffer adverse professional or career consequences, or else they are leaving the hospital system altogether', he said. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe British palliative care doctor Alex Hughes recently relayed his experience of assisted dying while working in Australia. Hughes, who is neutral on VAD in principle, described a borderline case in which it seemed the patient had chosen to die because of poor alternative care options. In another, he suspected the man may have been influenced by depression, but this had gone unexplored in assessment. Were assisted dying to come to the UK, doctors would be 'at a heightened risk of unconscious bias… [and] may lean towards giving patients the 'benefit of the doubt', granting assisted dying to individuals who, in reality, have more than six months to live.' The events described in the Guardian confirm that risk is not merely hypothetical. Ahead of its return to the Commons on 13 June, 1,000 doctors urged MPs to vote against the assisted dying bill. They argued it is 'deeply flawed' and unsafe. Similar statements have been made by the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which say they cannot support the legislation as it stands. Such concerns are not 'noise', as Leadbeater has suggested. Many critics have no issue with the principle of safe VAD. But the passage of the bill has revealed law-making at its worst: rushed debate, the views of the vulnerable ignored or downplayed, and crucial information on how the bill would work absent. Supporters say there will be time to iron out details later. That is too risky. Under current plans, some vulnerable people will be helped – in Hughes's words – to have 'an inappropriate assisted death'. He now poses two critical questions for MPs: how many vulnerable people slipping through the net is acceptable? And can adequate safeguards be put in place 'without creating a system so cumbersome that it becomes unworkable'? It's time for MPs to be honest with themselves and the public: enabling some an autonomous death through assisted dying will inevitably put others at risk of harm. [See also: Has any Chancellor faced a challenge this daunting?] Related
