Save the Tasmanian Devil Program 2015 Annual Program Report

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment The 2015 Annual Program Report

This Annual Program Report has been produced by the Save the Tasmanian Devil Program (the Program) to report on activities over the 2015 calendar year. The Report outlines how, with guidance from national and international specialists and support from funding partners, the Program is working towards the vision of an enduring and ecologically functional population of devils in the wild in Tasmania. The Annual Program Report is produced by the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE). The report also features contributions from the wide range of organisations that are part of, or work closely with, the Save the Tasmanian Devil Program. Immediately prior to publication, news was received of the passing of Appeal Ambassador Jon English. Vale, Jon.

ISSN 1839-1907 (Print) ISSN 1839-1915 (Online)

Contents

Introduction...... 1 Overview: 1 January – 31 December 2015...... 2 Program Management...... 5 Insurance Population Sub-Program...... 10 FOCUS ON: Partnership with the Toledo Zoo...... 13 Monitoring and Management Sub-Program...... 14 FOCUS ON: Understanding the conservation status and population trends of wild devils...... 16 Wild Management...... 17 FOCUS ON: Claude Road Orphans...... 20 Research and Collaboration...... 21 FOCUS ON: Tools and Tech...... 24 Case Study: The origins of the Program: Nick Mooney and Marco Restani . . . 25 Publications ...... 28 Performance of the Program to Targets ...... 30 Where to from here?...... 31 Devil Directory (as at 31 December 2015)...... 32

i Introduction

In November 2014 I announced the development of a devils into a wild setting exposes them to the risks, but significant new phase for the Save the Tasmanian Devil this is offset against the benefits that we are trying to Program with the commencement of the Wild Devil achieve for improving the viability and resilience of wild Recovery Project. That project built on the progress that populations. I am confident that we will achieve these had been made and was a focus for investment by the outcomes; however, along the way we have seen that Tasmanian and Australian Governments. released devils are vulnerable on our roads. As the name implies the Wild Devil Recovery Project We are seeing that many devils remain safely in their is aimed at developing the means to manage wild new environment – and, as this publication goes to populations of Tasmanian devils in areas that are affected press, we have evidence that they are participating in the by devil facial tumour disease (DFTD). Previously, it breeding season. We are also seeing a concerted effort was believed that DFTD would lead to extinction of from the Government and the community to reduce the wild populations; however, we now know that devil risk of roadkill through changes in release techniques, populations are persisting at low levels. While local the installation of virtual fences at roadkill hotspots and extinction is less of a threat, these populations left to the testing of aversion treatments. I would also like to fend on their own would have problems of maintaining reinforce a message to all Tasmanians to please, drive an ecological role or adequate genetic diversity. more carefully in areas with wildlife, particularly between dusk and dawn. We are now able to move into this new phase because of the achievements made by the Program. The Another aspect of the Program that was strongly Insurance Population of devils is well established, emphasised through these releases is how vital solid with substantial support from Australian zoos and partnerships are to their success. The releases could not wildlife parks. Additionally, very significant support have been achieved without significant contributions is being provided by leading zoos in the United States from partners across the Program including the of America and New Zealand, through the Tasmanian participating zoos and wildlife parks, local communities Devil Ambassador Program. We have also seen the and business and the Parks and Wildlife Service (PWS). successful release of devils into the wild on Maria Island The Save the Tasmanian Devil Program’s Annual and this has given us a start in developing techniques for Program Report for 2015 provides insights into release. Concurrently, we have seen the development of developments and progress through what has been a an immune therapy that may provide protection against challenging but rewarding year, and a very exciting DFTD. point in which our response has gone from securing A year on from my announcement, we have seen devils from extinction to putting devils back into the significant progress with two separate projects – one Tasmanian landscape. based at Narawntapu National Park and the other on You can keep up with the progress of the Save the the Forestier Peninsula (and more fully outlined on Pp. Tasmanian Devil Program on its Facebook page or on the 17-18). The return of Tasmanian devils to the wild at website at www.tassiedevil.com.au Narawntapu National Park, in September, is a moment I will never forget (see p. 17). Not only was it an important means of reinforcing the existing population of devils in The Hon. Matthew Groom MP the Park, but it also incorporated a field trial for immune Minister for Environment, Parks and Heritage therapies that have been developed by the Menzies Institute for Medical Research. Following the Narawntapu release, devils were reintroduced to the Forestier Peninsula, which had been secured from the spread of DFTD. Both releases have provided insights into the challenges that need to be addressed to ensure good outcomes. Releasing

2015 Annual Program Report

1 Overview: 1 January – 31 December 2015

There are no uneventful years in the Save the Throughout 2015 the Forestier and Tasman Peninsulas Tasmanian Devil Program, and 2015 was packed with were surveyed for the presence of devils (Forestier) activity as Program staff worked hard to maintain or DFTD (Tasman). The Forestier Peninsula was the insurance population, monitor wild populations, depopulated by the Program in 2012 and extensive support cutting edge research and maintain important surveys since then indicated that it was very unlikely relationships with partners and collaborators. that devils persisted there. The original devil population was heavily infected with DFTD; therefore, with no In January 2015 a project commenced to further devils left, there should be no DFTD either. Devils have study the use of contraceptive implants in female been reported from the Tasman Peninsula, and an Tasmanian devils. Four trials were completed in 2015 infrared camera survey at the end of 2013 confirmed with two planned for 2016. Fifteen devils were treated that there is a small population breeding in this area to assess dosage, the effectiveness of contraception (around 19). Trapping surveys since that time provided in the Free Range Enclosures (FREs) and any assurance that the population was likely to be DFTD- impacts on behaviour; as well as the effectiveness of free. With no devils found on Forestier and no DFTD contraception as a form of population management found on Tasman during over two years of surveying, on Maria Island. The trial of the use of deslorelin (an the Program established the necessary confidence to injectable gonadotropin which stops the production of move forward with the release of 39 devils in November testosterone and oestrogen) continues in the FREs and 2015 aimed at re-establishing a population free of on Maria Island. Preliminary results have shown this to DFTD. (see p.18) be an effective tool for managing these populations. In February, the Program undertook a camera survey in north-east Tasmania which replicated the design of a survey undertaken in 2011. This survey allowed the Program to measure the proportion of area that is still occupied by devils in the region longest affected by devil facial tumour disease (DFTD). Of the 29 sites surveyed in 2015, devil presence was established at 20 sites, with three individuals visibly diseased. This work was undertaken as part of the Wild Devil Recovery project (see p. 17). Analysis of these results is continuing as part of the review of longterm monitoring work that is being conducted by the Program. (See p. 16) With research from the Menzies Institute for Medical Research showing encouraging evidence for the development of a vaccine in the lab, the next step was to undertake testing in the field. This work is being undertaken as a collaborative project between the Menzies Institute and the Program’s Wild Devil Recovery project and is testing the immunisation protocol as a tool for providing additional protection for devils released to the wild. The health of immunised devils released at Narawntapu National Park in September 2015 is being monitored during regular surveys. See p. 17 for updates on the Narawntapu release.

Save the Tasmanian Devil Program

2 During 2015 the Intensive Captive site at Cressy was expanded to increase capacity and add a quarantine facility. The additional capacity came at just the right time with the increase in movements of animals between facilities due to wild releases, as well as the growing size of the Insurance Population. The Tasmania Zoo Devil Island (a Free Range Enclosure) was completed on land made available by Tasmania Zoo. The facility will be important for holding devils in wild conditions in preparation for their involvement in wild devil recovery projects. Breeding success of devils in the Insurance Population was comparable to previous years, with the most recent breeding season achieving a success rate of 52.6 per cent. A total of 128 pouch young were produced. In the 2015 breeding season there were 182 founders in the insurance meta-population (this includes Maria Island and the Ambassador devils overseas); while the core insurance population (those devils in all ZAA affiliated institutions, in addition to the facilities in Tasmania) produced 98 imps in 2015. For a more detailed update on the Insurance Population Sub-Program, see Pp. 10-11.

In 2015 the Tasmanian Devil Ambassador Program expanded to accept additional zoos in the United States – Toledo Zoo in Ohio, Fort Wayne Children’s Zoo in Indiana, Los Angeles Zoo in California, and St Louis Zoo in Missouri. A report on these zoos’ experiences of having devils for the first time, plus updates on our existing Ambassador zoos, can be found on Pp. 11-12. The 2015 Annual Monitoring trips revealed some interesting changes to devil populations. Of the eight sites monitored, there were marked increases in the number of animals caught at the Fentonbury and Kempton sites, while Takone had a dramatic fall. In 2015 the Program received reports of 361 individual These results show how important it is to have several roadkilled devils, with a recorded 465 total observations years of data to allow the Program to determine made to the Program. This figure includes duplicates whether change represents a trend or just year-to- – i.e. reports which are of the same animal called year variability. DFTD was also found at the Granville in by multiple people. During the year the Program Harbour site for the first time in 2015; the number dedicated a lot of time to working with stakeholders of animals caught at this site also dropped by a to apply mitigation at roadkill hotspots. This included third. Woolnorth is now the Program’s only Annual the conclusion of a successful trial of “virtual fencing” Monitoring site which still shows no sign of the disease. along a 12-kilometre stretch of road near Arthur River. A full Annual Monitoring update can be found on p. 14. This electronic system, which aims to prevent animals

2015 Annual Program Report

3 A paper published in late December 2015 announced the identification of a second type of Devil Facial Tumour Disease, now called “DFT2”, with the original termed “DFT1”. This finding emphasises the need for ongoing monitoring of wild populations. Work is continuing in order to establish whether DFT2 will have similar impacts to the original disease (DFT1). Its identification highlights the importance of the co-operative work being undertaken with research partners including the Menzies Institute and Cambridge University. The disease was detected in the State’s south at the end of 2014. Further work is planned in early 2016, in the region in which DFT2 has been discovered, in order to discover as much as possible about this new transmissible cancer. crossing the road when a vehicle is approaching at night, reduced roadkill by 62 per cent following its activation at the site. Alarm units positioned about 25 metres apart are triggered by headlights, emitting a loud alarm and a flash of light. The Program is working to resource and install additional “virtual fencing” devices in hotspot areas throughout Tasmania; you can read more about the Program’s Roadkill Project and roadkill mitigation on p. 19. On 27 October, Her Excellency the Governor of Tasmania, Professor Kate Warner, hosted a reception at Government House to acknowledge the partners, staff, scientists and supporters of the Save the Tasmanian Devil Program. This event represented significant recognition of the work that the Program has done over the past decade and more.

Genetic data so far cannot distinguish whether DFT2 is an early divergent branch from the DFTD lineage (although the finding of a Y chromosome in the karyotype argues against this, as it is known that DFTD emerged from a female), whether DFT2 is a completely independent transmissible cancer, or whether DFT2 is the product of horizontal transfer of a DFTD cell and a host cell. The abstract of the published article “A second transmissible cancer in Tasmanian devils” can be found on the website of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

Her Excellency the Governor Kate Warner with devil. Image courtesy Government House.

Save the Tasmanian Devil Program

4 Program Management

Funding partners

The Tasmanian Government The Tasmanian Government, through the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE), provided the Save the Tasmanian Devil Program with $2.4 million in the 2014-15 financial year. Australian Government Current funding provided by the Australian Government towards Tasmanian devil recovery consists of $2.8 million provided to the Program for specific projects. These are: support for the Insurance Population (grants provided through ZAA); the Peninsula Devil Conservation Project; and the Wild Devil Recovery Project. A further $0.5 million has been The Save the Tasmanian Devil Program Appeal reserved pending the development of suitable projects. The Save the Tasmanian Devil Program Appeal provides Zoo and Aquarium Association (ZAA) and facilities for funding to be directed to the work of participating zoos and wildlife parks the Save the Tasmanian Devil Program. The Appeal consists of: The Australasian Zoo and Aquarium Association (ZAA) is the peak body representing the zoo and aquarium • a fundraising body coordinated by the University community throughout the region. ZAA manages the of Tasmania Foundation and directing funds coordination of a number of conservation breeding raised to research and management, and programs and provides an accreditation scheme and • where funds cannot be received by the assistance to members to meet standards. Foundation other funding facilities are available The Program and ZAA commenced a partnership ten through the ZAA Wildlife Conservation Fund years ago in order to establish and oversee the ongoing (ZAA-WCF) and through DPIPWE. management of an insurance population of devils. The Save the Tasmanian Devil Appeal (the Appeal) Since that time the Program has received in excess of provides the connection between community and $20 million in indirect and in-kind funding from ZAA corporate interest and the range of conservation member zoos and wildlife parks. Zoos and wildlife parks strategies being implemented for this iconic animal. also play an important role raising public awareness In 2015, the principal income to the Appeal was of the threat to the Tasmanian devil and helping to through the University of Tasmania Foundation – the advocate for recovery action for the species. fundraising arm. In addition, the Appeal has seen The STDP’s Species Coordinator is based in ZAA and significant contributions from the Tasmanian Devil this role provides a range of services supporting the Ambassador Program, conservation offsets and special Insurance Population. To date the Insurance Population purpose payments that have been received through the has exceeded all targets set for it at the commencement ZAA-WCF and DPIPWE. In total this support equated of the program and under the 2009 meta-population to $787,465 (see chart below) with the contributions strategy. In 2016, this meta-population strategy will being $453,464; $214,000 and $120,000 to the Appeal be revised to incorporate these successes and set new via the University of Tasmania Foundation, the ZAA- targets. ZAA also provides facilitation and support to WCF and DPIPWE respectively. the management of the Tasmanian Devil Ambassador The Appeal has continued to call on individuals, Program (see p. 11). businesses, foundations and schools to rally to the

2015 Annual Program Report

5 $120,000

$453,464 $214,000

cause and assist in raising much needed philanthropic rebuilding of disease-free populations in the wild. support, helping to translate the considerable shared Other projects that have been supported include, but concern for the plight of the Tasmanian devil into are not limited to: research into the evolutionary funding for a range of projects. adaptions in Tasmanian devils, disease movement By the conclusion of 2015, funds raised by the Appeal across Tasmania, and a diagnostic test for DFTD. The through the University of Tasmania Foundation had graph below shows the breakdown in funds allocated been committed to support just over $420,000 worth for 2015. A list of the projects for which these funds of projects. Paramount amongst these was the focus were allocated can be found at www.tassiedevil.com.au on devil vaccine research being led by the University on the Appeal “Grants and Scholarships” pages. of Tasmania’s Menzies Institute for Medical Research. Funds received through other parts of the Appeal have A vaccination, which will address both types of devil been contributed towards field equipment to support facial cancers, is being developed in a collaborative work on Maria Island, the Peninsula Devil Conservation effort between Australian and international researchers Program and the Wild Devil Recovery Project. This has and it is hoped this will provide devils with life-long amounted to $214,000 in 2015. A further $120,000 has protection against the disease and facilitate the been received for support to the Insurance Population

Save the Tasmanian Devil Program

6 and vaccine research from conservation offsets and Governance special purpose payments. Providing opportunities for support is central to the STDP Steering Committee Appeal’s mission and “Black and White Day” is one of Strategic oversight is provided by the STDP Steering the Appeal’s key fundraising initiatives. The Appeal Committee, which also performs the role of a Recovery provides guidance and resources to participating Team by reviewing progress towards implementation schools and businesses who wish to raise funds for the of the Recovery Plan, assessing changing priorities Tassie devil. The Appeal also ran a mid-year appeal and emerging issues. The Committee includes focusing on garnering support for the vaccine trials members from the Tasmanian Department of being conducted within Narawntapu National Park. Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment With a fundraising target of $50,000 the campaign (DPIPWE), the Australian Government Department of performed well above expectations, raising $79,000 to the Environment (DoE), and the Zoo and Aquarium fund devil vaccine research. Association (ZAA). It includes a representative of In 2015, the Appeal also had a key presence at AGFEST, the science community and a representative of the one of Australia’s leading rural events, taking part in conservation community. The Steering Committee the University of Tasmania’s “Innovation Tent”. Over meets biannually and has two sub-committees: three days more than 8,000 people visited the tent. Strategic Implementation Group Highlights included participation in the AGFEST The Strategic Implementation Group provides oversight “Learning Trial” aimed at primary to secondary aged of the Program components in the Business Plan, as students and postings of the event significantly boosted well as implementation and coordination of projects. the Appeal’s social media presence. It meets quarterly and is comprised of the Program In addition to raising much needed funds, the Appeal Director, the Program Manager, and a representative operates with the remit to communicate the work from ZAA. being done for the Tasmanian devil and the cause Meta-population Advisory Committee (MAC) continues to attract media interest, in both traditional and new social media arenas. Media analysis taken of The MAC provides oversight for the development media coverage in Australia during the period July— of the insurance meta-population framework and September 2015 indicated a cumulative audience of 6 delivers a range of strategic management and technical million people with a total of 345 distinct media items. advice to the Steering Committee on issues around the maintenance of the insurance meta-population. Corporate support of the Appeal is vital to its continued Membership is drawn from DPIPWE, DoE, the ability to fund key initiatives and the Appeal is Australian Species Management Group, ZAA and especially grateful to those companies who choose independent expertise. It is chaired by the Program to support its work. The Appeal is also pleased to Director. The MAC has one sub-committee: acknowledge generous individual supporters and, at this critical juncture for the animal, thanks donors Captive Research Advisory Group (CRAG) for continuing to help secure a future for this iconic The CRAG meets every second month and is tasked animal. The Appeal recognises key supporters on the with assessing proposed research projects on captive www.tassiedevil.com.au “Supporters” page. Tasmanian devils to determine if they fit within the To be part of our vision to create a vaccine that will give scope of the STDP. The CRAG is chaired by the ZAA Tasmanian devils life-long protection from DFTD and Manager of Science and Policy. Its members are drawn secure their future visit our website www.tassiedevil. from DPIPWE, ZAA and one independent member, who com.au or contact the Appeal at all have scientific and operational backgrounds. [email protected].

2015 Annual Program Report

7 At the operational level, governance is provided by the: Communications Save the Tasmanian Devil Program Management Over the 2015 reporting period, communication Group (PMG) plans were prepared and implemented for major projects including the Narawntapu National Park devil The PMG provides coordination and planning for translocation, the Peninsula Devil Conservation project the operational management of the Program. It and the Roadkill project. meets fortnightly and is comprised of the Program Director, Program Manager and Sub-Program Leaders. The Program continued to provide information updates Reporting to the PMG is the: to the community via its website and Facebook page. The Program’s dedicated website Molecular Research Advisory Panel (MRAP) (www.tassiedevil.com.au) remained the key source of The MRAP evaluates research applications that involve authoritative information on the status of the devil and access to the archive of biological material collected by the Program’s activities. During the reporting period, the Program and its collaborators. More information 22 news articles were published detailing progress with about the work of the MRAP can be found on page 22. research, monitoring and management strategies. The site also featured articles published on behalf of the Save the Tasmanian Devil Program Appeal. The Program also worked with the Appeal on joint promotions and public events to raise awareness and funds to support the Program.

Governance Structure for the Save the Tasmanian Devil Program (STDP)

Program bodies are shown in blue, Program activities in green, core funding partners in red and other major partners in yellow

Save the Tasmanian Devil Program

8 The Program responded to a significant number of enquiries from local, national and international media, covering a range of general and special interest stories. It also coordinated and managed several significant media events including news coverage of the translocation of devils to Narawntapu National Park (NNP) and the Forestier Peninsula. These two major translocations generated numerous interviews from local, national and international media organisations. The Program also received widespread coverage of devil roadkill. An international partnership between the Program, the Zoo and Aquarium Association Australasia and Toledo Zoo from the USA to provide grant funding for the monitoring of the devil in the Further news and awareness promotion was wild was publicly announced in December 2015 and undertaken via the Program’s Facebook page. During received national and international media coverage. 2015, there were over 100 posts, including videos and The placement of devils at overseas institutions as part photos, and the number of page ‘likes’ passed 12,000, of the Ambassador Program (see Pp. 11-12) also sparked an increase of almost 2,000 since the end of 2014. widespread media interest. Analysis shows that, while the majority of Facebook followers come from Australia; the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Germany and Canada are also well represented.

The Program participated in the filming of several national and international documentaries.

2015 Annual Program Report

9 Insurance Population Sub-Program

The Insurance Population (IP) sub-program oversees on Maria Island. and maintains the population of devils which are The Program is grateful for the support the institutions closely managed to act as “insurance” against the listed below provide by managing IP devils at their extinction of the species. In 2015 a large share of the facilities. work undertaken by staff and partners working in the IP was a vital part of the two wild releases, the devils for which required careful selection, transportation, and management. Tasmanian Captive Management Update At the time of reporting the insurance meta-population comprised 748 animals (including those on Maria Program staff involved in the captive management of Island and overseas). This included the core insurance devils held as part of the Insurance Population were population of 511 devils held at over 40 institutions in constantly on the go in 2015, implementing integrated Australia (see below) as well as an estimated 109 devils management plans for all captive Tasmanian devils, on Maria Island (see report Pp. 14-15). selecting and caring for devils for wild release, and even In 2015, 51 female devils within the IP bred, which finding time to host a number of volunteers from across put breeding success at 52.6 per cent. A total of 128 the globe. pouch young were produced, with 28 born in intensive Expansion facilities, 40 in Managed Environmental Enclosures The Cressy Wildlife Centre was expanded in 2015. The (MEEs), 30 in the Free Range Enclosures (FREs) and 30

Zoos and Wildlife Parks in Australia Adelaide Zoo Australia Walkabout Wildlife Park Ballarat Wildlife Park Alexandra Park Zoo Australia Zoo Billabong Koala and Wildlife Park Altina Wildlife Park Australian Reptile Park (Devil Ark) Caversham Wildlife Park Cleland Wildlife Park Currumbin Wildlife Sanctuary Devils@Cradle Dreamworld Featherdale Wildlife Park Flying High Bird Sanctuary Gorge Wildlife Park Halls Gap Zoo Healesville Sanctuary Hunter Valley Zoo Kyabram Fauna Park Lone Pine Koala Sanctuary Melbourne Zoo Monarto Zoo Moonlit Sanctuary Wildlife Conservation Park National Zoo and Aquarium Oakvale Farm & Fauna World Peel Zoo Perth Zoo Queensland Zoo Rainforestation Nature Park Shoalhaven Zoo Symbio Wildlife Park Taronga Western Plains Zoo Taronga Zoo Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve Trowunna Wildlife Park WILD LIFE Sydney Zoo

Zoos and Wildlife Parks Overseas Albuquerque BioPark USA Fort Wayne Children’s Zoo USA San Diego Zoo USA Auckland Zoo NZ Toledo Zoo USA Wellington Zoo NZ Los Angeles Zoo USA Orana Wildlife Trust NZ St Louis Zoo USA Copenhagen Zoo DK

Save the Tasmanian Devil Program

10 new biosecure quarantine area comprises 14 animal Tasmanian Devil Ambassador Program pens able to house devils of an unknown health status (TDAP) without impacting on the healthy captive population in the existing facility, from which it will operate Initiated in 2013, and developed in close consultation independently. with ZAA, the TDAP was designed with the aim The main area of the Cressy site was also upgraded, of placing suitable animals in world-class zoos as with eight temporary animal pens replaced with “ambassadors”. After a successful pilot project, TDAP permanent structures. Overall, the Cressy site now has was expanded in 2015, with membership now including the potential to house a population of around 100 devils San Diego Zoo, Albuquerque BioPark, Los Angeles Zoo, compared to the previous 60. St Louis Zoo, Toledo Zoo and Fort Wayne Children’s Zoo in the United States; and Wellington Zoo, Auckland Zoo and Orana Wildlife Trust in New Zealand. Free Range Enclosures (FREs) Some of the Ambassador Program partner institutions have provided updates on their experiences during Disease-free devil groups are held in large free-range 2015. enclosures in Tasmania, known as FREs (or Devil The Albuquerque BioPark (ABQ) in the USA began Islands). The first Devil Island was built in 2008 at the year with three devils, two females and a male, Bicheno. Three more have been constructed between which arrived in December 2013. ABQ’s management 2011 and 2015 (Freycinet, Bridport and Tasmania Zoo). style includes a random rotation of the three animals In 2015, devils were kept in Bicheno and Tasmania Zoo (Makayla, Poppi and Sylar) between a large exhibit yard, Devil Islands for rewilding before release to Narawntapu an off exhibit yard and many indoor spaces. Logs and (females in Bicheno, males in Launceston). After the furniture are rotated between yards and back and forth release the Bicheno FRE was handed back to East Coast between the devils and wombats to keep their housing Natureworld for management, where it is now used for situation as dynamic as possible. night tours and to house older devils. In September 2015, ABQ welcomed a new female At the Bridport Devil Island four of the eight females devil, Mia, to their facility. After a short quarantine, bred, producing up to 11 offspring. At the time of Mia was introduced to the group over a social feed. writing, nine juveniles have been trapped, consisting of The introduction was successful and Mia integrated seven males and two females. Some of these juveniles into the group with ease. In 2015 ABQ also sent their will be released onto the Forestier Peninsula during primary devil keeper, Angela, to Australia for further their natural dispersal phase in 2016, while others will training with devils and other Australian native species. be sent to the mainland. In 2016 Bridport will be the Angela participated in a five-day training course at only breeding FRE. Trowunna Wildlife Park, working side by side with the staff in the handling and management of their nearly At the Freycinet Devil Island, five of the seven females 70 devils. In her time at Trowunna, Angela gained bred. The remaining two females were contracepted invaluable experience that can be directly applied as their genetics were no longer required in the IP. to the management of the devils in ABQ. While in Seven imps (four males and three females) had been Tasmania, Angela also had the chance to visit the trapped and identified at the time of writing. As with the Bridport Devil Island, some of the juveniles will be released onto the Forestier Peninsula in 2016, and others will be sent to the mainland. In 2016 the Freycinet Devil Island will house females intended for future rewilding.

2015 Annual Program Report Mia. 11 Freycinet FRE, the Devils@Cradle facility and the Vale quickly began delighting visitors. Today Orana has of Belvoir monitoring project, which monitors the wild three public devil talks a week which draw large crowds populations of devils and quolls. and have also become part of many school programs. In these interactions visitors are informed of the problems St Louis Zoo (USA) is putting the finishing touches devils face, how they can help and are made aware on their exhibit which will be ready to receive devils of the Save the Tasmanian Devil Program, of which in early 2016. In 2015, St Louis keepers attended the Orana is a very proud partner. Orana Wildlife Park has captive management training at Trowunna Wildlife made a commitment to fund a radio tracking collar as Park, with further training to be undertaken in 2016. an initial contribution to in-situ conservation efforts In 2015 Wellington Zoo (NZ) was not only an active towards saving the Tasmanian devil. player in TDAP, but also lent its support to the Auckland Zoo (NZ) is home to one female (Bean) and Tasmanian devil release on the Forestier Peninsula. three male (Morgan, Herod and Darcy) Tasmanian Wellington Zoo feels that being able to house and care devils. All four came from Healesville Zoo in April 2014. for an ambassador group of Tasmanian devils provides Auckland Zoo emphasises the important conservation them with the perfect platform to open the channels of message which the presence of devils in their zoo so communication with visitors so they can learn about strongly supports – the threat of DFTD to this amazing devils and their plight in the wild. Providing daily creature. The zoo hopes the public will fall in love with behavioural and environmental enrichment encourages devils and want to help them further. Auckland Zoo the devils to exhibit their full behavioural repertoire - produces a regular web series called “Zoo Tales” and engaging in social feeding, burrowing, nest building, in early 2016 the devil episode, entitled “Love our little and climbing. Wellington Zoo keepers have collaborated (Tasmanian) devils” will be available for viewing on closely with specialists from Trowunna Wildlife Park to YouTube. further develop knowledge in husbandry and natural history to ensure they uphold the highest standard In addition to these Ambassador partners, there is an of animal care. At the same time, they continuously existing collection of Tasmanian devils at Copenhagen refresh their talks, enrichment schedules and habitat Zoo (Denmark). During 2015, discussions aimed at design to encourage exciting and creative experiences developing the TDAP in Europe were held with the for visitors. European Aquarium and Zoo Association. Negotiations were completed late in the year, after which In November, Wellington Zoo Ranger Anna McKenzie- Copenhagen Zoo consented to be part of TDAP. This Pollock travelled to Tasmania to assist with the release helps to manage the European collection for maximum of 39 Tasmanian devils into the northern part of the conservation benefit in Australia. Forestier Peninsula with support from the Wellington Zoo Conservation Fund. Anna has had experience An invitation was extended to the Tokyo Zoological in animal translocations and is skilled in field Park Association in 2015 for involvement in the TDAP. conservation, so was able to assist with many aspects As a result there is likely to be closer engagement of the preparation for the release. The Wellington during 2016. Zoo Conservation Fund supports staff members to The TDAP is provided with suitable animals from work in field conservation projects to lend their skills the surplus production of the Insurance Population; where they’re most needed. Anna helped with setting therefore there is no breeding specifically to meet the up infrared cameras for post release monitoring, demand of the TDAP. Not only is there strong demand setting up supplementary feed sites and constructing on the Insurance Population from the re-wilding temporary holding pens. projects currently being delivered and planned, but the Orana Wildlife Park (NZ) opened the largest devil TDAP also has a continuing commitment to maintain exhibit outside Australia and welcomed their first the collections of current TDAP partners. Given these Tasmanian devils in December 2014. Despite the fact demands on the IP, the Program is unlikely to be these four animals had never been on public display, able to support new partnerships in the next year and they made the transition relatively easily and very attention is being given to consolidating the TDAP.

Save the Tasmanian Devil Program

12 FOCUS ON: Partnership with the Toledo Zoo

A monitoring program entitled “Persistence, extinction or recovery: the plight of the Tasmanian devil in the wild” has been established between the STDP and Tasmanian Devil Ambassador Program partner, Toledo Zoo. This project will assess the status of the devil across time and space in the Tasmanian landscape, in order to better inform future management practices for the species’ long-term recovery. There is evidence from north-east Tasmania, where the disease originated more than 20 years ago, that devil populations are persisting. The project supported by Toledo Zoo is a five-year program (which commenced in 2014, see p. 14) established to answer the question of whether devils are persisting at low levels, going extinct or recovering in the landscape. The 10 sites monitored around the State were chosen due to their spread across the State, and due to previous data being collected at these sites. By having many years of historical data, this allows a greater comparison over time of what is happening in devil populations that have had DFTD present for varying lengths of time. Toledo Zoo is contributing USD$500,000 over the next five years to the project.

STDP Biologist Dr Samantha Fox is the Team Leader for Monitoring and Management, and is now an adjunct biologist of the Toledo Zoo. The Zoo’s funding commitment is the biggest contribution the STDP has received outside government funding. In 2015, Toledo’s Associate Director visited Tasmania with a videographer to join Dr Fox and her team during the Takone Annual Monitoring trip. The group also joined the Narawntapu National Park Annual Monitoring team. Toledo Zoo’s funding will pay for eight of the ten annual monitoring sites, with the other two already being funded and managed by the University of Tasmania. Toledo’s Ambassador devils are two females, Tatiana and Orchid; and a male named Nugget.

2015 Annual Program Report

13 Monitoring and Management Sub-Program

The Monitoring and Management sub-program of competition from older females for mates. Seven manages threats to the devil in the wild, as well as sites showed high rates of fecundity in the number of monitoring devils across their natural range. females breeding; while the only non-diseased site, Woolnorth, has a very low fecundity rate (17 per cent). This issue will be studied further in 2016. Annual Monitoring Every year between April and July eight sites around Maria Island Update Tasmania are surveyed to update and increase knowledge on how wild devil populations are faring. Of Tasmanian devils have now been on Maria Island for these populations, seven have had DFTD for varying three years. The first release occurred in November amounts of time – it has been present at Fentonbury 2012, with 15 animals released; a further 13 were and Bronte for many years, but is yet to be detected released in October / November 2013. at the monitoring area on Woolnorth. The aim is to The introduction is considered to be very successful, ascertain the “status and trends” of these populations with good survival of founders from both releases, and in order to develop management plans for them into successful breeding over a number of generations. the future. In 2015 there were trapping trips to Maria Island in Each survey consists of seven nights of trapping January, April and July. effort. Trapped animals are individually marked with microchips, which results in a capture history for each In January, a total of 48 individuals were captured, devil. This enables the Program to estimate population including one 2013 island-born animal not previously numbers and investigate any changes in population captured, and seventeen 2014 island-born animals, processes, such as breeding output, over time. including 11 not previously captured. Of the 48 individuals, all but two animals from the 2013 release The 2015 Annual Monitoring trips revealed some were captured. Eleven of the thirteen surviving animals interesting changes to results from 2014. While some released in 2012 were captured, with the two not populations returned a very similar trend in number of captured accounted for on camera between October and animals, three populations were dramatically different. November 2014. The population estimate following the Fentonbury and Kempton both showed an increase January survey was 70. in the number of animals caught, while Takone had a On this trip ZAA provided a list of animals to be dramatic fall. These results show how important it is to targeted for contraception. The decision to contracept have several years of data to determine whether change specific animals was aimed at maintaining high genetic represents a trend or just year to year variability. diversity both on Maria Island and also within the wider 2015 was the first time that DFTD has been found at insurance population. Seven animals were successfully the Granville Harbour site, with four animals caught implanted with a slow release contraceptive. with disease and the number of animals caught There were many opportunities for very positive public dropping by one-third. Woolnorth is now the only interactions during the January trip. On four occasions Annual Monitoring site which still shows no sign of clients of commercial walking companies were able to DFTD. view devils either being processed and/or released as Diseased sites often have females breeding earlier than part of their tour. A number of visiting overnight or might be expected; this is known as precocial breeding. day tripping visitors also had a chance to view animals Most females in a healthy population do not start being released. breeding until they are two years old; however in a long A second trip was undertaken in April, which provided term diseased population females can start to breed in a population estimate of 79 devils. In total, between their first year due to extra food resources and the lack the January 2015 and April 2015 trapping trips, 74

Save the Tasmanian Devil Program

14 individual devils were captured and handled, all of habitat. To mitigate this, the Program, PWS and the which were in good health with minimal wounds. Friends of Maria Island group constructed artificial Therefore it was felt that the population estimate was penguin “igloos” close to the water’s edge in known fairly accurate in the range provided. historic areas of Little Penguin use. The July monitoring trip ran for six trap nights and five Island-wide camera surveys are also conducted and new animals were caught. Seven pouch young from have shown that despite marked seasonal trends in the seven females were noted. When animals captured with visitation rate of some species to cameras, they are still pouch young in April were included in calculations, found at the same number of locations across the island and assuming all females had been trapped, it could be compared to pre-devil release surveys. estimated that there were up to 27 pouch young. Discussions will be held in 2016 about future All of the females who received contraceptive implants options for managing the Maria Island devil in January 2015 were captured and assessed on the population, including contraception, further genetic July trip. All had pouch condition showing they had supplementation and removal of animals for other not gone through oestrous; therefore the contraceptive projects. This will be in conjunction with continued implants were working. impact monitoring. The next trapping trip on Maria Island is scheduled for January 2016. Some of the older animals from the original releases have begun to die as they reach their life expectancy (around six years). This will prove to be an interesting change on the island, as many of the released animals were quite familiar and comfortable around people, but it is expected that island born animals will be shyer of human interaction. Two original release males presented with health issues when trapped on the island, and were euthanised on welfare grounds. Some captive bred animals continued to make themselves quite visible – particularly “Nutella”, who raised her second litter around the Penitentiary buildings in 2015. As with previous years it was necessary to warn visitors not to leave clothing items around, as Nutella and other devils quite happily add them to their nesting material. The potential for devils to impact on other species and ecological processes on the island continued to be monitored in 2015. Specific surveys for Cape Barren geese indicated devils have had a notable impact on this introduced species, and have prevented successful breeding on the island since the 2014 season. By contrast, the surveys indicated that Tasmanian native hen numbers have been increasing since the surveys were started in 2010, and the hens successfully raise young in the presence of devils. Surveys also indicate that devils may have impacted on the number of Little Penguins breeding in the Darlington area, largely due to open and vulnerable

2015 Annual Program Report

15 FOCUS ON: Understanding the conservation status and population trends of wild devils

Understanding the “status and trends” of wild populations is pivotal to informing the extent and method of recovery action. With that in mind, during 2015 data from spotlight surveys, roadkill reports, a regional camera survey conducted in the North East and capture-mark- release surveys from nine sites around the state was analysed. Data from “capture-mark-release” surveys (a common method to estimate population size) are the most detailed, and the STDP is still undertaking the analysis of devil density through time across the nine sites. Despite this it can be reported that devils still occur across all monitored sites, although ongoing small decline within at least two sites cannot be ruled out. The drivers for small fluctuations in yearly density are also being investigated in order to identify potential management tools for increasing population density. The analysis approach used allows for the small changes that have occurred in trap effort over the years, and allows a direct comparison of devil density across time and space. This means that a ‘normal’ range of devil density in unmanaged long-term diseased sites can be defined, and therefore the Program will have a benchmark against which to compare the success of recovery actions at managed sites. While analyses are ongoing, they have already provided a level of confidence that the wild recovery work being undertaken is the appropriate direction for the Program to take.

Save the Tasmanian Devil Program

16 Wild Management

Wild Devil Recovery Project Stony Head population is planned for August 2016 and the final reinforcement trial planned for Mt. William There are three key activities which make up the Wild National Park (wukalina) in early 2017. Devil Recovery project. Prior to the September release, the regular Annual As part of the North East devil population assessment, Monitoring survey of Narawntapu in April captured 15 detailed surveys at a landscape scale were undertaken devils, two of which had DTFD – the same numbers using surveillance cameras. These built on existing as were caught the previous year. While persistence surveys from Annual Monitoring (see p. 14) and the of the devil population in the wild at Narawntapu most recent occupancy survey conducted in February was encouraging, samples from the devils trapped in 2011. The 2015 survey replicated the design and camera 2014 showed that there was a worrying loss of genetic placement of the 2011 survey. diversity at the Park. Therefore, the devils released in September were not only part of a very exciting Thirty cameras were placed for 20 nights, with lures, translocation trial, but are also assisting with the baits and batteries refreshed after 10 nights. Of the improvement of the genetic diversity of the population. twenty nine sites surveyed (the number was reduced following the theft of one of the cameras), devil Trapping trips occurred at two, four, eight and twelve presence was established at twenty. Presence and weeks post-release, with the principle aim being to absence was similar to the 2011 survey, with only minor ensure that the released devils were in good condition. differences. Additionally, devils were monitored passively using remote sensing cameras and remote microchip Site occupancy analyses indicated that an estimated scanners. Over time, the number of devils seen 67 per cent of the sites were occupied by devils in both on the cameras and scanners and trapped on the 2011 and 2015. These estimates take into account trapping trips dropped off until there were just three sites where devils may have been present but were not detected, based on their recorded visitation rate at other sites. By mapping out the total number of individuals captured at each site, a total of 45 devils were identified and individual devils were not recorded moving between camera locations. Three individuals were visibly diseased. Analysis of these results is continuing, and the information gained will be used to inform management as to the number of animals required to augment the wild population. Strategies to rebuild wild populations aims to develop approaches to bolster diseased devil populations, including reinforcing long-term diseased populations. The Wild Devil Recovery project was created to undertake several trial reinforcements to determine the most successful strategy for returning captive devils to the wild. The release of captive bred devils at Narawntapu National Park in September 2015 was the first of these. The Program has commenced work on Defence Force land at Stony Head in the State’s north, with initial trapping to assess devil numbers occurring in June 2014 and July 2015. The reinforcement of the

2015 Annual Program Report

17 males still left in the Park, and one male known to be outcomes will be reviewed and assessed for the living outside the Park. All the animals trapped were potential implementation of the concept of Wild Devil healthy and had put on weight. The capture of the Management on a larger scale. male outside the Park confirmed Program suspicions that although not all devils released are being seen regularly, the likelihood is that they have settled nearby, just outside the area being monitored. Four of the devils released at Narawntapu were found killed on the road in the first few weeks post release; however there have been no further reports since that time. Following these deaths, a strong partnership was formed with the West Tamar Council, resulting in the installation of a number of roadkill awareness signs and ongoing discussions about further mitigation. Field trials of immunisation viability in devils aims to field test a vaccine developed by the Menzies Institute of Peninsula Devil Conservation Project Medical Research to provide wild devils with resistance and immunity to DFTD. As was well documented Last year’s report described the work that was in local, national and international media, the first being done to establish the isolation of the Forestier field trial commenced in September 2015 with the Peninsula prior to this release. Work on the devil-proof release of 20 devils (19 of which were immunised) into fence along Annie St, Dunalley was completed in April Narawntapu National Park. 2014 and the intertidal fence and gates were completed In collaboration with the Menzies Institute for Medical in October 2015. Work has also progressed on further Research, the release of devils into Narawntapu measures that may be needed to augment the barrier. National Park is also a field trial which aims to In between the canal and the devil fence is a “buffer provide a proof of principle for an immunisation zone”. To monitor the buffer zone, cameras have been protocol currently being developed to provide devils installed which send instant SMS reports (images) with immunity to DFTD. The project will involve the upon detecting an animal. This method allows for an assessment of the performance of immunised devils immediate response in the case of the detected animal released into an area known to have disease. The being a devil. trial will take place over two years and will provide In November 2015, thirty nine captive bred devils from information to assess and modify the immunisation STDP partners Devil Ark, Trowunna, Devils@Cradle protocol for optimal results. The results of vaccine and Healesville Sanctuary, as well as from DPIPWE’s testing undertaken in the laboratory prior to the facilities, were released at four separate locations on a field trial were published by the Menzies team property at Dunalley. in the international journal Vaccine, in a paper entitled, “Evidence for induction of humoral and Following the release, twelve of the released devils cytotoxicimmune responses against devil facial were confirmed as roadkilled up to 31 December 2015, tumour disease cells in Tasmanian devils (Sarcophilus with hotspot areas identified around Murdunna, (a harrissii) immunized with kill cell preparations”. small town approximately nine kms from the release site) and near Eaglehawk Neck (approximately 15 kms Monitoring trips will continue to be undertaken by the from release). In response, driver awareness signs were Program at regular intervals in 2016 to gain more detail erected, “virtual fencing” is planned for installation on how the animals are faring. near the Murdunna site in early 2016 and there has Following the completion of these projects, the been significant media messaging. At the time of publication no further reports have been received.

Save the Tasmanian Devil Program

18 The first trapping trip post-release to assess health protection system warns animals when a vehicle is and presence of released devils was undertaken in the approaching at night. The Program partnered with second week of December. Fourteen of the released Wildlife Safety Solutions to trial the technology as animals were trapped, an encouraging result, with most part of a tourist road project with the DSG. The trial, devils being found in good health. Some of the animals conducted over two years at Arthur River, showed were already looking leaner and fitter as a result of a significant reduction in roadkill deaths for all some wild living. One devil had to be taken to the vet Tasmanian wildlife. for surgery on a large wound on his back; but the good When activated by vehicle headlights, an alert is news is that he recovered well and now receives care transmitted to nearby devices, which produce a high- and attention from keepers in Launceston. pitched noise and a flash of light to try to alert wildlife The Program continues to receive reports from the and scare them off the road. The trial of the system public of devil sightings on the Forestier, which is in the Arthur River area reduced roadkill numbers adding to knowledge of where the devils are venturing. from approximately 280 to fewer than 50 over the These and other observations show that some of eighteen months of the trial (you can read more about the devils are ranging far and wide, exploring their this trial at http://www.wildlifesafetysolutions.com. new home before finding somewhere to settle. It is au/#!casestudy/ cf45) expected that the majority of devils will settle in the The Program used funds received from the Tourism best habitat around the release site. Surveillance Industry Council of Tasmania via the Save the cameras at supplementary feed stations indicate that a Tasmanian Devil Appeal to purchase a further two good number of devils have stayed in the vicinity and kilometres of fencing, which in the wake of the deaths appreciate the extra food being provided to make their of a number of the Forestier release devils will be transition to wild living a little easier. installed on the Arthur Highway, south of Dunalley, in early 2016. The installation work will be undertaken free of charge by Tasmanian surfacing company, Roadkill Project Roadways.

The Save the Tasmanian Devil Program started The Devil Hotline, originally established for public the Roadkill Project in 2009 to help determine how roadkill reporting, increasingly receives phone significant the threat of roadkill is to Tasmanian devil calls concerning a broader variety of human/devil populations, particularly those populations affected by interactions. These calls often involve the discovery of DFTD. Since that time the project has slowly expanded devils living under houses in semi-urban areas, most and the value of the data that is collected more fully frequently during summer when females are denning realised. More recently, the public utilisation of the and weaning their young. Just one example of a happy phone number provided to report devil roadkill (the outcome for home owner and devil is the story of the “Devil Hotline” 0427 733 511) has expanded. Claude Road Orphans – see “Focus On”, below. In 2015, the Devil Hotline received 361 reports of The Devil Hotline also contributed to the discovery individual devils roadkilled around the state. To of DFT2, with diseased devils reported in public calls assist in making best use of the information gathered for assistance. The progress of DFTD westward has through roadkill reporting, the STDP and the also been tracked through the Devil Hotline, with the Transport Services Division of the Department of State Zeehan record in 2014 and the first report on the West Growth (DSG) established a group that meets regularly Coast in 2015 being identified through this source. The to discuss ways the two Departments can work together Devil Hotline not only provides an invaluable insight to mitigate roadkill. into disease distribution and the potential extent of non-disease impacts on devils, it is also one of the During 2015 “Virtual Fencing” emerged as a highly Program’s best avenues for high quality and positive effective tool against roadkill. This active electronic interactions with members of the community.

2015 Annual Program Report

19 FOCUS ON: Claude Road Orphans

Claude Road is a small town south of Sheffield in at Forthside for hand rearing. An interesting discovery north-west Tasmania. In late October, the Devil Hotline during all this activity was that the devils had damaged received a call from Bob who, along with his wife, had or stolen a number of fishing rods and stored them seen a devil poking its nose out from under their shed. under the floor, including one worth over $300! Sadly, the following day a devil was found dead nearby. At the time of writing, the imps were in perfect Upon request from the Hotline operator, staff from condition and weighed around 4 kg. Staff the STDP’s Cressy facility followed up with Bob, who microchipped and biopsied the imps, with the relevant advised that the devil was female, and appeared to have data entered into the Natural Values Atlas. The plan is active teats. Given the time of year, this meant it was for release in early 2016 back “home” in Claude Road. highly likely that there were still dependent young in the near vicinity. Once again, a strong positive outcome from this experience was the opportunity it provided for PWS staff to get hands-on experience in dealing with a live devil issue. One of the PWS staff to attend noted “It was sad to see the dead mother devil so riddled with tumours; it gives an indication of just how tough devils are. I took the time to look at the body and (we) checked out the line in the canine teeth and the teats that had been suckled. So, good to be able to put a bit of tuition into practice.” While we weren’t able to do anything for their mother, the successful rescue and rearing of these imps ensures that her bloodline continues in the wild in Tasmania; and hopefully in a year’s time they will be adding more imps to the population as well. But we trust their Two Program staff, accompanied by two colleagues thieving days are behind them! from the PWS’ Leven Field Centre (who had recently received devil response training) made their way to Bob’s property and examined the animal. The young adult female had no injures but did suffer from numerous “lumps and bumps”, particularly around the pouch region. She also appeared to have three active teats. Two traps and a scout camera were set; and one imp was trapped on the first night. A further three traps were set, successfully capturing a second imp. Only one imp was seen on camera, on the first night, and a subsequent three nights of trapping proved fruitless. Both imps were male, and in fair condition, weighing 1.3 kg and 1.6 kg. The imps were taken to a carer

Save the Tasmanian Devil Program

20 Research and Collaboration

Partnerships between the Save the Tasmanian Devil cytogenetics. During 2015, 115 animals were tested to Program and research institutions have played an confirm the presence or absence of Devil Facial Tumour important role in furthering knowledge of DFTD. Disease. They also provide access to a wide range of resources The recent appearance of DFT2 in a number of wild and facilities and provide much needed support to the devils has highlighted once again the importance of Program’s day-to-day activities. reliable and accurate diagnostic procedures in disease A number of institutions are engaged in significant management. Tissue culture is currently the most research programs, all of which support collaborative reliable method of differentiating DFT1 from DFT2; research with the Program. This group includes however this is a time consuming process with results the Animal Health Laboratory at Mt Pleasant in not being available for a week or longer. A new PCR Launceston, which has a key role in providing test developed by Elizabeth Murchison’s group at diagnostic support to the Program and external Cambridge University is being established at the Animal collaborators, monitoring the evolution of DFTD, Health Laboratory. This new test can differentiate providing laboratory support for collaborative research, DFT1 from DFT2 much more rapidly and may also have and conducting research into disease prevention and the potential to act as a pre-clinical diagnostic test treatment. after further testing and development. AHL’s Tissue Culture Laboratory also supplies cultures of DFT cell to The Program provides some direct financial support research collaborators in Australia and overseas. to major projects conducted by the Menzies Institute for Medical Research and the University of Sydney, and significant in-kind support to all research partners. In addition, the Program enables collaborative research Menzies Institute of Medical Research with any suitable institution that can demonstrate relevance and justify access to its resources. The relationship between the Menzies Institute and the Program has grown closer over the past several years, with collaboration between the two parties on projects such as ARC Linkage grants to develop a Animal Health Laboratory vaccine for DFTD, field trials for the vaccine and of (Mt Pleasant) course the discovery of a second facial tumour disease in devils, DFT2. The Menzies Institute, in cooperation DPIPWE’s Animal Health Laboratory (AHL) team at with Cambridge University, undertook extensive testing Mt Pleasant examines samples such as blood, faeces and examination of the tumours and cells of animals and tissue from wild and captive devils, and devil trapped by the STDP, and at the time of writing eight carcasses (including those killed on roads). Samples cases of the new type of DFTD had been detected. are tested to monitor the health of animals within the captive population and to confirm the diagnosis of DFTD in wild devils. During 2015 the AHL processed 366 submissions of samples from Tasmanian devils, University of Tasmania which constituted testing of 471 individual samples. The largest cohort of samples comprised 245 blood New infectious diseases and serum samples tested in AHL’s Clinical Pathology generally have devastating Laboratory. Most of these samples were collected effects on populations of as part of the routine health surveillance checks animals, as did DFTD in performed on captive animals, or from those collected the first decade after its to monitor the health of insurance populations such emergence, leading to as that on Maria Island. Diagnostic testing on diseased concerns of extinction risk. animals is conducted through histopathology testing A team of two postdoctoral and in some cases by use of tissue cultures and researchers, four PhD

2015 Annual Program Report

21 students and Honours students led by Associate Devil Island Project Inc. Professor Menna Jones at the University of Tasmania is studying rapid evolution in wild devils and how the Devil Island Project Inc. has devils interact physiologically with the tumour. They worked with the Program are working at six sites across the breadth of disease to deliver projects of direct outbreak sites across Tasmania, including in areas benefit to the conservation where the disease has been for 15-20 years. Well known of Tasmanian devils. Over devil researcher, ARC Future Fellow and UTas Associate the years, the Tasmanian Professor Menna Jones, has been studying the devils on Government and Devil Island the Freycinet Peninsula for 17 years now, since before Project Inc. have co-funded the DFTD epidemic was identified. the construction of four Free In an international, transdisciplinary collaboration, the Range Enclosures (FREs), also known as ‘Devil Islands’. team at the University of Tasmania and their colleagues Devil Island Project Inc. is currently working with the are investigating how evolutionary selection on the Program to develop further projects that contribute to devil, and evolution in the tumour, interact to create species recovery for the Tasmanian devil. variation in transmission of DFTD and susceptibility of individual devils to becoming infected. The research, funded by a $2.5m US National Science Foundation Internships and volunteers grant, involves collaborators in genomics research with Andrew Storfer and Paul Hohenlohe at Washington The Save the Tasmanian Devil Program has State University and University of Idaho, with study taken advantage of highly skilled graduates and of tumour evolution by Liz Murchison at Cambridge undergraduates wishing to donate their time and University and epidemiological and evolutionary knowledge to work with the Program and contribute modelling by Hamish McCallum at Griffith University. to saving the Tasmanian devil. The “Intern Program” really commenced in 2013, when a student from the Netherlands repeatedly and earnestly requested the Molecular Research Advisory Panel chance to work with the Program. His tenure was (MRAP) such a success that the idea of regularly accepting interns and long-term volunteer students has been In 2015, eleven MRAP applications were supported, in enthusiastically adopted by the Program. In order addition to ongoing work from collaborators at Menzies to be selected for a volunteer position, it is preferred and the Welcome Trust Sanger Institute. that applicants have a degree of experience with wild animals and can volunteer at least four weeks of their The following intuitions have been supported to receive time. Interns are usually working on a project geared material from the STDP bio-archive: towards their degree. • QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute In 2015, the Program hosted interns from the United • University of Southampton States of America, New Zealand, Belgium, France and Australia. These students undertook such diverse tasks • Royal Veterinary College, London as data entry, trapping, scribing, transportation of • University of Adelaide devils, cleaning pens, feeding devils, as well as working on their own projects as required by their school or • University of Tasmania University. Some of the interesting work done by • University of Sydney, Faculty of Veterinary interns in 2015 is described below. Science Georgia (“Georgie”) Meredith, a third year • Washington State University and the Fred undergraduate student from the University of Hutchinson Cancer Research Center

Save the Tasmanian Devil Program

22 Queensland, undertook a four month internship with will be with the Program for 18 months. In order to the Program as part of a Bachelor of Environmental maximise the success of reintroductions, the Program Management. Georgie planned and completed a collaborated with the San Diego Zoo Global Institute project on determining a minimum camera trap for Conservation Research to conduct a series of density for estimations of Tasmanian devil home range experimental manipulations designed to understand size. Georgie spent time on the Tasman Peninsula the devil’s use of olfactory signals. Elizabeth is San undertaking a high intensity camera survey – deploying Diego’s intern for this project. Once the olfactory 66 cameras, and gathering data for six weeks. She also signals were identified, Elizabeth used them as tools to assisted with a camera survey trip on Maria Island, manipulate post-release establishment, reduce social chytrid fungus frog surveys in the North West and a conflict, and dampen dispersal from the release site. trapping trip at Narawntapu. Georgie was lucky with The work trialled familiarisation of resident devils the timing of her internship, as she witnessed the with release candidates through scat manipulation, two releases of devils into Narawntapu and onto the prior to the release at Narawntapu National Park. Forestier Peninsula. Changes in behaviour pre- and post-manipulation among the resident devils were monitored, as well as dispersal of the released devils post-reintroduction. A second experiment looked at whether simulating the presence of other devils by setting up latrine sites prior to reintroducing devils would be enough to dampen dispersal post-release on the Forestier Peninsula. Future directions for this project include conducting vehicle aversion trials in captivity as a potential pre- release training tool and trialling the use of acclimation cages as a form of soft-release to further dampen dispersal. Inga Neunaber came to Tasmania on a program offered by her university in Germany, which provides students the opportunity to study and work overseas (even paying for it!). As Inga’s studies in Germany came to an end in 2015, she linked her work with the Program to her Bachelor thesis, which she will complete in Tasmania. Inga worked to make a comparison between devils released on Maria Island to those released in Narawntapu National Park, their dietary habits and changes in weight. Inga took part in the regular Amber Sonka, an undergraduate student at the trapping trips in Narawntapu throughout 2015. University of Washington double-majoring in Political Additionally, there are several other projects in the Science and Environmental Studies, embarked on a state in which Inga has participated. Of these, trips to semester-long study abroad program based in Cairns, Maria Island and the Forestier Peninsula are on the top Queensland. For her Independent Study Project (ISP) of her list of most enjoyable. she came to Tasmania to study roadkill mitigation techniques using the Program’s efforts on this issue as a case study. While she was with the Program she participated in the devil translocation event on the Forestier Peninsula. Elizabeth Reid-Wainscoat arrived in February 2015 and

2015 Annual Program Report

23 FOCUS ON: Tools and Tech

Biodiversity conservation continually presents new challenges, yet conservation resources are limited, and funding for applied conservation research projects more so. The origins of the Tools and Tech project grew from the realisation that there are a number of management actions required in order to achieve the Program’s aim of creating “an enduring and ecologically functional population of devils living wild in Tasmania”. These, over the years, have included development and maintenance of an insurance population, releases onto islands/fenced sites, annual monitoring of wild populations and recovery of wild on a broader scale were needed to allow ongoing devil populations. genetic management. Previously-developed tests were In order for the insurance population (IP) to be unsuitable for this level of testing because of the low successfully managed, an understanding of “founder” genetic diversity of devils. Therefore an “assay” (a test (i.e. the wild devils brought into the IP to breed) to determine the components of a substance) was relationships was needed. Modelling indicated developed which was able to do such testing. that inbreeding could increase in the short-term if From these research requirements, Tools and Tech was founder devils were closely related; this was a concern conceived, an umbrella project to bring such projects that needed to be addressed. Therefore ZAA and together, with the aim of bridging the gap between the University of Sydney formed a collaboration to the lab bench and forest floor. Importantly, Tools determine founder relatedness. At the same time, and Tech utilises a collaborative approach for applied Maria Island was being established as an off shore management of the devil in the Tasmanian landscape. insurance population, and so parentage analyses This approach sees all sides contributing equally and allows the incorporation of quality scientific data into management practice in real time. Tools and Tech has proved successful, and the project proponents are commencing discussions with other research and management teams in order to establish similar projects with further Australian native fauna. The Tools and Tech project has been underway since 2011 and will continue in its present form until 2018.

Save the Tasmanian Devil Program

24 Case Study: The origins of the Program: Nick Mooney and Marco Restani

Well known wildlife biologist Nick special project and in 1996 he was first to take photos of Mooney describes the origins of the grossly diseased devils at Mount William National Park. Save the Tasmanian Devil Program in After quick looks at the photos, pathologists told me it his own unique style. was likely only a local problem, such is the general faith in “passive monitoring”. However, I recalled the 1989 It’s a bit sad really that it took a disease that frightened mistake when the parasite Trichinella was declared an people (cancer) and got sympathy (ugly) to transform outbreak, based on its discovery in a long frozen quoll public attitudes to Tasmanian devils. Reading collected from Cradle Mountain. Hundreds of local contemporary literature, one might think devils were animals, including many devils and quolls, were killed always adored – but far from it. From the earliest days in testing and until more sensible sampling showed the of settlement, local persecution was intense. parasite to be very widespread. The lesson that “absence The very public efforts of Save the Tasmanian Devil of evidence is not evidence of absence”, had clearly not Program staff and their huge supporting cast: sunk in. Departmental managers and colleagues, donors, Some months after Christo’s report I did some trapping volunteers, some politicians, sympathetic media and at Mount William, where devils had previously been academics and students (mainly from UTAS) are of incredibly abundant, but caught very few devils and course responsible for the renaissance. Let’s hope the only youngsters; what Dr Menna Jones later showed to change stays. But, in all this the wobbly start to the be the disease “footprint”. Again I was assured it was whole response has been largely forgotten. likely just a local problem. From the early 1990s, some farmers in the far North A few years later Menna got the first trap record of East had commented about a lack of devils; and DFTD during her devil studies on the East Coast and even when state-wide spotlight surveys showed local submitted them to the Mt Pleasant Animal Health declines, barely an eyebrow was raised. Unprecedented Laboratory (AHL) for examination. Those seemed the abundance of devils through the 1980s and early ’90s, earliest physical samples until the AHL revisited their it seems, bred its own complacency. (Indeed, the first archives and found they had examined a devil from reference to disease as a risk to the devil came in a 1997 Waterhouse, with what would now be known as DFTD, article in Wildlife Australia by Danielle Wood). in 1997. Enter Christo Baars, Netherlander, gentleman- The public knows Menna well through her industrious plumber. When he first visited Tasmania in the early efforts studying devils and quolls, and Christo from 1990s we collided and quickly became friends. He his famous photos but not Dr Marco Restani, another was innovative, energetic and simply the best in situ important early player. wildlife photographer I have met. He took on devils as a Marco is an American, then on staff at St Cloud University, Minnesota (now research leader at the Audubon Society). We knew each other via raptor research and he visited in December 2002 to see our eagles, hawks and falcons and come devil trapping. I was in the thick of research on the taking of proposed fox baits by devils, one study site being the Tom Gibson Reserve at Epping – nowhere near where any DFTD was recorded. (By the by, one reason I advocated an aggressive response to reports of foxes was to guard the devils’ niche in the face of DFTD.) I was trapping devils to check their whiskers for rhodamine B (a biotracer dye) ingested from the non-toxic baits I had laid. With

2015 Annual Program Report

25 us was Barrie Wells, a very experienced clinical vet. four sections, choosing ten grids at random, within each enough minor roads and tracks (about 10 km) What we caught shocked us to the core and I will never to set our traps for one night, and in autumn 2003 off forget the horror of seeing that first devil with advanced we went. Frantic work, each day checking traps and DFTD. We caught 23 devils, seven of them badly devils, cleaning, bleaching, packing, travel to a new site, diseased. Barrie made some early calls: a cancer likely get permissions, rebaiting and setting, then finding caused by a retro virus, highly infectious between devils somewhere to eat and sleep. All went swimmingly with but almost certainly not infectious to other species, no accidents or breakages – although we got bogged, including us, and probably fatal to all devils getting it – bamboozled and lost (Marco will not let me forget the all true except the link to a virus. All hail Baz! same Lilydale sign we saw three times in a row). These finds radically extended the known DFTD Aside from the disease, it was “serious fun”. One range. It would seem this spectacular disease in a evening setting near Gowrie Park, there was Marco, common, large iconic species had been missed, despite bait string in mouth, wild-eyed, bait in one hand, knife perhaps being over a quarter of the State when first in another; and I, swearing, trying to wrench a jammed photographed. So much for passive monitoring. trap from the back seat – and the mobile phone rang. Stupidly, I answered and got “Good evening, this is Simon Ponsenby from the BBC...” in spiffing English. So incongruous with our dynamic scene was the elegant voice that we both burst out laughing and had to ring back to apologise. Simon was great and got his interview. Marco had to return to his university but flew back again at his own expense at the first gap in his work to finish, helped by Linda Overend of the Parks and Wildlife Service. The survey was surprisingly effective, based on what we caught compared to what we expected to catch (considering past trapping in such habitats and normal Marco Restani. population demographics); then applying Menna’s disease footprint and later information on disease distribution. We got only two false positives for well- Marco had studied the bubonic plague’s effects on established disease, one of which was mistaking a devil burrowing owls via the elimination of prairie dog with layers of scars at Narawntapu as “probably diseased” colonies (essential refugia for these birds), and so knew (a field judgment later corrected by pathology). something of the ecology of wildlife disease. I described Menna’s view of the disease footprint and Marco promptly suggested we do a statewide, snapshot survey. He raced back to the USA to meet some commitments, then came straight back. Coincidently, I had been developing the new PVC devil traps and they too, were ready to go. I approached my boss for special funding and was told I could use my time and a vehicle and get some more traps made but there was no more money. Marco to the rescue! Out of his own pocket he hired a Bluegum trailer (good ol’ # 65) and we stretched the budget to 30 traps (thanks Dave Ralph). We divided the state into

Save the Tasmanian Devil Program

26 We intended repeating the survey in five and ten years, but events overtook us and the basic data was subsumed into larger databases, e.g. as published in Hawkins et al 2006 (Hawkins C., Baars C., Hesterman H., Hocking G., Jones M., Lazenby B., Mann D., Mooney N., Pemberton D., Pyecroft S.M, Restani M. and J. Wiersma (2006). Emerging disease and population decline of an island endemic, the Tasmanian devil Sarcophilus harrisii. Biological Conservation 131. Pp 307–324).

The original Christo Baars photo.

monitoring as the Animal Health Laboratory cranked up their diagnostic activities. One of my first actions to keep momentum was to design and build cheap, temporary pens (some still going fine 12 years later!) and get diseased mothers with pouched young (and a control group) to see if vertical transmission occurs via motherhood: it doesn’t. Nick Mooney. Getting a huge amount of money for a non-threatened species (devils were merely “wholly protected” then) Armed with new records greatly extending the known was an amazing precedent, missed by most and almost range of DFTD, I did a briefing note to the Minister, unthinkable nowadays, more’s the pity. sending it up the chain. Unfortunately the final Anyway, that’s part of the story of how the Program version of the note downplayed the disease risks, came about. advising that the Department could cope with current resources. However, the press were already on to the disease and I did a front-pager. Early one morning I received a call at home from then Premier Mr Jim Bacon, asking was it really as bad as described. “At least,” I said and he replied “Have a think about what is needed.” Perchance, Mr Bacon had in his portfolios the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery. Dr David Pemberton, now the (very effective) manager of STDP, was then the curator of vertebrates at the Museum; and so in part because of David, Mr Bacon was familiar with the grim thylacine story and declared that was not to be repeated with devils on his watch. David, my manager and I came up with a $1.3 million program and the Save the Tasmanian Devil Program was born. We employed a small band of specialists and talented youngsters and we launched into mapping and

2015 Annual Program Report

27 Publications

Over 25 publications directly related to devils were References published in 2015. More than half of these publications Brix, L., Hansen, M.J., Kelly, A., Bertelsen, M.F., addressed specific areas of research that increase our Bojesen, A.M., 2015. Occurrence of Pasteurellaceae understanding of devils and/or DFTD. Some of this bacteria in the oral cavity of the Tasmanian devil research was directly applicable to devil recovery. For (Sarcophilus harrisii). J. Zoo Wildl. Med. 46, 241–245. example Kreiss et al. (2015) were able to promote an immune response to DFTD in five out of six devils Cheng, Y., Fox, S., Pemberton, D., Hogg, C., Papenfuss, that they vaccinated, which is an important step A.T., Belov, K., 2015. The Tasmanian devil microbiome– towards development of a vaccine. Other studies implications for conservation and management. provided invaluable information on reference levels Microbiome 3, 76. doi:10.1186/s40168-015-0143-0 for blood (Peck et al. 2015) and immune genes in the Cui, J., Cheng, Y., Belov, K., 2015a. Diversity in the Toll- milk transcriptome of devils (Hawavisenti et al. 2015) like receptor genes of the Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus thereby defining a normal or reference range for harrisii). Immunogenetics 67, 195–201. doi:10.1007/ comparison. s00251-014-0823-0 At least two studies presented research results with Fancourt, B.A., Hawkins, C.E., Cameron, E.Z., Jones, potentially important implications for management of M.E., Nicol, S.C., 2015. Devil Declines and Catastrophic the Insurance Population: Hogg et al. (2015) showed Cascades: Is Mesopredator Release of Feral Cats that wild born female devils produce more offspring Inhibiting Recovery of the Eastern Quoll? Plos One 10, compared to captive born devils, and Cheng et al. UNSP e0119303. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0119303 (2015) found the microbiome (i.e. the microorganisms living on and in devils) of captive devils differed from Gallus, S., Hallstrom, B.M., Kumar, V., Dodt, W.G., that of wild devils. A list of publications presented in Janke, A., Schumann, G.G., Nilsson, M.A., 2015. peer-reviewed scientific journals in 2015 is presented Evolutionary Histories of Transposable Elements in the below. Genome of the Largest Living Marsupial Carnivore, the Tasmanian Devil. Mol. Biol. Evol. 32, 1268–1283. doi:10.1093/molbev/msv017 Grueber, C.E., Peel, E., Gooley, R., Belov, K., 2015. Genomic insights into a contagious cancer in Tasmanian devils. Trends Genet. 31, 528–535. doi:10.1016/j.tig.2015.05.001 Hamede, R.K., Pearse, A.M., Swift, K., Barmuta, L.A., Murchison, E.P., Jones, M.E., 2015. Transmissible cancer in Tasmanian devils: localized lineage replacement and host population response. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 282, 20151468–20151468. Hayashi, K., Sugisaki, M., Kino, K., Ishikawa, T., Kawashima, S., Amemiya, T., 2015. Morphological Characteristics of the Temporomandibular Joint in the Pouch Young of the Tasmanian Devil. Anat. Histol. Embryol. 44, 157–160. doi:10.1111/ahe.12118 Hewavisenti, R.V., Morris, K.M., O’Meally, D., Cheng, Y., Papenfuss, A.T., Belov, K., 2016. The identification of immune genes in the milk transcriptome of the Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii). Peerj 4, e1569. doi:10.7717/peerj.1569

Save the Tasmanian Devil Program

28 Hogg, C.J., Ivy, J.A., Srb, C., Hockley, J., Lees, C., Peck, S., Corkrey, R., Hamede, R., Jones, M., Canfield, Hibbard, C., Jones, M., 2015. Influence of genetic P., 2015. Hematologic and serum biochemical reference provenance and birth origin on productivity of the intervals for wild Tasmanian devils (Sarcophilus Tasmanian devil insurance population. Conserv. Genet. harrisii). Vet. Clin. Pathol. Am. Soc. Vet. Clin. Pathol. 16, 1465–1473. doi:10.1007/s10592-015-0754-9 44, 519–29. doi:10.1111/vcp.12304 Hollings, T., McCallum, H., Kreger, K., Mooney, N., Phalen, D.N., Frimberger, A.E., Peck, S., Pyecroft, S., Jones, M., 2015. Relaxation of risk-sensitive behaviour Harmsen, C., Lola, S., Moore, A.S., 2015. Doxorubicin of prey following disease-induced decline of an apex and carboplatin trials in Tasmanian devils (Sarcophilus predator, the Tasmanian devil. Proc. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. harrisii) with Tasmanian devil facial tumor disease. Vet. 282, 20150124. doi:10.1098/rspb.2015.0124 J. 206, 312–316. doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.10.013 Hunter, D.O., Britz, T., Jones, M., Letnic, M., 2015. Pye, R.J., Pemberton, D., Tovar, C., Tubio, J.M.C., Reintroduction of Tasmanian devils to mainland Dun, K.A., Fox, S., Darby, J., Hayes, D., Knowles, Australia can restore top-down control in ecosystems G.W., Kreiss, A., Siddle, H.V.T., Swift, K., Lyons, where dingoes have been extirpated. Biol. Conserv. 191, A.B., Murchison, E.P., Woods, G.M., 2016. A second 428–435. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2015.07.030 transmissible cancer in Tasmanian devils. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 113, 374–379. doi:10.1073/ Ingles, E.D., Deakin, J.E., 2015. Global DNA pnas.1519691113 Methylation patterns on marsupial and devil facial tumour chromosomes. Mol. Cytogenet. 8, 74. Siddle, H.V., Kaufman, J., 2015. Immunology of doi:10.1186/s13039-015-0176-x naturally transmissible tumours. Immunology 144, 11–20. doi:10.1111/imm.12377 Kreiss, A., Brown, G.K., Tovar, C., Lyons, A.B., Woods, G.M., 2015. Evidence for induction of humoral and Ujvari, B., Belov, K., 2015. Characterization of cytotoxic immune responses against devil facial tumor antibody V segment diversity in the Tasmanian devil disease cells in Tasmanian devils (Sarcophilus harrisii) (Sarcophilus harrisii). Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. immunized with killed cell preparations. Vaccine 33, 167, 156–165. 3016–3025. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.01.039 Woods, G.M., Howson, L.J., Brown, G.K., Tovar, Morris, K.M., Cheng, Y., Warren, W., Papenfuss, A.T., C., Kreiss, A., Corcoran, L.M., Lyons, A.B., 2015. Belov, K., 2015a. Identification and analysis of divergent Immunology of a Transmissible Cancer Spreading immune gene families within the Tasmanian devil among Tasmanian Devils. J. Immunol. 195, 23–29. genome. Bmc Genomics 16, 1017. doi:10.1186/s12864- doi:10.4049/jimmunol.1500131 015-2206-9 Wright, B., Morris, K., Grueber, C.E., Willet, C.E., Morris, K.M., Wright, B., Grueber, C.E., Hogg, C., Gooley, R., Hogg, C.J., O’Meally, D., Hamede, R., Jones, Belov, K., 2015b. Lack of genetic diversity across M., Wade, C., Belov, K., 2015. Development of a SNP- diverse immune genes in an endangered mammal, the based assay for measuring genetic diversity in the Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii). Mol. Ecol. 24, Tasmanian devil insurance population. Bmc Genomics 3860–3872. doi:10.1111/mec.13291 16, 791. doi:10.1186/s12864-015-2020-4 Ostrander, E.A., Davis, B.W., Ostrander, G.K., 2016. Transmissible Tumors: Breaking the Cancer Paradigm. Trends Genet. 32, 1–15. doi:10.1016/j.tig.2015.10.001 Patchett, A.L., Latham, R., Brettingham-Moore, K.H., Tovar, C., Lyons, A.B., Woods, G.M., 2015. Toll-like receptor signaling is functional in immune cells of the endangered Tasmanian devil. Dev. Comp. Immunol. 53, 123–133. doi:10.1016/j.dci.2015.07.003

2015 Annual Program Report

29 Performance of the Program to Targets

The following performance measures are from the current Business Plan (2014–2019) for the Save the Tasmanian Devil Program. The indicators are mapped out against the relevant recovery actions in the draft national recovery plan for the Tasmanian devil. While this report is for the 2015 calendar year, performance reporting is provided on a financial year basis. The results for the last complete financial year (2014-15) are reported.

Recovery Action (Action number) Metric 2014–15 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17 target actual target target … implement … landscape isolation N of repopulations implemented 0 0 1 2 projects …. (1a) … trial … measures to manage DFTD N of Wild Devil Recovery zones started and other threats … through … 0 0 0 1 in year landscape management practices (1b) [update] guidelines on … habitat requirements … and provide to all Guidelines and proscriptions are current Y Y Y Y agencies regulating activities … related (Y/N) to high and very high threats (2c) … integrated management plans for all captive Tasmanian devils held at ARR is current (Y/N) Y Y Y Y different locations (3a) … adequate … founders to meet N of founders added 0 0 7 insurance population goals, and … % genetic diversity retained >95 99.25 >95 >95 maintain genetic diversity (3b) Maintain … [appropriate] … capacity of N of animals in the IP in Australia* 550 610 550 500 suitable … facilities … and if required N of zoos in Ambassador Program 5 5 15 20 export captive devils ... (3c) Establish disease-free devil groups … N of animals on Maria Island 80 90 80 100 on islands and isolated peninsulas in N of animals on Tasman Peninsula ~20 ~20 ~20 40 Tasmania (3d) N of animals on Forestier Peninsula 0 0 0 40 … determine relatedness in devils (3g) Inbreeding coef <0.125 <0.125 0.0061 <0.125 <0.125 Survey for DFTD at appropriate Long Term Monitoring sites surveyed 10 10 10 10 locations … (4a) in year Study the … devil’s immune system … N of immunised devils rewilded per year 0 0 30 20 including vaccine feasibility ... (5d) Investigate the spatial use of habitat by % rewilded devils surviving first year >50 96† >50 >50 Tasmanian devils (6a) $m committed by Tasmanian Government 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.5 … appropriate oversight of expenditure $m committed by Australian 1.8 1.8 0.8 0.3 on recovery plan actions (7a) Government 2.7 1.2 2.7 2.7 $m committed by ZAA institutions … recovery team … regularly assess[es] Biennial review conducted (Y/N) ‡ N N Y N the effectiveness of the recovery Triennial review of tasks and priorities N N N Y program ... (7b) (Y/N) ‡ Raise awareness of the threats to the $K contributed to fundraisers (Appeal/ 500 787 500 500 Tasmanian devil ... (8a) DIP) ‡‡ … develop community roadkill N areas with mitigation implemented 1 1 2 3 monitoring and … apply … results (8f) in year * figure includes animals in zoos and wildlife parks in Australia but not IP animals in translocations, landscape isolation projects or the ambassador program † figures derived from Maria Island translocation ‡ the recovery plan has yet to be finalised ‡‡ figures provided are for the Appeal only

Save the Tasmanian Devil Program

30 Where to from here?

In the 2013-14 Annual Program Report the final the wild. The Stony Head release will allow for trials paragraph stated “The key goal for 2015 is to develop testing devils sourced both from captive facilities further techniques to achieve Wild Devil Recovery”. The and the wild, to see if there are major differences in work of the STDP over the past 12 months has set the behaviour and survival. framework for Wild Devil Recovery. This was possible Trials are also underway to assess “negative because the Program could build on the efforts of the conditioning” of devils to vehicles. This project is being past which resulted in the establishment of the captive undertaken in conjunction with Healesville Zoo and population, the Maria Island translocation and wild San Diego Zoo Global. If the work is successful, the management and monitoring efforts. The extensive devils for translocation will be negatively conditioned to knowledge generated about wild and captive devils, the vehicles prior to their release, thereby providing some nature of DFTD and other threatening processes has mitigation against this threatening process. allowed for the transition to Wild Devil Recovery. The Maria Island population is an invaluable resource The emergence of DFT2 showed that surprises might for wild devil recovery because it provides a source of still await. It also has encouraged ongoing vigilance, free-ranging, disease free, and genetically diverse devils especially should the devil population be reduced across for release. It is clear that the population needs to be the state to the levels seen in the east: that is, less managed. To reduce the impacts of devils on the island, than 20 per cent pre-disease numbers. A key principle planning is underway to remove some animals for for Wild Devil Recovery is that other anthropogenic release into the wild. Maria Island is the closest captive threatening processes, such as vehicle collision or dog scenario to the wild that devil recovery efforts currently attacks, are significant threating processes at those have, and as such this method will allow for captive densities. animals to be “rewilded” via time on Maria Island. The The Program’s monitoring work has shown that devils efficacy of this method of preparing captive devils for are persisting across the range. However, extensive wild devil recovery will be trialled in 2016. Devils will be work on the status and trends of these populations bred for specific wild devil recovery translocations, and cannot rule out extinction in the wild. The Wild Devil if the experiments to improve rewilding techniques are Recovery project is a mechanism for managing either successful, the animals will be placed on the island for persistence or extinction in the wild. a set period. After removal they will then become part of immunisation trials, and finally released into Wild This approach led to the first release of devils in 2015 Devil Recovery Zones. from the captive population back into the wild at Narawntapu National Park and subsequently onto In this way a strategy for Wild Devil Recovery is being Forestier Peninsula. The next release will be into the developed and refined. The challenge for 2016 is to Stony Head area in the state’s north. The project at show that the tools described above are effective Stony Head will be conducted in an experimental management options for returning the Tasmanian devil manner to assist with developing better release tools. to its natural range. “Soft release” pens will be trialled to see if this method improves survival of the devils post release. As some of the devils released at Narawntapu and Forestier Peninsula dispersed a minimum of 20 km, it has proven difficult to follow their survival post release. In addition this unexpectedly large dispersal distance gave them greater exposure than anticipated to risks such as vehicle collision. In other mammal species, soft release methods have helped reduce this flight response. Similarly, there are concerns about captive bred animals (of all species) and their ability to survive in

2015 Annual Program Report

31 Devil Directory (as at 31 December 2015)

Steering Committee Save the Tasmanian Devil Program Management Group Dr Howel Williams (Acting Chair) Program Director, Save the Tasmanian Devil Program Dr Howel Williams (Chair), Program Director, STDP, DPIPWE Chris Hibbard, Zoo & Aquarium Association Dr David Pemberton, Program Manager, STDP, Peter Latch, Department of Environment (DoE) DPIPWE Nick Mooney, Conservation community member Dr Billie Lazenby, Science Coordinator, STDP, DPIPWE Prof Elissa Cameron, Science community member Nicholas Bates, Sub-Program Leader, Insurance Population Meta-population Advisory Committee Dr Sam Fox, Sub-Program Leader, Monitoring and Management Dr Howel Williams (Chair), Program Director, STDP, DPIPWE Amanda Embury, Australasian Species Management Program Dr Carolyn Hogg, STDP Species Coordinator (ZAA) Drew Lee, STDP Captive Management (DPIPWE) Dr Catherine Grueber, Independent scientific expert (University of Sydney) Peter Latch, Director, Department of Environment (Australian Government)

Save the Tasmanian Devil Program

32 All photos courtesy of the Save the Tasmanian Devil Program, except the photo of Her Excellency the Governor of Tasmania, Professor Kate Warner on p.3; Courtesy Government House.

Logos for Insurance Population partners Flying High Bird Sanctuary and the Hunter Valley Zoo are not featured on the back cover, but their support is gratefully acknowledged.

Design by the Land Tasmania Design Unit, DPIPWE Insurance Population Partners