Category Archives: native rodents

AWPC – Melbourne Water correspondence on tree removal wildlife-impact Lee st Retardant Basin

AWPC writes that only two of its questions were answered satisfactorily. It asks Melbourne Water what happens to the wildlife after the clearing? “The AWPC, wildlife rescuers and shelters regularly experience the fallout of such projects. Consultants and wildlife handlers are contracted at a premium price, only to hand over displaced, orphaned and injured wildlife to either vets or local wildlife shelters who are then expected to deal with these sentinel beings at their own cost. Quite frankly this is unacceptable and needs to stop, which is why the AWPC ask you the following questions once again.” Inside, full correspondence to date.

 

Craig Thomson
President, Australian Wildlife Protection Council
502 Waterfall Gully Road, Rosebud 3939
craig.awpc@gmail.com
0474 651 292

Mark Lawrence
Melbourne Water Project Manager
990 La Trobe Street Docklands VIC 3008
PO Box 4342 Melbourne VIC 3001
rbupgrades@melbournewater.com.au

Dear Mr. Lawrence,

Re: your response to my email sent 23/1/2018 about the ‘Lee St Retarding Basin Upgrades’

Overall, it was a very disappointing response, especially as most of your answers are already available on your community information sheet. Only two questions were answered satisfactorily; were you confirmed that you have forwarded my query about the sale of Melbourne Water land to the relevant department and the dates of the pre-fauna survey. We have spent a great deal of time putting these questions to you because of the lack of information provided by Melbourne Water to concerned members of the community.

Is Melbourne Water concerned about genuine community consultation and being transparent to the community to whom they provide an essential service? The Australian Wildlife Protection Council (AWPC) will be putting in a Freedom of Information request for the documents you have not supplied, including the ecological/fauna reports, however we will also complain to the concerned ministers, local councilors and community members about Melbourne Water’s lack of openness and communication. We believe you are scaring the community to justify these works whilst refusing to be transparent about the true risks. This is highlighted in your reply, by the following text, coupled with the fact that you are asking us to then submit an FOI for proof of this.

“Failure of the embankment would have a significant impact on a number of properties in the area.”

As you have identified, we are particularly concerned about the impacts on wildlife with the removal of vegetation; of the fifteen questions we sent to you eight are about wildlife. We ask Melbourne Water what happens to the wildlife after the clearing? The AWPC, wildlife rescuers and shelters regularly experience the fallout of these projects. Consultants and wildlife handlers are contracted at a premium price, only to hand over displaced, orphaned and injured wildlife to either vets or local wildlife shelters who are then expected to deal with these sentinel beings at their own cost. Quite frankly this is unacceptable and needs to stop, which is why the AWPC ask you the following questions once again:

1. Which wildlife rescue groups, wildlife shelters and vets have been contacted to look after or treat any injured wildlife?
2. Do local wildlife shelters have the capacity to look after injured wildlife during this busy time of the year?
3. What arrangements have been made to financially compensate these groups?
4. What measures have been taken to install nest boxes or other artificial habitat for displaced wildlife? (Please note that installation of nest boxes needs to be carefully planned in advance so as to enable wildlife to be bonded to new nests before re-release).
5. Do the contracted ‘wildlife handlers’ have appropriate wildlife handling experience as well as knowledge of the legislation about the re-location of wildlife.
6. Do the ‘wildlife handlers’ possess the appropriate permits to have protected wildlife relocated within a safe distance from their habitat loss or will animals be euthanased?

If Melbourne Water maintain, “Protection of wildlife is of great importance to Melbourne Water and we have committed to implement the handler’s recommendations” does Melbourne Water also commit to answering our questions for the ongoing protection of wildlife who will be effected by this project?

We can only assume, from your response, that the only community engagement so far planned by Melbourne Water, is to provide wood from the felled trees to various groups to make furniture. Yet, the community groups who will be most effected like environmental groups, wildlife rescuers, wildlife carers and shelters have not been included in this process what so at all!

To indicate that you are only going to plant 30 canopy trees within Frankston, in a place yet to be identified, does not seem to be fair compensation for the loss to the local environment. How did Melbourne Water come to this conclusion? Are these trees to be planted by community volunteers or are there to be separate plantings by contractors? The AWPC has identified a number of suitable sites close by, owned by Melbourne Water for these plantings.

We look forward to your reply and answers to our questions and we at the AWPC are happy to consult with Melbourne Water and/or your ecologist consultants to work on a better plan, communication and management for the future of this project.

Yours sincerely,

Craig Thomson
President, Australian Wildlife Protection Council

LETTER TO PRESIDENT CRAIG THOMSON FROM MARK LAWRENCED, MELBOURNE WATER PROJECT MANAGER

Mr Craig Thomson
President
Australian Wildlife Protection Council Inc.
craig.awpc@gmail.com

Dear Mr Thomson
Thank you for your email enquiry regarding safety upgrade works at the Lee Street Retarding
Basin in Frankston.

We understand that you are concerned with the planned tree removal at the site and the
impact this may have on wildlife and their habitat.

Under Melbourne Water’s Statement of Obligations (2015) issued by the Minister for Water, we
are required to assess all existing retarding basins against the Australian National Committee
of Large Dams (ANCOLD) Guidelines. An assessment of the Lee Street Retarding Basin against
these guidelines identified that the site does not comply and safety upgrade works are required
to continue to reduce flood risk for the local community.

To ensure Lee Street Retarding Basin continues to operate safely and comply with the ANCOLD
guidelines, trees and vegetation on the length of the embankment will need to be removed as
part of the works. We have worked hard to ensure that we only remove trees that will affect
the integrity of the retarding basin and have committed to planting trees at other locations in
the Frankston City Council area.

The ANCOLD guidelines are publically available and a copy can be purchased online from
ANCOLD at their website: www.ancold.org.au The guidelines do not specifically mention trees
on retarding basin embankments. They provide guidance on how to assess risk on dams and
dam-like structures.

In the past, it was common practice to have trees on retarding basin embankments. However,
as international understanding of dam engineering has improved it has become evident that
trees significantly weaken embankments and increase the risk of failure in a high rainfall
event. Failure of the embankment would have a significant impact on a number of properties in
the area.

In 2015, Melbourne Water received independent specialist advice that trees on retarding basin
embankments increase the chance that the embankment may fail in the event of a large rain
event. The chance is increased due to:

 internal erosion and displacement of soil – tree roots create erosion pathways
through the embankment which are worsened when the tree dies and its
decaying roots leave voids through the embankment;

 trees uprooting and taking part of the embankment with them; and

 water speeding up around tree trunks and causing faster erosion.

As part of the works, the embankment must also be hardened to operate safely and this can’t
be done without the trees being removed.
We understand the importance of trees to the local community and have committed to
mitigating the impact of removing the embankment trees by:

 planting 30 canopy trees elsewhere in the Frankston City Council area;

 using the cut-down logs to provide a woodland habitat for wildlife at Lee Street
Retarding Basin; and

 recycling the cut down logs to make furniture that will be donated to Frankston
City Council.

A reinstatement plan has been developed in adherence to Frankston City Council’s Local Law
22 permit requirements and we will implement it in the coming months. In addition to the
reinstatement plan, wood from the trees at the site will be utilised by a local community group
and the community will also have an opportunity to participate in a planting day in Frankston
in coming months.

As part of the planning for the project, Melbourne Water engaged specialists to complete a
flora and fauna assessment and arborist assessment as part of Council’s requirements under
Local Law 22.

In your email you asked us to provide you with the arborist report and water depth and flood
modelling records. We ask you to request these under the Freedom of Information Act 1982
(Vic) to make an FOI request, please visit our website and use the online FOI application:

www.melbournewater.com.au Our FOI Officer, Michael Keough, is available to assist with your
application if required. Michael can be contacted on 9679 6821 or at
foi@melbournewater.com.au

In addition to the flora and fauna assessment we have engaged a wildlife handler who will
manage and implement the wildlife management practices prior to and during the tree removal
activity. Protection of wildlife is of great importance to Melbourne Water and we have
committed to implement the handler’s recommendations including:

 undertaking a pre-construction visual inspection and assessment at Lee Street retarding
basin. This was completed on 29 January 2018 and found no EPBC Act-listed threatened
ecological communities or FFG Act-listed threatened flora communities present within the
Lee St study site.

 marking trees that have possible habitat to ensure that they are removed appropriately.

 confirming the species as listed in the flora and fauna assessment

 remaining onsite during the tree removal works to check and safely move fauna prior to
tree removal.

The wildlife handler we have engaged is a qualified ecologist and zoologist with 25 years’
experience.

The EPA guidelines referred to are in relation to hours of work. Work for this project will be
carried out in line with EPA guidelines between 7am and 6pm Monday to Friday and 7am and
1pm on Saturdays.

Your email included concern at the sale of Melbourne Water land in the Frankston area and the
potential loss of biodiversity. We have passed this on to our Property Team who will respond to
you direct.

Once again, thank you for your email.

Yours sincerely,
Mark Lawrence
Melbourne Water Project Manager

 

ORIGINAL LETTER FROM CRAIG THOMSON TO MELBOURNE WATER ABOUT REMOVING TREES FROM LEE ST RETARDANT BASIN

Letter from Craig Thomson, President AWPC
Dated 23 January 2017.

Subject: Lee st Retarding Basin Frankston

Addressed to: David.Fairbridge@frankston.vic.gov.au (Biodiversity Officer at Frankston Council), lisa.neville@parliament.vic.gov.au (Minister for Police and Water) rbupgrades@melbournewater.com.au (email address for Melbourne Water retardant basin upgrades).

The Australian Wildlife Protection Council understands and recognise the needs to protect our communities from potential danger. We are also aware that the removal of vegetation has an impact on wildlife species. In fact it is a guarantee that wildlife will be killed during works that clear vegetation. As such we expect that every possible measure is undertaken to see if in fact clearing is necessary and if so that appropriate actions are taken and that local wildlife shelters are not left too pick up the pieces of poor planning.

We have received concern from the local community members that the threat of flooding to the local community at the Lee St retarding basin has not deemed a risk in the past and believe the proposed clearance of vegetation is excessive and will have significant impact on fauna as well as other issues, particularly of erosion and dust as well. So the Australian Wildlife Protection Council would greatly appreciate if you could answer the following questions;

-What pre-fauna surveys have been carried out and when?

-What species have been identified on site?

-What are the actions have been put into place for fauna pre, during and post construction activities for fauna?

-Which wildlife rescue groups, wildlife shelters and vets have been contacted to look after or treat any injured wildlife?

-What arrangements have been made to financially compensate these groups?

-Do local wildlife shelters have the capacity to look after injured wildlife, as they could be attending to heat stress events or bushfire effected wildlife?

-What measures have been taken to install nest boxes or other artificial habitat for displaced wildlife?

-Do they have appropriate wildlife handling permits as well as permits to have protected wildlife euthanised if injured or unable to relocate wildlife in a safe distance from their habitat loss?

-What community groups have they contacted to work with as stated in their community information sheet?  [Ref: ] “We understand the importance of trees to the local community and are committed to working closely with council, residents and community groups to develop an appropriate plan for reinstatement of trees else where in the area” in the information document provided for this project https://www.melbournewater.com.au/sites/default/files/2018-01/Communitybulletin-LeeStreet.pdf

-Where are other trees being planted, what species are to be planted and how many?

-Are offsets being provided?

-Is there an arborist report of the trees health?

-Can records of water depth be provided for the Lee St retarding basin to show threat of flooding to neighbouring properties over the years of its existence?

-Can modelling or records be provided of local flooding for once in a 40+ year storm event?

-What are the EPA regulations you are keeping to with to for this project?

-Can you provide a copy of the ANCOLD guidelines?

The Australian Wildlife Protection Council also has the understanding that you are in the process of selling off land on McClelland Dve to Ambulance Victoria for an ambulance station and another permit application has been made by Log Cabin Caravan Park. In fact we believe that all land owned by Melbourne Water from Skye Rd to Frankston/Cranbourne Rd is being considered surplus land by Melbourne Water. So it appears there are several sites across the Frankston city council municipality owned by Melbourne Water that poses a potential loss of biodiversity.

So the final question we have to you is what is Melbourne Water’s commitment to biodiversity in Frankston?

 

Share This:

AWPC Complains to Members of Parliament re Melbourne Water rush project & wildlife impact

To Lisa Neville, Lily D’Ambrosio, Paul Edbrook:
Good morning Honourable members of parliament,

Official complaint against Melbourne Water retarding basin upgrades.

I am sending you this email this morning in regards to Melbourne Water’s retarding basin upgrade in Lee St Frankston. Melbourne Water have used a very short period of time to communicate with the community about this project.

The way they have proceeded has not been open and transparent, they have used excuses of potential danger to the community without backing these claims with scientific data. When they have been approached to do so, they have communicated that we need to put in a freedom of information request (which we are in the process of doing).

We have no issues in improving infrastructure that will improve efficiency and safety to the community, as long as it is done in the guidelines of the law that does not have a negative impact on the environment, community groups and the community.

It would seem to us and members of the broader community in Frankston (who have expressed concern about wildlife welfare) are concerned with the rush to undertake this project and lack of transparency. which may in fact lead to breaches of the law and impact wildlife, local wildlife shelters. As such the Australian Wildlife Protection Council is filing this as an official complaint to you against Melbourne Water. Attached is correspondence of this project to date.
[For correspondence see “AWPC TO MELBOURNE WATER RESPONSE ON TREE REMOVAL LEE ST RETARDANT BASIN”

Share This:

My response to the original draft by Dr. Jeff Yugovic, Jan, 2012: “LOOKING AFTER THE BUSH: ECOSYSTEMS NEED PREDATORS”.

Leave a comment

My response to the original draft by Dr. Jeff Yugovic, Jan, 2012: “LOOKING AFTER THE BUSH: ECOSYSTEMS NEED PREDATORS”.

Dr. Jeff Yugovic, a highly respected botanist, insists that “Ecosystems need predators”, as he is seriously concerned that the browsing by ring-tail possums threatens to destroys all of the tree canopies on the Mornington Peninsula and declares it to be a looming disaster. He states in his draft “that there is a “possum plague” and tree health has seriously deteriorating”. He is also concerned that swamp rats are devastating orchid colonies which coincides with intensive fox and cat control, hence, his message, “Ecosystems need predators”.

This statement was true before white man arrived on the Mornington Peninsula. But now, after the original ecosystem has been severely fragmented into small and isolated and mostly weed infested reserves and where the native predators have been replaced by dogs, foxes and cats, the true function of the original ecosystem has now been adversely altered.

800px-Possum_Ring-tailed444

(image: ring tail possum - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Possum_Ring-tailed444.jpg)

Firstly about tree loss:

In a study: “Survey of Tree Die-back on the Mornington Peninsula, Vic.

(School of Forest Ecosystems Science, Heidelberg, 2006)” seven reserves were examined for the causes of tree die-back.

They were:

Lorikeet Reserve, Mt. Eliza Regional Reserve, Mt. Martha Foreshore, Mt. Martha Park, Woods Reserve, Warringine Park and Tyrone Reserve.

Causes detected by them for tree die-back:

-Phytophtora, a root disease

-Armillaria, root rot and fungai

-Bell Miners Associated Die-back

-Other insect defoliaters (six species)

-Mycospheralla, leaf disease

-Bark and Wood Borers ( Longhorn Borers )

-Mudulla Yellows

-Salt, chloride toxicity

Other reasons for tree loss: (My addition)

* Climate change with more hotter and longer heatwaves and longer periods of droughts plus severe storms where many trees are blown over.

*More severe droughts, (in high temperatures stomas close, prevent CO2 uptake causing the trees to starve and gradually die.)

* More frequent wild fires

* Weeds under trees makes leaves more palatable to possums.

* Suitability of soil types and altered water tables especially in built up areas.

* Removal of trees for fire clearing, road widening and urban expansion.

* Also see on Internet “Catalyst-Tree death-ABC TV-Science”

Of the seven above reserves examined by the School of Forest Ecosystems Science, only in one, Mt Martha Park, was possum browsing mentioned and subsequent banding of trees recommended.

In all of the other reserves, tree die-back was only associated with a combination of all their identified causes. In spite of this, Jeff still insists that beside possums browsing “ Other forms of tree fatalities are only minor”

It is therefore important to consider all of these factors that contribute to tree die-back and tree loss, and not just blame the ring-tail possums? If we want to prevent tree die-back we surely have to seriously consider all of the factors that will cause it. One other of these reasons is the smothering and killing of trees by the exotic Ivy and several other tree-climbers. I have observed this on many dead trees, especially in the Sweetwater Creek area in Frankston.

Possums have evolved with trees and are part of the natural ecosystem. If they kill all the trees, they will kill themselves. I therefore don’t believe that there are too many possums and, especially, that they are a threat to the total loss of the tree canopy on the peninsula. Proper surveys to study the extent, and all of the causes of tree death and loss, are needed to clear this up.

His concern is that the Mornington Council is putting too much effort into fox and cat control, and that this is “head and shoulder above the rest of the state”. This must be for good reasons and should therefore not be regarded as a problem. Foxes and cats do kill a lot of all types of native wildlife!

Re: Swamp Rats:

swamp-rat

(image: https://museumvictoria.com.au/discoverycentre/discovery-centre-news/2007-archive/is-this-a-native-or-an-introduced-rat/)

The numbers of swamp rats naturally fluctuate but, due to predation by foxes and cats, large colonies of swamp rats have of late been lost in many isolated reserves (personal observation) so that they are definitely not overabundant. As to the loss of orchids due to swamp rats, orchids grow manly in open areas while swamp rats live in dense ground cover of gahnia where orchids are not doing well. All species of orchids have survived in the presence of swamp rats for thousands of years, so what has changed? Have contents of scats from swamp rats ever been examined for remains of orchid bulbs in order to proof that they are the actual culprit or that they could be eaten by introduced rats or rabbits? Science please.

As to the effects of the original native predators, to which there is so much reference in his lecture, here is what was described by some of the early settlers on the Mornington Peninsula in “The men who blazed the track”

History tells us that “Kangaroos were formerly so plentiful that they resembled flocks of sheep. At Sandy Point they erected yards for a big kangaroo drive. Messrs Clark, White, Benton and others got 1500 in the first drive. ….. In the last drive they got 800 kangaroos. On the plain they were in thousands as also were the possums. One night they shot 95 possums in two hours. bandicoots and goannas were also very numerous.”

And yet, there was a full compliment of native predators.

There were lots of dingoes as the top predator as well as two species of quolls and large goannas as meso-predators and several species of birds of prey while the eastern quoll was the most commonest animal observed. This was the original, natural balance of a predators/prey relationship in the ORIGINAL and UNDISTURBED environment which was described as teaming with wildlife.

But, so much for the effects that these native predators were supposed to have had in reducing the numbers of kangaroos and especially of the thousands of possums and swamp rats. In spite of these enormous numbers of herbivores, including the large numbers of possums and swamp rats, all of the vegetation, including trees and orchids thrived well. Remember, herbivores keep on fertilizing the bush and nothing is lost in the long run.

In contrast, since dogs, foxes and cats were introduced and the wildlife habitat on the Mornington Peninsula now fragmented and reduced by 82%, at least nine species of mammals have already become extinct on the peninsula and in the Frankston area including the nationally endangered southern brown bandicoot while another six species are critically endangered and the rest remain only in relatively low numbers. The present combination of the impacts by man, by predation, by heatwaves during which now thousands of possums die, and through habitat loss and further isolation of habitat, it continues to decimate our wildlife including possums and swamp rats. To give more freedom to foxes and cats will only exacerbate this tragic loss. I therefore strongly support the various governments who see fox and cat control important in order to protect the remaining and endangered wildlife.

In my research in the diet of foxes, ring-tails occurred only at an average 11% in scats while 89% of the rest of their diet on the Mornington Peninsula contained mostly remains of endangered native mammals and birds. This does surely not justify the use of more foxes for the possible reduction of ring-tails.

In the Frankston City News, they reported: “Pet cats kill an estimated 600.000 animals each year including sugar gliders and ring-tail possums. Cats also impact heavily on frogs and lizards, This alarming figure does not include wildlife killed by feral cats. A feral cat kills between 5-30 animals each night”. Adding the predation by foxes exacerbates this disaster and could at least double these losses. Why then is it so urgent in this situation that “Ecosystems need predators” and especially so on our wildlife depleted peninsula. I believe that our wildlife needs urgent protection from predators instead.

It is not only predation by foxes and cats that is a concern. Foxes also spread the seeds of blackberry and bone-seed as well as the disease of mange, while cats disperse the disease called Toxoplasmosis which causes death to many native mammals. Thankfully, Jeff has mentioned some of this as well.

We should also not forget that ring-tail and brush-tail possums are an important and staple source of food for the locally endangered powerful owl.

If there is such a concern that possum browsing by ring-tails will destroy all of the tree canopies and that swamp rats destroy orchids, it would be useful to have a clear and detailed action plan as to what exactly should be done if it were true, and especially what type of predators we seem to need and how and where they should be employed. This was not spelled out clearly then.. I hope it does not also include the removal of under-story vegetation in order to provide easier access to ring-tail possums by foxes and cats as this would exacerbate the loss of even more native mammals, insects, birds and reptiles. It could, of course, provide extra habitat for swamp rats.

It is worth to consider that in “The men who blazed the track” they stated that “The land was then very heavily timbered , the trees being so densely grown that possums could run from tree to tree. Captain Balmain’s paddocks were then very thickly wooded. At Sandy Point you could not see daylight through the dense foliage” also, “There were hundreds of trees to the acre” and, “They hunted in the thick scrub”. So, why should we now suddenly have to remove the under-story when these trees were so healthy IN SPITE OF LOTS OF POSSUMS. To suddenly declare war on ring tails and brush tail possums is definitely not justified!.

In Germany and Switzerland they re-introduced the Wolf after one hundred years of absence. Now the numbers of native deer and other wildlife has been seriously reduced and farmers are loosing sheep and other life stock while people are afraid of encountering them. Do we need this here? To re-introduce some of the original predators into our remaining few forests and reserves would surely just be a further risk to the rest of our wildlife and life-stock. And why were these predators lost in the first place…..? What type of predators would have to do the job now?

If there is such a concern about the loss of trees on the peninsula through possum browsing, Jeff should instead recommend to have most of the thousands of pine trees replaced on the peninsula with types of eucalyptus trees, that are not too palatable for ring-tail possums.

Finally, Jeff’s problem should be addressed to the State Government for a response rather than seeking support from local environmental groups who have no real say in the matter. Reducing the number of ring tail possums on the peninsula and the way it should be done, if thought to be necessary, can only be resolved at the State Government level.

Is “Ecosystems need predators” the answer here ?

Hans Brunner.

Hansxx

Share This:

One of Victoria’s rarest rodents found at Wilsons Promontory

Leave a comment

For the first time in more than five years, ecologists have found a rare New Holland mouse at Wilsons Promontory. The rodent was once found in populations dotted across Victoria, including in parts of metropolitan Melbourne as recently as the 1970s. In the past 15 years, it has only been recorded in three areas: the Gippsland Lakes, Wilsons Promontory and Providence Ponds, between Maffra and Bairnsdale.

The New Holland mouse is listed as vulnerable in Victoria and federally and endangered in Tasmania. In 1994, the New Holland mouse was found at 25 sites at Wilsons Promontory. However regular surveys since have failed to find the native rodent, which was last documented in early 2010.

New_Holland_mouse

(image:Original source: Flickr: New Holland Mouse
Author: Doug Beckers )

Ecologist Phoebe Burns from Museum Victoria and Melbourne University caught the 42-gram adult male in a trap, enticed by peanut butter.

The species also occurs in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria.

The New Holland Mouse is similar in appearance to the introduced and relatively common House Mouse (Mus musculus), but can be distinguished by its relatively large eyes and lack of a ‘mousey’ odour. The species appears to have undergone a major decline since European settlement. Historical and ongoing threats to the species include loss of habitat and predation from introduced predators, ie “human activities”! Habitat for the New Holland Mouse includes coastal open heathlands, open woodlands with a heathland understorey, and vegetated sand dunes.

The tail is longer than the head-body length and is dusky brown on top, whitish below and darker at the tip. Broadly similar in appearance to the introduced House Mouse, with larger rounded ears, larger eyes and lacking a notch on the inside of the upper incisors.

The charismatic little species has only been recorded in three areas across the state in the past 15 years, whereas historically it was recorded in ten, including metropolitan Melbourne. That’s why PhD student Phoebe Burns embarked upon this venture to determine the status of NHMs across Victoria and help protect this species from further decline. She says “One of the greatest challenges for studying the status and conservation of New Holland mice (and many native Australian rodents) is that they can be very difficult to find; you can’t just see them with your binoculars or hear them calling in the bush…. sometimes when a species is at low densities, it takes a huge amount of effort to be reasonably confident that the species isn’t there, which in a world of limited time and funding drastically reduces the area you can survey. This is a real challenge when your species moves in the landscape.”

Now she’s got the IDs sorted, she’ll be using cameras (and live traps) to survey across Victoria and see where the New Holland mouse is persisting, so that the team can do their best to halt the species’ further decline. It’s a great challenge, and we congratulate Phoebe Burns and her team for persistence and their contribution to conservation of our precious and unique wildlife.

(featured image: New Holland Mouse-Top 10 Extinct Creatures That Aren’t Extinct)

Share This: