Tasmanian Devil: Symbol of ecological complexities and our inability to understand them.

I have just finished reading Tasmanian Devil: A unique and threatened animal by David Owen and David Pemberton (2005). After reading this book, completing three assignments in the subject Ecological Processes at university and the chance encounter with the television program Living Planet on SBS, I have come to the realisation of the deep complexities that make up an ecosystem. It appears that everything is connected and an intricate balance between the processes in an ecosystem keeps the environment functional and healthy. Yet, if something is removed or disturbed this intricate balance can be disrupted with sometimes drastic consequences.

A perfect example of the complexities within ecological processes is the Tasmanian Devil and the current issue of Devil Facial Tumor Disease (DFTD). According to Owen and Pemberton (2005) although it is known that the current declining rate of the Tasmanian Devil is due to DFTD it is not certain as to the cause of this devastating disease. There is speculation that it is due to deformities in oysters as a result of chemicals used in forestry that have made their way into the water streams. This same chemical has been associated with tumors in mice. As devils almost eat anything, including oysters, there is speculation that this chemical, bio-accumulated in oysters and ingested by devils, has caused DFTD (Owen & Pemberton 2005).
This association, though would seem unlikely, shows just how complex and connected processes are in an ecosystem and how our behaviour could have unintended consequences. As a result of DFTD we (Australia) are at risk of losing our last endemic marsupial carnivore. This begs a question to be asked, What consequences could losing the Tasmanian Devil have to the ecosystem in Tasmania, particularly when we consider the devils' scavaging abilities?
Predictably, the powers that be are denying this connection between their chemical usage and DFTD. How much power does a huge money making industry like forestry in Tasmania have? Is it enough power that its voice is louder and has more sway than that of the lose of a species?

This example shows that our lack of ability to understand the complexities in ecosystems is not just due to their inherent complex nature but our political stubbornness and greed for money. It seems that an industries ability to make money and produce jobs comes before conserving a species. Although this is speculation on my part, it appears to be a recurring and common issue with most environmental/conservation issues. After reading Owen and Pemberton (2005) two things seems certain to me, politicians will sit on their hands unless it is absolutely necessary to act, like a species becoming extinct, and if anyone stands to lose money as a result of a decision to save a species, affected parties will argue for their case stalling any real action.

Although I do feel sympathy for those who are trying to make a living I have trouble accepting that the ability of one to make a living trumps the health of our environment and the wellbeing of species. Do we want another extinction in Tasmania because of our actions and the value we put on capitalism?

Own D & Pemberton D 2005 Tasmanian Devil: A unique and threatened animal Allen & Unwin Sydney.