Tasmanian Devil

by David Owen

  MAUREEN JOHNSTONE, RIVERSIDE

  Throughout the first half of the twentieth century the devil lived in the lengthening shadow thrown by the tiger’s disappearance and presumed extinction. But when the devil did receive attention it wasn’t good. According to a 1948 tourism publication, devils were ‘ugly, bad-tempered and vicious, and settlers have hunted them incessantly with guns and dogs’.1

  Guiler’s pioneering research into devil populations remains of central importance. As a reader in zoology at the University of Tasmania, and chair of the state’s Animals and Birds Protection Board in the 1950s and 1960s, he was uniquely placed to study the island’s ecology. He provides an interesting potted modern history of the devil:

  This creature did not figure in the debates of the early Boards because, at that time, it was rare to uncommon over all of the State. It was not until 1945 that devils appeared in the Minutes when the Ranger at Lake St Clair was reprimanded for being knowingly involved in the capture of two (or more?) for Poulson’s Circus.

  By 1950 the numbers had built up to enable the Board to grant permits for their capture and by 1959 pressure was being exerted on the Board to place them on the Unprotected Schedule on account of the damage they did to possums caught by trappers and to weak sheep and lambs. No action was taken other than to grant permits to the complainants provided they could prove the alleged damage.

  The depredations became more widespread and by 1966 the Board was issuing poisoning permits to control the devils. However, it was clear that very little was known about devils and a research project was started in 1966 in co-operation with the Zoology Department of the University.

  The Board was fortunate in that it had the resources at the time to commence this work as some of the Members were very reluctant to issue poisoning permits for an indigenous species about which so very little was known.

  The project was important as it showed that the Board was prepared to switch its resources into non-commercial or non-sporting species and treat them on their scientific merits rather than the political desirability of being seen to be studying the so-called game species. This was the Board’s first research programme into a non-game species.2

  Every year between 1966 and 1975, at remote Granville Harbour on the west coast, Guiler led a devil research team. They set more than 5000 traps at nineteen locations, with such names as Harrison’s Back Pockets, Dead Heifer, Duck Creek Track, and Pig Farm. A total of 282 devils was captured 946 times, 664 being recaptures. He also carried out extensive field research at Cape Portland in north-east Tasmania. The published results initiated modern devil research.3

  Eric Guiler (right) with Eric Reece, a former Premier of Tasmania, at the launch of Guiler's Thylacine: the Tragedy of the Tasmanian Tiger in 1985. Eric Guiler devoted much of his career to studying thylacines and Tasmanian devils. (Author’s collection, Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery)

  But Guiler didn’t have things all his own way. The politics of wildlife conservation and management is as robust in Australia as anywhere else, as he had earlier discovered through the seemingly innocuous and modest trade in zoo animal exports. For six years conservationists repeatedly attacked the Animals and Birds Protection Board for being a key player in the state’s fauna export trade.

  The saga began in 1957 when the Sydney-based Wild Life Preservation Society of Australia, through its journal Australian Wild Life, wrote to the Board expressing concern at the Board’s decision to give two Tasmanian devils as a gift to a Swiss zoo. Guiler replied that the director of the Basel Zoological Gardens, Dr E. M. Lang, had specifically travelled to Hobart to supervise the safe travel of the animals, and that the devil population had increased to such an extent in some parts of the state that ‘we have had to make special arrangements to reduce the number owing to their depredations’.4

  Much of the June 1962 issue of Australian Wild Life: Journal of the Wild Life Preservation Society of Australia was devoted to the Tasmanian devil and the apparent lack of regard for it by officials of the island state. The New South Wales-based Society’s efforts on behalf of the animal may have inspired Tasmania’s Animals and Birds Protection Board to commence research into devil populations. (Courtesy Wildlife Preservation Society of Australia Inc.)

  But the Society persisted, querying the legality of the deal and also questioning Lang’s proficiency in wildlife management. The journal quoted a report in The Mercury in which Lang planned to return to Australia for more exhibits: ‘They include the Lyre Bird and Koala Bear, which he is confident can be trained to live on a diet other than gum leaves, which are unprocurable in Europe’.5

  The fur really began to fly, in the matter of the Society and the Board, with the publication of the June 1962 issue of Australian Wild Life. Using a photograph of a demure, attractive juvenile Tasmanian devil on its cover, the journal ran a lengthy article attacking Tasmania’s slackness in not protecting its prime marsupial carnivore. The little animal, still a nonentity in the public consciousness, had now become unique and possibly endangered, yet the Board seemed careless of its welfare.

  The long article is entitled ‘That Devil Again’, and begins with a report on an escaped devil from a New South Wales circus, refers scathingly to freezing devils in London Zoo, and concludes with a salute to a hunting magazine, Australian Outdoors, uncharacteristically deploring pastoral ignorance of Tasmania’s unique little carnivore.

  The article’s centrepiece, however, is the reproduction of a lengthy letter written to Guiler by Thistle Y. Stead, the Society’s Honorary Secretary, who was also editor of Australian Wild Life. Her letter included 21 questions:

  1. Is the Board conducting a survey on the distribution and population densities of the Tasmanian Devil (Sarcophilus harrisii)? If so, when did the survey commence; what areas have been surveyed; and how many investigators are employed in the investigation?

  2. Has the Board, or any member of it, published any matter concerning the distribution and population densities of the Tasmanian Devil? If so, where and when was such material published?

  3. How many members of the Board are actually engaged in field research and have an intimate knowledge of the Tasmanian Devil in its wild state? What are the names of the members claiming such knowledge?

  4. Has the Board made public any knowledge that it may possess on the distribution and population densities of the Tasmanian Devil through the Tasmanian Press or through questions asked in Parliament? Has it made public such knowledge in any other manner?

  5. Has the Board made the public aware that though Tasmanian devils and other wholly protected fauna may be accidentally trapped, that it is ILLEGAL on the part of the trapper to transfer such animals as are trapped to places where they may be artificially confined under conditions opposite to their natural environment? If the Board has made this matter apparent to the public, by what means was it made apparent, and has the Board’s opinion on this matter been published in the Tasmanian Press? If so, when?

  6. In view of the obvious trend of the Tasmanian public against zoos, does the Board intend to issue further permits for the establishment of further zoos?

  7. How many permits have been issued by the Board for zoos in Tasmania in the last 21 years? How many zoos are extant; and what are the precise localities in which they are extant; and what are the names of the holders of the permits?

  8. In view of the national trend against trading and trafficking in wild life, does the Board intend to issue further permits to individuals likely to engage in such traffic?

  9. How many permits have been issued by the Board for the export of Tasmanian Devils to all sources; and precisely how many Devils have been exported in the past 21 years?

  10. In what year were the most Devils exported?

  11. In instances where the Board issues permits to wild life traders or persons engaged in the exhibition or traffic of wild life—does the Board charge a fee for such permits? Has the Board fixed any limit to what may be paid or received in transactions deal
ing with the sale of Tasmanian Devils? If so, what is the monetary difference between the fee charged and the profit made by the individual trader?If so, how much is the fee for such a permit? If not—to the aforementioned—why are permits issued to individuals to possess wild life which is public property? Does the Board agree or not agree that a negative view is antipathetic to the purpose for which the Board was created?

  12. Does the Board issue permits for the destruction of Tasmanian Devils which are public property, gratis— or is a fee charged? If a fee is charged for a permit, what is the monetary difference between the value of the fee, and the cost of inspection to the public to establish the rightness of the permit? If a fee is not charged, why is it not?

  13. How many permits have been issued by the Board for the destruction of Tasmanian Devils since 1957?

  14. Does the Board require the holders of permits for the destruction of Tasmanian Devils to return to the Board the numbers of animals destroyed? If not, why not?

  15. In view of the scientific value of destroyed Tasmanian Devils, has the Board made provision to see that such specimens are not wasted? Is there a legal obligation on the part of permit holders to return destroyed animals to the Board?

  (The WILD LIFE, PRES. SOC. of AUST. is vitally concerned with this question in view of the thoughtless wastage of destroyed thylacines in the past, and the consequent rarity of both skeletal and anatomical material, which, for the most part is housed in foreign institutions. It is strongly urged that such a situation should not be permitted to occur in respect of Sarcophilus.)

  16. Is the Board able to name Australian scientific institutions which have benefited by donations of specimens of Sarcophilus? If so, how many institutions have received such donations through the Board?

  17. Is the Board able to name foreign institutions which have benefited by donations of specimens of Sarcophilus? If so, how many donations have been made in the past 21 years, and what are the names of the recipient institutions?

  18. In connection with the press statement made recently by the Chairman of the Board concerning the alleged destruction by Tasmanian Devils at Bridport, would the Board state how many permits for the destruction of this marsupial have been issued to date, and how many animals have been destroyed?

  19. Similarly, would the Board state how many permits it has issued for the destruction of Tasmanian Devils during the past three years at or near the following Tasmanian townships: . . . (a) Temma, (b) Marawah, (c) Trowutta, (d) Redpa, (e) Christmas Hills, (f) Mole Creek, (g) Bridport, (h) Hamilton?

  20. Is the Board able to state what may be favourable variations in Sarcophilus tending towards its survival in satisfactory numbers? Similarly, is the Board able to state what may be unfavourable variations tending otherwise?

  21. To state that one species of mammal is ‘as common as any other marsupial’ is too vague for an empirical and analytic appreciation of a species population disposition and position. Would the Board state more precisely the numerical relationship of the Tasmanian Devil to other marsupials?6

  Guiler commenced his research less than three years later and it is likely this correspondence provided some impetus for it, given the apparent lack of official and scientific interest in devils at that time.

  Australian Outdoors, a classic hunting and fishing magazine complete with advertisements for the latest firearms, boats and fishing tackle, ran an article in its November 1961 issue entitled ‘Protection That Doesn’t Protect’. The 3000-word article, by Jack Bauer, attacked Tasmania’s farmers and graziers, accusing them of endangering the devil’s future. Bauer wrote with impressive understanding of the animal, based on personal experience, and it is likely that this was the first non-scientific published account detailing the ecology and behaviour of the animal in the wild. (Bauer noted that: ‘There is very little known about the animal. The only reliable information on this animal is given by [Ellis] Troughton in his classic Furred Animals of Australia [1941]. He gives 58 lines on this animal. Not much to go by.’)7

  Bauer’s article led with praise for the protected status of the devil, while deploring the agricultural sector for branding it a ferocious killer of poultry and lambs. A farming group or groups had apparently been pushing the scare for some two years, and had now warned that if left unchecked the devil would become as great a menace as the dingo was on the mainland. Bauer insisted that those farmers were quite wrong, and that he had scientific proof to back him up. Proof from who? None other than Dr Eric Guiler of the Zoology Department, University of Tasmania.

  Guiler had recently conducted a study of the stomach contents of eighteen devils captured in southern Tasmania, a heavily farmed part of the state. Only two had eaten wool. Yet Australian Wild Life, in commending the Bauer article, and quoting selectively from it, did not mention its nemesis Guiler and his central role in making the Bauer case possible.

  Bauer’s empirical observations are many, including those derived from a long vigil he kept observing a devil lair. He took photos, which he called the first ever of the animal in its native habitat. Accompanying one of these is a caption which is as good a description as any of the devil: ‘Note his long nose, tough body and sturdy legs. He’s made for travelling rough in scrub terrain’.8

  Jack Bauer’s ‘Protection That Doesn’t Protect’, an important historical document, is reproduced here in full:

  This is a unique animal, a sort of living link between high marsupials and the most primitive of all. Once it lived on the mainland from which it seems to have vanished. Today it is making its last stand, its last fight for survival, in Tasmania, and in all the world there is only 26 215 square miles left to it.

  But even in such a small part of the world as this the Tasmanian devil, Sarcophilus, is encountering an ignorance which could exterminate it. Zoologists and government experts are unanimous that the devil fully justifies the Protected Animal tag it wears but for the last two years many Tasmanian farmers and graziers have claimed it to be a ferocious poultry and lamb killer. ‘Give us permits to kill him in traps or with poison’ they clamor. Recently some farmers gave the press this statement, which embodies a kind of death sentence for the devil.

  They wrote: ‘The devil has been attacking lambs and poultry. Wombats are also disappearing. Unless something is done about the devil now, it could become as much a menace as the dingo is on the mainland.’

  These gentlemen apparently cannot tell the difference between a devil and a dingo. The devil is just about the size of a terrier. The dingo is a non-marsupial and consequently has a much higher IQ than the devil. The rate of mortality at birth must be much greater in the marsupial devil whose birth is a harder and more precarious one than that of the dingo. It was probably the dingo that contrived to exterminate or deplete the devil family in the mainland. There are about 200 dingoes to every devil.

  The farmers’ statement was followed by another one from Dr Guiler of the Zoology Department, University of Tasmania. He said: ‘The devil is rarely found in the southern regions. But recently 18 devils were captured and sent to me at the university and examination of their stomach contents showed that only two of them had eaten wool.’

  Thus it appears that the devil will occasionally take a lamb but in the country in which it lives it finds it easier to take smaller marsupials, wombats, bettongs, potorus and the extremely prolific Thylogales or scrub wallabies. However some thoughtless farmers and graziers are killing devils on their properties. Yet how many lambs do they lose to the devils! How do they know that the few lambs that they lose are actually killed by devils? Unless they see devils in the act of killing their livestock they cannot be sure that these animals are the killers.

  Tracks don’t mean a thing in the rough, scrubby and rocky bush in which these graziers’ sheep roam. As to poultry kills, these can be blamed on domestic cats gone wild which are very plentiful in most parts of Tasmania. Likewise, the native cats may be the killers. And wedge-tail eagles, crows and hawks may account for some lambs to
o.

  There is very little known about the animal. The only reliable information on this animal is given by Troughton in his classic Furred Animals of Australia. He gives 58 lines on this animal. Not much to go by, but not much for farmers and graziers to pin killings on the devil.

  The first record of its existence comes from Deputy Surveyor Robert Harris who in 1808 wrote: ‘These animals were very common . . .’

  It was probably its devilish appearance that earned it the present monicker. The adjective ‘Tasmanian’ was added when it was found that it lived only in Tasmania.

  But does it really? Here is something that will put doubts in your mind. Mr Troughton writes: ‘A devil was killed at Tooborac about sixty miles from Melbourne in 1912 which may possibly have escaped from the zoo or private captivity . . . Fossil remains have been discovered in other parts of Australia. The recent appearance of skulls found in various localities in Victoria, including portions found amongst bones of existing marsupials in a kitchen midden of the aborigines supports the view that it may still exist there.’

  Thus the ‘Tasmanian’ devil should be regarded as an Australian animal, an animal that may exist or not in the mainland but which is of the utmost importance to all nature lovers and outdoorsmen. It has been classified in the subfamily Dasyurinae which includes all our marsupial predators, ie, native cats, tiger cats, the Tasmanian tiger (here again there is ample proof that this ‘Tasmanian’ animal lived in the mainland in ancient times from where it may have been exterminated by the more developed dingo when this was introduced here by aborigines or Asian peoples many thousands of years ago) and the mysterious Striped-Marsupial Cat of North Queensland which appears to be no ghost but a reality.