I'm not, mhaze.

//...it's good to see you're taking your talking points from the koala industry…//

I'm taking them from the actual CSIRO/NKMP technical report, which you clearly haven't read. You might have said the study is forthcoming, but you then cited its unpublished high-end figure as if it were settled fact, while mocking others for supposedly ignoring "the science".

You can't use it as a cudgel and then claim immunity from critique because it's "not published yet."

//All of a sudden, them going extinct isn't the main story. It's all about nuance…//

No, that's always been the case.

Koala population health is about distribution, genetic diversity, habitat quality, and local collapses - all of which you ignore in favour of a gotcha narrative.

//Being in small numbers in some places, isn't the same as being endangered.//

Except that's what "endangered" means.

A species is listed as endangered when it's facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild due to population fragmentation, decline in area of occupancy, or habitat loss. That's exactly the case in QLD, NSW and the ACT. The listing is region-specific because the threats are localised.

//Now we know they're thriving.//

No, now we have a modelled baseline that suggests the total population may be higher than previous estimates - largely due to expanded survey area, better technology, and improved spatial modelling. It says nothing about population trends, and explicitly cautions against your interpretation of it.

//Europeans expanded their range…//

This is historical sleight of hand.

Our introducing of eucalypts to new areas, and the geographical expansion of Koalas, isn't automatically a positive. Cherry-picking a moment in colonial history to imply that we've done them a favour is not the slam dunk you think it is.

Your argument hinges on the idea that conservation was built on a lie, but the only lie is yours: that higher population numbers invalidate all environmental concerns, that listing status is political theatre, and that people who care about wildlife must be part of some grubby industry.

You're not defending truth. You're trying to justify never having cared.

Quite a bout of hysteria there JD.

I'm just talking about koalas. Not about conservation in general. Not about saving truly threatened species. Just about the way some have used the false claims about an alleged cuddly critter to line their own pockets and/or advanced their utterly unrelated goals.

But there's this need to defend every battlement, every green shibboleth. Anything that looks even vaguely like an attack on anything vaguely green must be treated as heresy and beaten into submission.

That's why I wondered if the CSIRO has the balls to stand up to the hysteria coming its way over this.

But how about you confine yourself to the koala and celebrate the FACT that is no longer going the way of the Dodo.

Cute koalas are not as important as ugly old bats, which as one disinterested in all animals that aren't edible, has read do more for the fertilisation of our food crops than even birds and bees.

It might sound a bit religious, but animals were created to serve humans. If they don't do that, they are not needed.

They are particularly not needed on Kangaroo Island, where they are not native, but were introduced from Queensland by some wankerdoodle. They are disliked by sensible Islanders, and there are far too many of them. Every now and again there are calls for culling.

40%-90% of the little buggers have chlamidyia.

mhaze,

There's no hysteria here - in fact, I felt quite calm when typing that one up - just a refusal to let you smuggle lazy narratives past unchallenged.

You say you're "just talking about koalas", but what you're actually doing is attacking scientists and conservationists, accusing them of fraud and ideological manipulation - then playing the victim when someone pushes back. If you want a civil, koala-only conversation, maybe don't open with "scam," "charlatans," and "fundraising racket."

You now claim you're not attacking conservation generally - just the "false claims" about koalas. But the only thing shown false here is your assumption that a higher population estimate equals thriving species. The CSIRO didn't say that. In fact, they warned against that very interpretation. You don't cite their caution because it doesn't fit the gotcha narrative.

//Celebrate the FACT that [the koala] is no longer going the way of the Dodo.//

But again, the scientists didn't say that. They released a baseline model with wide confidence intervals, noted improved methods as the key driver of higher estimates, and reaffirmed the endangered listing in QLD, NSW, and ACT. They warned against treating these numbers as trend data or justification for complacency.

You ignore all that. Why? Because your argument only works if you erase complexity. You're not "just talking about koalas." You're using them as a rhetorical battering ram - to delegitimise conservation work more broadly, portray scientists as agenda-driven grifters, and cast yourself as bravely "calling out" green dogma.

This isn't about battlements or shibboleths. It's about intellectual honesty.

You're trying to shift the burden now: "Why not just celebrate the new numbers?" Easy - because pretending that those numbers tell the full story is misleading. The CSIRO doesn't pretend that, and neither should you.

If you want a real discussion about the koala's status, let's have it. But don't expect to throw rhetorical grenades and then complain when people respond with more than a shrug.

Again JD, you read things I don't say and then complain that I said things you thought I said but never said.

There are now, we know, many hundreds of thousands of koalas on the east coast. And many hundreds of thousands more than even the CSITRO previously thought existed. That, to my mind, means they are thriving. Nowhere did I say they are increasing in number or that the new discoveries represent a trend. That's just another thing you made up to try to turn the argument into something you could deal with....and failed yet again.

Also nowhere did I say that the scientists were in on the fake claims about the koala numbers. That was all down to activists who made careers and fortunes out of claiming the creature was all but gone when the opposite was true. And now they are panicking just as you're panicking trying to claim that a creature that numbers in the hundreds of thousands, thanks to humans, is somehow endangered.

But hang in there. There's every chance the CSIRO will be battered into submission on this and their research withdrawn.

mhaze,

You keep trying to reposition yourself after the fact - rewriting your original tone, intent, and wording once called out.

You opened with sarcasm, conspiracy innuendo, and declared "the critter was never in danger" and that conservationists were part of a scam. Now you claim you never said koalas are increasing, never blamed scientists, and never implied anything broader than "just talking about koalas." That's convenient, but not honest.

You now insist that you consider hundreds of thousands of koalas to mean they're "thriving," even though:

- You previously mocked those who waited for peer-reviewed confirmation as if it was cowardice.

- You ignored that the scientists explicitly warned the estimate is a baseline, not a trend, and that population health includes more than a raw count.

- You disregarded the fact that the endangered listing is based on well-documented regional declines - particularly in QLD, NSW, and ACT - not just aggregate numbers.

You now say you never accused scientists - only "activists" who lined their pockets. Yet you questioned whether CSIRO would have "the balls" to resist pressure and "go along like they did with the climate debate". That's not subtle. You clearly cast doubt on scientific independence, then backpedal when challenged.

Your fallback - that you were "just celebrating good news" - is undermined by your gleeful swipes at conservation work, scientists, and anyone who didn't immediately declare "crisis over." You didn't come here to celebrate, you came here to declare victory in a culture war.

If you'd simply said, "These numbers suggest we may have underestimated the population, and that's worth updating our approach," you'd be in good faith territory. But instead, you weaponised the headline to paint years of science and policy as fraudulent - then cry misrepresentation when someone points it out.

You don't get to swing a rhetorical hammer and then act surprised when someone calls it what it is.