NOTE: This article first appeared in the Bulletin of the Australian Mammal Society in March 1996

TASMANIA'S MAMMAL ATLAS:  HOW MUCH DO AND SHOULD WE KNOW? 

Don Hird, Conservation Convenor, TFNC 

Mammal Atlasing and Databasing seems to have subsided as an active issue since the MamSoc program
of the late 80's. It would be nice to think that the lower profile of the issue might reflect steady progress,
but that's not altogether the subsequent experience of Tasmanian Field Naturalists. 

Tasmania provides an invaluable last stronghold for mammals like the Eastern Bettong, the Eastern and
Spotted-tail Quolls, the Barred Bandicoot and the Tasmanian Pademelon, in the national conservation
context. Its something of a paradox that our one extinction, the family Thylacinidae, has been
spectacular, but the fauna generally, while not particularly diverse, has held up remarkably well.
Complacency is not recommended, though, as land clearance and intensive forestry continue to impact
heavily, including in poorly reserved habitat types. 

The publication of distribution maps for each of Tasmania's 34 known extant mammals (Rounsevell, D.,
Taylor, R.J. and Hocking, G.J. 1989. Wildlife Research 18: 699-717.), based on two decades of
records, provides a useful background to the fauna. Most records are derived from road kill surveys and
local surveys emanating from impending major engineering projects. When compared with Victoria's
mammal database (e.g. Menkhorst P.W. (ed) 1995, Mammals of Victoria. Oxford UP), the systematic
survey coverage of representative habitat types, altitudinal and insular ranges, and basic biology of key
species is often deficient in Tasmania. The differences in database quality and size seem partly
attributable to human population differentials, but don't exemplify industry self- regulation in Tasmania
after two decades of intensive woodchip export. 

Tas. FieldNats, operating as a community group, have experienced difficulty in obtaining seed funding or
equivalent assistance to ensure reliable access to basic survey equipment. This is despite our significant
and demonstrable survey effort based around tenuously-borrowed gear. Without such reliable equipment
access, voluntary programs are difficult to coordinate with adequate momentum. The commendable
efforts of mammal survey groups have significantly contributed to Victoria's knowledge base. 

A second area of difficulty has been establishing a formal dialogue with State government around issues
like biodiversity conservation, especially of rare, endangered or vulnerable species; despite our entreaties
formal ongoing consultation is not on offer. Independent advocacy is an integral part of conservation
programs. Misinformation abounds in areas of polemical debate, especially forestry; common ground
and priorities are almost impossible to establish without proper consultation. Official denial of specific
conservation inadequacies, e.g. of reserved or secure habitat for some RAVES species, is evident, and a
poor knowledge-base compounds this problem. An appropriate standard of baseline survey work is
poorly defined. Onus of proof of conservation priority or rarity seems to fall increasingly heavily on
community groups. This is especially so where the electoral support for conservation is limited or
divided, and where habitat degradation is often by attrition rather than quantum leap. The difficulty such
groups have in keeping up with rapid habitat change is exacerbated by agents of such change often
lacking overt responsibility for assessing and remediating their impact. The "conservation dividend"
implicit in modern management of habitat change and risk is often either absent or diverted. The
combination of such factors as habitat fragmentation and rampant, largely uncontrolled use of 1080 are a
cause for real concern in this context. 

National standards and programs in these areas would be of considerable benefit. The electoral load
would be spread more widely, and the community involvement is likely to be of ongoing benefit.
Demonstrable achievement through community based Mammal Survey programs is already evident, but
reciprocal assistance from management agencies is also important.