sign in sign up
<<
Home , Endangered species

BOOK REVIEWS 405

In their introduction to the fourth edition, the having the greatest proportion (46%) of Australia's authors comment on the dynamic nature of the task of endangeredlrare taxa. Despite this, Western Australia assessing the of Australia's flora. has the lowest proportion (45.6%) of reserved This is evident by the ROTAP publication history and endangered/rare taxa with only a 1.1 % increase in this the considerable additions to the list over the last 17 statistic over the seven years prior to publication of years. The ROTAP series arose from lists of rare and this new edition of ROTAP. It should also be stated endangered for each State and Territory that due to the significant lack of accurate size compiled by Specht, Roe and Boughton and published data for reserved , it will be some consider­ as a supplement to the Australian Journal of in able time before the level of such information will be 1974. With the intent of assessing the conservation improved. status of Australia's flora from a national perspective, Given the dynamic nature of the pressures placed on the lists were further developed by CSIRO in 1979 and taxa, deliberations over the conservation status of published as Plants at Risk in Australia (by Hartley and Australian flora and the extent of poorly known Leigh). Subsequent versions were published in 1981 species, it is not surprising that continuous updating of (ROT AP by Leigh, Briggs and Hartley) and 1988 the ROTAP list is required to provide accurate and up (ROTAP: 1988 Revised Edition by Briggs and Leigh. to date information. But how relevant is the ROTAP Since Hartley and Leigh (1979), the ROTAP list has list? In Australia there are three national lists of expanded from 2053 to 5 031 taxa. The authors threatened/rare flora, ROTAP, the Australian and consider changes to the list over time to be a result of New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council new information from surveys and research, reductions (ANZECC) Threatened Australian Flora List, and the in the level of threat through the declaration of new Endangered Species Protection Act Schedule 1 (ESP reserves and agreements, continued decline of many Act). ANZECC is the Federal, Territory and State species despite improved knowledge and management Governments' recognized working list of the status of techniques, and the inclusion of subspecies and nationally threatened plant species but, like the varieties (not included in editions prior to 1995). In ROTAP list, has no legal status. The list included in addition to these changes in the number of taxa listed, the ESP Act however has legal status and is based on there has been 3 270 amendments to data for listed the agreed ANZECC list at the time the Act was taxa, and 2 012 additional records of regional data for proclaimed. It can be argued that despite the ROTAP taxa already listed. Rare or threatened flora lists not having a formal status, it is an important reference published independently by State and Territory agencies work that is more up to date than the ANZECC and since the last ROTAP edition, have been used to ESP Act lists due to the delays usually associated with update the ROTAP list. The list represents a significant government consideration and approval processes. level of collaboration and contribution from Australian What the ROTAP list has that the others do not are National, State and Territory taxonomists, ecologists, rare and poorly known taxa and many endangered botanical consultants and amateur botanists. and vulnerable taxa that have not yet made it No list of biological information is complete without to the ANZECC and ESP Act lists. The ROT AP list summary statistics and ROTAP delivers the goods. therefore gives a much more complete picture of the Statistics on numbers of taxa, distribution across con­ Australian threatened/rare flora and its value is servation categories, state and regional distribution of as an academic reference work and not as a legislative rare and endangered taxa, and extent of reservation tool. within states and territories. For those of us who feel more relieved knowing that populations of endangered/ One should not expect any substantial information rare taxa are within national parks or reserves, ROTAP in ROTAP on how to best manage endangeredlrare tells us that 54.4% of the total taxa are at a lower level taxa. The book is intended to be a significant reference of risk than the remainder. A sobering statistic, how­ on this topic and I believe it fulfils that objective ever, is that for 74% of these "safer" taxa we do not completely. If you work or have an interest in this field know the size of the reserved /so it is likely that you are already familiar with previous editions of this work. This fourth edition includes Geographic comparisons identify Western Australia, substantial additions and is well worth the modest and particularly the floristically diverse south-west, as investment.

The exploitation of mammal populations

Edited by Victoria J. Taylor and Nigel Dunstone, 1996 chapters arranged in five sections: Exploitation of Chapman and Hall, London mammal populations past, present and future; Harvest­ 415 pp. ISBN 0412644207 ing wild mammal populations; and its impact RRP Aud$85.00 on ; and conservation; and Ecotourism-making mammal populations pay. ROB DOUPE1 A wide range of topics are covered, with the central THE exploitation of mammal populations forms in theme being the utilization of mammals. Chapters part, the proceedings of a symposium held in London include Saiga antelope in Kalmykia (near the Caspian in November, 1994 by two "scientific animal charities", Sea), Capybaras in South America, meat hunting in the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare the Serengeti, hunting and the deployment of hounds (UFA W) and the Mammal Society . It contains 22 in the United Kingdom and other forms of sport hunting

'School of Natural Sciences (Environmental Management), Edith Cowan University, Joondalup. Western Australia, Australia 6027. 406 PACIFIC

elsewhere, and ranching in southern Africa. It is taken as a starting premise upon which kangaroo after midway through the text that the underlying management decisions or recommendations are based. dilemma facing contemporary wildlife managers is The view that conventional pastoral and agricultural reached - Should mammal populations [or wildlife in activities constitute the only legitimate use of the general] be assigned an economic value to encourage countryside, and that kangaroos are acceptable only landholders, traditional or otherwise, to manage such while they are "controlled", is ubiquitous. Hence, stocks for sustainable conservation? kangaroo "management" is often synonymous with pest control, even after all Australian governments The answer to this question begins with Kock have endorsed policies which formally recognize addressing conflicts that the Zimbabwe government has kangaroos as a resource. had with conservation and animal welfare organiza­ tions, including UFA W (see the chapter by Child in The movement grew from a Prescott-Allen and Prescott-Allen, 1996). Kock argues concern, often from the exploiters themselves that wildlife management in Zimbabwe provides a (Eltringham 1994), that wild animals were being over­ model for the sustainable use of wildlife. Innovative exploited and required management. Even when developments for wildlife management, such as wildlife is managed, welfare considerations are often conservancies and CAMPFIRE (Communal Area insufficient, as this concept is rarely considered in the Management Programme for Indigenous Resources) formal consideration of sustainable wildlife manage­ are described, and deserve consideration by Australian ment (Kirkwood et al. 1994). While there is a lot of wildlife managers. Conservancies involve co-opentive rhetoric in the debate on sustainable use, there should wildlife management (e.g., ecotourism, trophy and be no illusions. Exploiting wildlife solely for profit will meat hunting) on several privately owned properties. carry the risk of , even under the guise of The CAMPFIRE initiative concerns wildlife manage­ conservation; any use of living organisms depletes ment on communal land by the local community such wildlife resources, is often associated with the degrada­ that revenues earned from wildlife resources accrue to tion of supporting ecosystems, and often eventuates in the local people. the loss of populations and species (Willers 1994). The opposing viewpoint polarizes the debate, and is Sustainable usage of a species in isolation is unlikely to put forcefully by Lavigne and colleagues. They argue guarantee the conservation of that particular taxon or that sustainable utilization of mammals is a seriously its . Wildlife conservation requires the conserva­ flawed argument and can only result in over-exploitation. tion of genetic diversity, natural selective forces, and They conclude that placing value on dead wildlife in the maintenance of the full range of species interactions the marketplace is rarely a sustainable activity, except (MacNab 1991). These requirements for the sustained perhaps, if the exploited species has a high repro­ conservation of wild resources, however defined, ductive rate and a low economic value, and is extend beyond ethnic boundaries and perimeter fences. adequately managed through supportive legislation. The limited information available suggests that Clearly, such restrictions would limit the scope of broadly based, integrated programmes of wildlife mammal exploitation. utilization have the most potential to be sustainable, None of the chapters is primarily about wildlife and this book represents a significant contribution to management in Australia, although the often conflict­ an ongoing debate. We should also recognize that the ing issue of land tenure and wildlife conservation is "need" to exploit wildlife is a reflection of the human applicable throughout the world. One reference to the condition. Australian problem is the chapter describing mammal harvests in several countries, in which kangaroo harvesting in Australia is reviewed. It is concluded that REFERENCES kangaroo harvesting has a positive impact on the eco­ Eltringham, S. K., 1994. Can wildlife pay its way? Oryx 28: system, because it is well controlled, provides 163-168. supplementary income to landholders, and it enables landowners to reduce livestock numbers thus encourag­ Kirkwood, 1. K .. Sainsbury, A. W. and Bennett, P. M., 1994. ing land rehabilitation! No citation substantiates that The welfare of free-living wild animals: methods of statement, nor is there any acknowledgement that agri­ assessment. Animal Welfare 3: 257-273. culture in Australia or elsewhere provides an abundance MacNab. 1., 1991. Does game cropping serve conservation1 of resources that typically result in the dramatic and A re-examination of the African data. Canadian Journal often sustained increase in the populations of such of 69: 2283-2290. species. Prescott-Allen, R. and Prescott-Allen, C. (eds), 1996. Assessing Also ignored is the difficulty in determining the Sustain ability of Uses of Wild Species: Case Studies appropriate target densities of kangaroos, in that it and Initial Assessment. IUCN, Switzerland. depends upon the extent to which kangaroos are a pest or resource [actual or potential], or a mix of both. Putman, R. 1 .. 1989. Mammals as Pests. Chapman and Hall, Perceptions contribute significantly to value judge­ London. ments (see Putman 1989), and the notion that kanga­ Willers, Boo 1994. : a new world roos are pests is widespread, and in many quarters, is perception. Conservation Biology 8: 1146--1148.