# Artificial island idea to help save declining Murray River turtles



## Flaviemys purvisi (Aug 17, 2018)

ABC Goulburn Murray 
By Allison Jess and Bronwen O'Shea
August 11, 2018.


Turtle researchers say putting artificial islands in the Murray River is one way to save dwindling turtle populations.

The man-made island strategy is one of a handful of ideas recently put forward by a team at Western Sydney University, led by Ricky Spencer and the Foundation for National Parks and Wildlife.

The university has been working with the not-for-profit foundation for the past few years to research why turtle species in the Murray River, including the Murray short-necked turtle, eastern long-necked turtle and broad-shelled turtle, are on the decline.

They have recently come up with a number of proposals including fox management techniques, community programs and man-made islands to help save various species of turtles in the Murray River before they become extinct.

The foundation works with the university to help raise funds to trial and implement these strategies.

*A species in decline*
Foundation chief executive Ian Darbyshire said the Murray River long-necked turtle population had declined by 90 per cent in the past 40 years and was heading to extinction in some parts of Australia.

The Murray River short-necked turtle had declined by more than 70 per cent in the past 40 years.

Dr Spencer said the problem was getting worse.

_"Every few years we survey 50-100 sites throughout the Murray River to check on the turtle population and track the numbers … We have worked out that in some areas we are not finding any turtles in an area where they should be or have been previously,"_ he said.
_
"In South Australia, we are seeing locally extinct populations and we are starting to see it further up the river into New South Wales and Victoria. Something needs to be done now.

"Unfortunately, in Australia we usually have to wait for animals to become endangered before any action is taken and by then it is too late."_

Dr Spencer said turtles were an essential part of a river's ecosystem and kept rivers clean.

_"We call them the vacuums of the river because they eat a lot of dead things like fish, so they are real scavengers of the river,"_ he said.

_"Depending on the species, they eat a lot of algae and plants and that sort of stuff as well.

"So they are the main vertebrate scavengers in the river systems."_


*PHOTO: An example of an artificial island that could be modified to target nesting turtles. (Supplied: SPEL Environmental)*


*Foxes main threat to nests*
Mr Darbyshire said there were a number of reasons for turtle population decline, including car accidents and a lack of food sources, but foxes destroying turtle nests were the main threat.

_"Foxes are damaging and destroying about 95 per cent of the turtles nests and the problem with that is you have to get rid of all the foxes in an area to actually protect the nests,"_ he said.

Dr Spencer agreed.

_"Standard fox control hasn't worked because the main problem is you really have to get rid of all foxes in an area,"_ he said.

_"Even if you reduce them by 70 per cent or 90 per cent or more, the one or two foxes that are left in the area can still destroy all the nests.

"The idea is to say, 'Okay, we need to look at techniques that are going to work,' — in some cases fox control will be okay, but in some cases in we need to look for alternatives.

"So we are working with the foundation to bypass the fox."_

*An island home*
Dr Spencer said he had been discussing the artificial island idea with companies that already created modular islands to see if they could be used for nesting turtles.

_"Some have already been created for water quality — so they are foamy islands that you put plants in that absorb nutrients and that sort of thing,"_ he said.

He said the islands tend to be 5-by-5-metre modules that clicked together, so they could vary in size.

_"We know the modular islands work and float but we don't know if we can create a modular where turtles can get onto them, and we need to trial that,"_ Dr Spencer said.

_"Within these large islands, we could create areas of turf or sand where the turtles and even birds could come up and nest."_


----------



## longirostris (Aug 21, 2018)

Why does everybody give up on eradication of feral pests. I know it is difficult to get them all, but as soon as you give up there is NO HOPE of getting rid of them. This island idea is great but the eradication of foxes needs to be the primary focus not just for the turtles but for all the other wildlife they are destroying.


----------



## cris (Aug 21, 2018)

longirostris said:


> Why does everybody give up on eradication of feral pests. I know it is difficult to get them all, but as soon as you give up there is NO HOPE of getting rid of them. This island idea is great but the eradication of foxes needs to be the primary focus not just for the turtles but for all the other wildlife they are destroying.



Eradication is impossible at this point in time. Control is all that is possible and lots of effort goes into that, which along with other things like this turtle island help animals survive until better technology is available. 

Apart from a few animal rights lunatics most people still want to wipe out foxes. If it is possible, it is a while off, so anything that helps meantime is probably worth doing.


----------



## longirostris (Aug 21, 2018)

cris said:


> Eradication is impossible at this point in time. Control is all that is possible and lots of effort goes into that, which along with other things like this turtle island help animals survive until better technology is available.
> 
> Apart from a few animal rights lunatics most people still want to wipe out foxes. If it is possible, it is a while off, so anything that helps meantime is probably worth doing.



I agree that eradication is nigh on impossible but any stated and intended effort less then that is token and pointless. Control might be the actual outcome but eradication should always be the stated objective or aim regardless of whether it is achievable or not. Nobody sets out on any journey with the intention of only getting part way to where they want to go or want to achieve.

Couldn't care less about the animal welfare lobby most of them are a bunch of bigoted morons that would rather see wildlife crushed on the road, or eaten by feral cats, foxes and wild dogs then picked up and taken into someone's collection where it has every chance of living a long and healthy life. Better dead in the wild then alive in captivity, is their catch cry. What hope is there for species with existential at risk problems with people like this running around peddling these points of view and ideas. Worse still these animal welfare wackos are working hard to influence and even convince our regulatory authorities and their political masters that wildlife ownership and management, licensing etc by private individuals should not be allowed.

What I don't understand is why anybody including the animal welfare lobby, the regulatory authorities and government can't and for some reason don't wan't to see that in most cases where wildlife is facing serious existential risks, the logical solution is to ensure species survival by establishing rescue and recovery populations in captivity and that this can be done just as easily if not in many cases probably better by experienced private keepers than by government and quasi government authorities and institutions.

We can only hope that one day in the not too distant future, (lest we have already lost a swag of at risk species), that someone in authority can actually see the sense in directing their staff and advisers to work with native animal keepers both private and public, to establish captive breeding projects for at risk species rather than using wildlife management regulations and in particular the current review processes (being undertaken by wildlife management authorities around the country) of these regulatory systems, to make the keeping of native animals even more difficult then it is currently and worse still, to openly state and vilify private keepers by claiming that they are and/or do pose a serious existential threat to wildlife through take from the wild activities whether legal or by poaching undertaken by them. This is a gross fabrication of the truth and completely ignores the real issues faced by our native wildlife and the sooner a government minister responsible wakes up and realises that wildlife authorities in Australia are not focused on the real problems facing our wildlife the better off we will all be including our wildlife. 

Mark Hawker


----------

