Save the Tasmanian Devil Program

Save the Tasmanian Devil Program
Name	Save the Tasmanian Devil Program
Location	Tasmania, Australia
Established	2003
Goals	Species recovery, disease management, captive insurance population

Save the Tasmanian Devil Program is an Australian conservation initiative focused on safeguarding the Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) from extinction due to a transmissible cancer and other threats. The program coordinates actions across state and federal agencies, scientific institutions, zoological parks, and Aboriginal organizations to maintain wild populations, sustain an insurance metapopulation, and advance research into disease ecology and wildlife management. It links wildlife health, veterinary science, and biodiversity policy through multi‑institutional partnerships.

Background and Threats

The Tasmanian devil, an iconic marsupial endemic to Tasmania, faced precipitous declines after the emergence of devil facial tumor disease (DFTD) in the 1990s, a transmissible cancer that spread across populations and was first described following observations near Freycinet National Park and Bruny Island. DFTD prompted involvement from institutions including the Australian National University, the University of Tasmania, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, and international laboratories such as the National Institutes of Health and the Smithsonian Institution. Concurrent threats include road mortality on routes like the Midlands Highway (Tasmania), habitat fragmentation near the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, competition with invasive species such as the European red fox, and climate impacts documented in studies involving the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Conservation urgency drew attention from policy venues like the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and advocacy from groups such as the World Wide Fund for Nature.

Program History and Governance

The program emerged from a coalition of the Tasmanian Government, the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, the Save the Tasmanian Devil Program Advisory Committee, and research partners at universities and zoos including Taronga Zoo, the Australian Reptile Park, and the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland. Initial governance models reflected cooperative frameworks used in recovery efforts for species such as the Tasmanian tiger (Thylacine) historically and later draws on transboundary conservation agreements like those under the Convention on Biological Diversity. Key actors included wildlife health advisers from the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (Tasmania), veterinary scientists trained at institutions like the University of Sydney, and fundraising collaborations with organisations such as the Foundation for National Parks & Wildlife.

Conservation Strategies and Activities

Conservation activities combined in situ and ex situ approaches: establishment of a disease‑free insurance population in managed facilities at Devil Ark, captive breeding programs at the Healesville Sanctuary and the Melbourne Zoo, and creation of disease buffer zones using targeted management on peninsulas such as Tamar Valley. Biosecurity measures referenced protocols from the World Organisation for Animal Health and applied quarantine standards used in zoo husbandry across the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria network. Field interventions included road mitigation measures researched alongside the Australian Road Research Board, targeted vaccination trials modeled after methods tested in rabies and canine distemper research, and landscape planning linked to protected areas under management plans for the Tasmanian Land Conservancy.

Research and Monitoring

Research programs integrated epidemiology, genomics, ecology, and pathology with contributions from the Menzies Institute for Medical Research, the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) partnerships, and veterinary pathologists associated with the Royal Society of Tasmania. Monitoring employed mark‑recapture studies similar to methods used in island biogeography work at Macquarie Island and molecular surveillance using next‑generation sequencing platforms developed at the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research. Longitudinal datasets were coordinated using models applied in studies by the Australian Bureau of Statistics for demographic analysis and statistical frameworks from the Australian Institute of Marine Science for population trend assessment. Research outcomes informed adaptive management and were published in journals alongside research on wildlife diseases such as investigations by the Australian Veterinary Journal.

Community Engagement and Education

Community engagement drew on outreach practices of institutions like the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery and cultural partnerships with Tasmanian Aboriginal organisations including the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre. Education campaigns mirrored public awareness efforts by the Australian Geographic and media collaborations with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to increase support for road‑safety campaigns and volunteer monitoring. Volunteer citizen science initiatives paralleled projects run by the Atlas of Living Australia and local landcare groups such as Landcare Australia, while fundraising and advocacy involved non‑profits like the Australian Conservation Foundation and corporate partners modeled on conservation sponsorships by companies listed on the Australian Securities Exchange.

Outcomes and Challenges

The program achieved key outcomes: establishment of a genetically managed insurance population across multiple sanctuaries and improved understanding of DFTD epidemiology, with research revealing transmission mechanisms comparable to transmissible cancers studied by teams at the Broad Institute and the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute. Challenges persist including maintaining genetic diversity comparable to reserves used for koala and wombat management, logistical constraints in translocations similar to those faced in New Zealand conservation programmes, and securing sustained funding in contexts shaped by budgetary cycles of the Australian Treasury and philanthropic trends exemplified by donations to the Nature Conservancy. Novel issues include emergence of devil facial tumour 2 (DFT2), biosecurity breaches, and interactions with introduced species management policy in Tasmania.

Future Plans and Funding

Future plans prioritize expanding disease resistance research through partnerships with genomic centers such as the Garvan Institute of Medical Research, scaling up vaccination and immunotherapy trials leveraging methods from cancer immunotherapy research at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, and strengthening translocation protocols informed by best practice from the IUCN guidelines for reintroductions. Funding strategies combine government appropriations under state budgets, competitive grants from bodies like the Australian Research Council, corporate sponsorships similar to support for the Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria, and philanthropic endowments modeled after the Ian Potter Foundation. Continued collaboration with international zoos, universities, and conservation NGOs will guide adaptive responses to emerging threats and long‑term recovery targets set under Australian environmental legislation.

Category:Conservation programs Category:Fauna of Tasmania Category:Wildlife disease