Why is Budj Bim significant?

Budj Bim is a sacred Gunditjmara site and a UNESCO World Heritage area. Budj Bim is

renowned as the oldest surviving man-made aquaculture system on earth and a tribute

to millennia of caring for country. It should be a place of protection, not destruction; a

place of sensitivity and respect, not secrecy and deceit

There has been no evidence that these koalas were all fire affected and in need of

euthanasia, nor has there been any evidence whatsoever to justify the use of aerial

killing. This method has never been used to “euthanise” koalas, only large non-native

species in the park. There is no evidence that shooting from 30 meters off the ground

would actually kill a koala. If not killed instantly, it would in fact cause more suffering. It

would also leave many young to die slowly from starvation, exposure, or fox attack.

We believe this event is directly related to the clearing of bluegum plantations

that surround the park and there are other large plantations within 10km of the

park. These plantations would have left thousands of koalas displaced at different

times, forcing them to migrate into the park for their own survival. It is also

possible that plans to develop the park as a future tourism destination motivated this cull

on koalas in the park. Many koala preferred food trees are banded at the base with steel

to prevent koalas accessing them. Additionally, the purpose built accommodation

described in the latest version of the Budj Bim Master Plan would require the

removal of vegetation in areas where Koalas currently dwell.

We have assessed many of the plantations recently harvested and many of these are

on the edge of the national park and adjoining state park. Although about 50% of koala

die from the impacts of harvests, we know that surviving koalas will travel for many

kilometers to reach alternative habitats once displaced.

We also know that DEECA, in collaboration with Parks Vic, regularly “health check”

koalas in the park. “Health Checks” is a word DEECA uses publicly to imply they are

looking after koala populations, but this is just a euphemism for culling. The recent fire

impacted only a small section of the park, but DEECA stated that they ‘assessed’ 2,200

animals in the park, 90% of them, koalas. This is a very large population for only 2,000

hectares of bushland. If this is correct information, that means there is one koala per

hectare, which seems extreme given they regularly ‘control’ the population, by a mix of

sterilisation and killing.

Only six years ago, in 2019, a much more severe fire ripped through most of the

national park yet according to our sources, no animals were rescued and given to local

carers to be rehabilitated. The reasons why no koalas were rescued at all during the

2019 fires may be explored at a later date. If all koalas are being euthanised now, for a

less severe fire, we can only assume none came out alive from the last. With this in

mind, how did the population expand to over 2,000 in a small section of the park so

quickly, in a burnt landscape? The only explanation is that the displaced koalas from the

harvested surrounding blue gum plantations made their way there seeking refuge

The other justification given by DEECA for the euthanasia of healthy koalas was the

supposed extensive loss of vegetation due to dry conditions and the 2025 fire. They

stated this could cause koalas to starve; however, DEECA has not provided any details

of the damage caused by the fire, nor have they supplied any photographs of fire

affected koalas. They have not permitted experienced rescuers or carers into the park

to help injured or orphaned young. DEECA officers patrol the park and only government

authorised aircraft are permitted to fly over the national park.

From all access points into the park and from the highest vantage point at Lake Surprise

campground, there is no evidence of extreme vegetation loss. To the contrary, there are

plenty of healthy manna gums, not over browsed, nor stressed from lack of water.

There are however, many manna gums with bands around the bottom of the tree in the

public areas of the park. These barriers can only have been erected by DEECA or

Parks Victoria. These bands restrict koalas from climbing, therefore eating. If DEECA

are so concerned about koala welfare due to having no food, why are they banding their

major food source? Why are they allowing surrounding bluegum plantations to continue

to be harvested, when this will just result in more koalas being displaced and without

habitat?

There are many questions still unanswered.A shooter

would not be able to detect the presence of a joey in many cases.

It can be assumed that many joeys would have died from injuries, starvation and the

cold, after their mother’s death, causing immense suffering. It is unlikely that any joeys

were recovered or saved, because DEECA claimed they could not access the koalas,

which is how they justified the killing, so obviously they could not access the joeys either.

Budj Bim is a sacred Gunditjmara site and a UNESCO World Heritage area. Budj Bim is renowned as the oldest surviving man-made aquaculture system on earth and a tribute to millennia of caring for country. It should be a place of protection, not destruction; a place of sensitivity and respect, not secrecy and deceit.

Koalas are migrating into this park due to the continual harvesting of blue gum plantations which surround the park After decades of clearing post-colonisation, the surrounding original habitat has been largely replaced by blue gum plantations, which are being logged continuously, displacing thousands of koalas. Harvesters are regulated by DEECA and are not required to leave any trees permanently for koalas. This has

been occurring for over a decade. In 2014 a Management of Koalas in Forestry Plantations Operational Code of Practice was developed by reputable ecologists, a wildlife carer, and a vet and provided to DEECA after a string of koala deaths due to bluegum plantation harvests. This document provided DEECA with professional advice to manage future welfare issues and clear management strategies to safeguard the

future of koalas in the region. DEECA ignored them all and for the past ten years, koalas have paid the ultimate prices.

Without proactive habitat management, displaced koalas are forced into remnant parks, where they are later deemed "overpopulated" and killed to protect the limited vegetation.

As we speak, displaced koalas live in remnant patches of just 8 trees, often mere saplings with very little leaf, where plantations have been harvested. Harvesters are required to leave 8 trees to stop machinery from killing them, but will return to take these trees as soon as the koala has moved on.

We have supplied imagery of koalas living like this, around the edges of the national park where plantations once stood. These koalas have had their homes destroyed and will eventually be forced to migrate into the park where they will not be safe from killing by the department, Parks Vic or those contracted to destroy Koalas.

Is there any public evidence of the fire damage that justified this?

No. To date, no substantial imagery or ecological data has been provided by DEECA to justify the scale or method of the cull. Observers report intact canopies from visible vantage points with patches of brown foliage, which indicates a low burn, not a severe burn.

The shooting stopped on Friday 25th April, after almost a month of shooting.es, we work with a variety of budgets and pride ourselves on delivering high-quality results regardless of your price range. We’ll help you set a budget during the planning phase and make adjustments to achieve the best results within your means.

Yes, euthanasia can be the kindest option in cases of extreme wounds or illness.

However every effort should be made to offer rescue, veterinary help and rehabilitation to wounded wildlife. In this case, assessment of koala health was done from a helicopter, which does not allow for a genuine examination or decision to be made. To make things even more cruel, joeys could not be assessed, meaning that more suffering was caused by this cull.

We have no doubt that more culling will be deemed necessary by this department and this is because DEECA has not managed the bluegum industry, nor have they prioritised the protection and conservation of koalas over more profitable stakeholders (timber harvesters). They have not taken the professional advice provided to them so there is very little vegetation available for koalas in the region, outside the plantations.

No. This is the first known instance of snipers shooting koalas from helicopters. It sets a dangerous precedent for how wildlife is managed in Australia. DEECA has not provided information regarding the ethics committee or the vet who approved this.

Many local carers and rescuers were blocked from access, but one local carer was used. This carer has worked closely with DEECA and the bluegum industry for 10 years. DEECA uses their own principal ecologist, the same carer mentioned above, and likely the same vet for the work they conduct away from public view. None of the “koala experts” have been named, except Dr Desley Whisson, an ecologist who consults with

DEECA regularly and is leading research projects funded by DEECA as part of the Victorian Koala Management Strategy. There has been no meaningful consultation with community members, Traditional Custodians, independent rescuers, independent ecologists (koala experts), carers or veterinarians.

The aerial culling of koalas at Budj Bim National Park was authorised by the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA). However, the specific individuals or internal teams responsible for the decision have not been publicly named.

Given the seriousness of this situation, people should be demanding to know who these people are. We suspect it is a senior DEECA officer in charge of wildlife emergencies.

Despite worldwide public outrage and formal inquiries, DEECA has not released key details, including who signed off on the cull, whether ethics approval was obtained, or which government advisors or veterinarians were consulted.

This lack of transparency has been widely criticised, with many wildlife advocates and experts calling for an independent investigation into the chain of command, decision-making process, and professional credentials of those involved.

No. Only wildlife organisations chosen by DEECA, who are yet to be named. There was no meaningful public consultation, and no advance notice was provided to local communities, wildlife groups, or the broader public prior to the commencement of the aerial shooting.

Wildlife carers were and still are, denied access to the site, and Budj Bim remains sealed off, with fences, cameras, and patrols restricting visibility. Local knowledge holders and experts were not invited to participate in the planning or response. This lack of consultation and openness has led to calls for full accountability and an immediate halt to operations pending independent review.

DEECA claims the terrain was too dangerous for ground crews to assess and euthanise suffering koalas. But experts—including ecologist Dr Stephen Phillips—say this excuse doesn't hold up scientifically or ethically. The true motivations for choosing aerial shooting may never be known, but Australian government agencies have a long and

controversial record for using aerial shooters to target larger species they have labelled “pests” such as brumbies and deer. The witnesses to such slaughter in recent years have decried the immense cruelty, noting animals left injured to die over days, even weeks, while the orphaned young are left to starve. Not only is this horrific to inflict on any sentient being, the lack of post-cull inspection and recovery means that rotting

carcasses are left to pollute waterways, contaminate ecosystems and attract predators and scavengers such as foxes. As DEECA claims their reason for using helicopters in Budj Bim was due to inability to access the area by ground crews, it stands to reason they will not be able to access the area to ensure animals are not left wounded to die in

agony, nor to clean up the bodies. This is an ecological disaster of their own making.

To date, DEECA has not provided any clear, public evidence to justify the aerial

shooting of up to 1,000 koalas at Budj Bim National Park.

Despite claiming the koalas were suffering from fire-related injuries, dehydration, or

starvation, the department has not released:

● Independent veterinary reports

● The names of any veterinarians they claim to have consulted

● Pre-cull population assessments

● Photographic or ecological documentation of the claimed tree canopy

devastation

● Post-cull impact assessments or data

● Identification of involved personnel or their qualifications, including the so-called

‘marksmen’ and ‘experienced wildlife experts’

● An explanation for why food trees were banded to prevent koalas accessing

them, if starvation was an issue.

Observers who have accessed nearby high points report no visible large-scale canopy destruction, casting doubt on the justification used for the cull. The absence of transparency has only intensified public distrust.

If this action was truly in the interest of animal welfare, then transparency and accountability should be non-negotiable. Instead, the area has been sealed off, helicopters fly below radar detection, and operations continue without oversight.

We are still waiting for answers.

This is a significant concern and something we will be seeking answers on. Shooting koalas from a helicopter has not been done before so we have no knowledge of how accurate the snipers would be and how high the wounding rate could be. There is a big difference between shooting larger animals on the ground and shooting koalas in trees.

Both are cruel, however the probability of wounding rather than killing will be higher for a smaller animal hidden in foliage.

DEECA has not released transparent evidence of ground-level welfare assessments. A spokesperson for DEECA claimed on ABC Radio Melbourne that they were utilising new technology, still in testing, to evaluate koala health from the air. When asked by a member of the public on talkback radio, the spokesperson admitted that this technology

had never been used in the field before, but that they had ‘run tests’. He failed to specify what tests, upon whom, and whether they had gained ethics approval for such testing.

Experts state it is impossible to properly assess koalas from helicopters, particularly when joeys are hidden in pouches or held tightly under stress. We are unable to discover at this point the number of koalas wounded, orphaned or killed, as the department refuse to allow any independent rescuers or witnesses of any kind into the sections of the park, “closed for wildlife management’. The public are simply expected to

believe whatever DEECA claims, without a speck of evidence or even the names of decision makers.

According to DEECA, only 1. Considering the inadequate and farcical assessment of their health status from helicopters, the true figure is likely much higher, it just didn’t happen.

According to DEECA, a “thorough assessment” was conducted before the aerial shooting began. However, no independent evidence has been provided to verify how these assessments were carried out, who conducted them, or what criteria were used to determine whether the koalas were suffering.

Experts like Dr Stephen Phillips, a leading koala ecologist, have strongly refuted the validity of aerial assessment. He has stated:

“You cannot determine if a female is carrying a joey from a helicopter, unless the joey is on her back. Many joeys are hidden in the pouch or held close under stress. This is not euthanasia — this is convenience killing using a mask of pseudo-science.”

There has been no confirmation of ground-based triage, veterinary inspection, or thermal imaging to assess individual animals before shots were fired. This calls into serious question the accuracy and ethics of the process.

● Ground-based rescue, veterinary triage, and relocation

● Inclusion of local wildlife carers and ecologists

● Ethical, transparent, community-led responses

● Reform of forestry practices to prevent mass displacement

Are koalas endangered?

Yes. The koala is officially listed as endangered in Queensland, New South Wales, and the ACT. Victoria’s population is not currently listed as endangered, despite steep declines to populations everywhere and unreliable population data. It is not in the Victorian State Government’s interests to allow any research that may result in the Koala being listed as endangered in the state, as that would impose further restriction

on industries that destroy habitat or cause harm to koalas, such as logging, plantation harvesting, mining, aluminium smelting and infrastructure and energy projects such as wind farms.

Has aerial culling passed the “pub” test?

No—it overwhelmingly fails the pub test.

The idea of shooting koalas from helicopters, especially in a sacred World Heritage-listed park like Budj Bim, has shocked the public, wildlife experts, Traditional Custodians, and the international community. Most Australians instinctively know this isn’t right. The lack of transparency, the exclusion of rescue teams, the potential death of dependent joeys, and the secretive nature of the operation have sparked outrage—not understanding.

This isn’t seen as humane, it’s seen as inhumane, unjustified, and out of touch with the values of a nation that claims to protect its iconic wildlife. Aerial culling might be bureaucratically approved—but in the hearts of everyday Australians, it simply does not pass.

What is the “pub test”?

In Australia, the “pub test” is a popular phrase used to measure whether something feels fair, reasonable, or acceptable to the average person. It comes from the idea that if you explained a situation to someone at the pub—just an everyday Aussie—they’d either say “Yeah, fair enough” or “No way, that’s not right.”

It’s not about technical legality or policy—it’s about common sense and public trust. If something doesn’t pass the pub test, it usually means it’s seen as unethical, dodgy, or out of touch with community values.

In this case, aerially shooting endangered animals in a national park, without transparency or community consultation, clearly fails the pub test for most Australians.

Who’s responsible?

The Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA) authorised the

cull. To date, the names of the decision-makers, veterinarians, and shooters involved

have not been disclosed. It should be noted that the Premier of Victoria, Jacinta Allan,

publicly endorsed shooting koalas from helicopters.

Has there been an independent review?

No. Koala Alliance and other organisations are calling for a full investigation, an

immediate halt to aerial culling, and a review of DEECA’s governance structure due to

its conflict of interest. DEECA cannot be trusted to care for wildlife when they also

manage the industries whose practices are killing them.