20 January 2025

Kosciuszko National Park’s health a mixed diagnosis in first EcoHealth Scorecard

| Edwina Mason
Join the conversation
12
NPWS Ecoscorecard

NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service workers were deployed into Kosciuszko National Park to install state-of-the-art monitoring devices ahead of the survey. Photo: NSW NPWS.

The overall health of Kosciuszko National Park (KNP) has been put under the microscope for the first time, revealing both positive and concerning insights into its health and long-term viability.

Using an EcoHealth Scorecard, which is being applied to eight of the state’s national parks sites over the next five years, the detailed assessment by the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) has been dubbed the largest systematic ecological monitoring program in its history.

According to NPWS Deputy Secretary Atticus Fleming, the scorecard gives the NPWS a first comprehensive report on how the park is faring, based on a wealth of new monitoring data.

In KNP alone, the biological survey work used data from 100 permanent monitoring sites equipped with state-of-the-art cameras and acoustic devices.

In all, half a million animal images, nearly 4000 plant records and 1225 bird records were recorded for use during surveys undertaken in the 2022/23 financial year.

READ ALSO Small rural cemeteries of the South West Slopes unlikely havens for conservation

And it appears, despite its challenges, KNP remains a refuge for many of Australia’s most threatened species.

Among the key findings:

  • Mammals: Populations of the mountain pygmy possum, eastern false pipistrelle, and spotted-tailed quoll appear stable. However, more data is needed to assess species like the broad-toothed rat and smoky mouse.
  • Birds: The park supports 28 threatened bird species, including the powerful owl and gang-gang cockatoo.
  • Amphibians: While populations of the southern corroboree frog, alpine tree frog, and Booroolong frog seem stable, the spotted tree frog has shown promising increases thanks to targeted conservation programs.
  • Flora: Over 1100 plant species thrive in Kosciuszko, representing about five per cent of Australia’s total plant diversity. Surveys at monitoring sites identified 501 native species.

Despite these successes, the scorecard revealed significant challenges:

  • Feral Animals: Eleven invasive species, including horses, feral cats, deer, and foxes, impact the park’s ecosystems. Cameras detected feral cats at 40 per cent of monitoring sites.
  • Weeds: Fifty-five weed species – including blackberry, mouse-ear hawkweed, orange hawkweed (Pilosella aurantiaca), ox-eye daisy and scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) – were recorded, with their prevalence often linked to human activity and disturbances caused by feral animals.
  • Climate Change and Fire: Iconic species like the Guthega skink face risks from rising temperatures. Meanwhile, extensive bushfires over the past two decades have reduced old-growth vegetation and affected fire-sensitive species such as the alpine ash.
  • Historical Losses: Since European settlement, the park has lost an estimated eight mammal species and 39 bird species, equating to 14 and 16 per cent of the original fauna, respectively.

One of the most contentious issues facing KNP is the impact of wild horses, or brumbies, which form the largest population in any NSW national park.

Scientific reports have suggested horse grazing and trampling damage sensitive ecosystems, including bogs and fens, which are critical habitats for threatened species like the broad-toothed rat, and contributed to water quality issues, with turbidity levels failing to meet ecological standards in many areas.

READ ALSO Scientists suss out secrets of Kosciuszko’s extremely rare terrace formations

According to the EcoHealth Scorecard, efforts to address this challenge are already underway with the NPWS removing 7285 horses and more than 1800 other feral animals, including deer, pigs, cats, foxes, and rabbits in the 2023/24 financial year.

Mr Fleming has also confirmed efforts by the NPWS in ramping up weed management, treating 12,008 hectares of land for weeds in 2023/24.

Fire management strategies have also been adjusted and tailored to protect critical habitats, he said.

Kosciuszko’s next scorecard, scheduled for release in 2025/26, will include targeted surveys for koalas, yellow-bellied gliders, and several threatened plants.

It follows the release of the first EcoHealth Scorecard for Australia’s Royal National Park in July 2024.

Join the conversation

12
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
Philip Creagh11:14 am 27 Jan 25

Responding to Patricia’s rely to me:

You say: “In KNP one must consider the considerable effort and expenditure by NP to control feral horses”
NPWS was allocated an extra $8.2mill from the NSW budget for the 2024 aerial cull of horses. From speaking to some NPWS friends over the years they have been disappointed in control of pigs and deer which they regarded as a far more serious threat, especially if diseases of even-toed ungulates appear here. There are no serious transmissible diseases of horses. Weed spreading by horses in KNP is also exaggerated by the Invasive Species Council.

Perhaps NSW Forestry could be similarly congratulated for their level of feral animal control, which to my eye’s seems quite strong, especially for foxes, feral dogs and to a lesser extent pigs. How NPWS funding is limited by “feral horse advocates, deer hunters and green haters” is beyond me?

You say: “Horse trekking BUSINESSES should not be permitted to use NP land ..” Which is an unfortunate statement. This typifies the extreme green attitude of virtually ALL so called ‘conservation minded people’. The attitude that ‘lock it up and lock ‘em out’ will solve nature’s problems is permeating all levels of NPWS staff nowadays. It even affects NSW Fisheries.

Gone is the sensible attitude of ‘living with humans’ that was there in the ‘70’s through to ‘90’s, replaced with a vilifying of humans interacting with these national parks. The management of overseas national parks is an eye-opener if you get a chance.

Surely you are not saying is that guided bushwalking, guided fishing and the ski resorts should be expelled from the park?

patricia gardiner4:01 pm 29 Jan 25

I stand by my previous comments, but also add that the development of ski resorts/chalets occurred prior to the Park being identified as such = State Park in 1944, KNP in 1967.
AND, you are living in dreamland if you think humans have had little or no detrimental impact on our natural environment, whether it be in a NP or elsewhere.
Every living thing has a role to play in the natural scheme of things, except for humans. All we have done is ‘stuff it up.”

Philip Creagh11:13 am 27 Jan 25

Part 2
I did not say “the Green movt support the theory that “fire management is best done AFTER the fire is first seen.”
What I said was Lindemayer’s hypothetical argument is along those lines – see: Prescribed burning could be making Aussie forests more flammable | Australian National University

Many forestry scientists and academics believe this will be to the vast detriment of NSW’s native forests, both in State forest’s, National parks and on private land. Lindenmayer’s philosophy is permeating the upper echelons of NPWS management now with much reduced levels of HR burns. The spin is, of course, that conditions are ‘never right’. Unfortunately the NSW Labor government is starting to echo the myth.

Finally you say “Native forest logging is subsidised by taxpayers”. Could I suggest that you have a look at the NSW Forestry Annual reports which quite clearly show that native forest logging is NOT subsidised by NSW taxpayers. SEE: Forestry Corporation – Annual Reports

The Frontier economics report, so beloved by the Green movement, that made these claims has been shown to be quite ‘unique’ in many of its accounting and economic principles.
Don’t forget that the Frontier economics report on nuclear energy for Australia has been derided by Labor and the Greens – can you have it both ways?

Jenny Knowles10:36 pm 25 Jan 25

It is always interesting and revealing when the defenders of National Parks, who do a great job, are the entitled landowners looking to feed off the public teet to solve their own problems. Seems Patricia Gardiner (who it seems thinks people who disagree with the Greens are “brainless rednecks”) gets a few taxpayer dollar helping hands to control issues on her own land. I’m interested in just how many taxpayer dollars?

patricia gardiner5:40 pm 26 Jan 25

Hi Jen, I don’t get any “taxpayer dollars” from NPs. The trapping and shooting of feral pigs(as well as other ferals) that my partner and I do is voluntary, on our own property and the property of other private landholders who need assistance. We have also designed and made our own traps which NPs are now interested in making.
We have problems with the idiot fringe who come out hunting with dogs which scatter the pigs. Normally we can trap a number of pigs in one go,
Brainless rednecks are those that hunt anything that moves, ignore regulations and criticise any idea or concept that my be viewed as ‘green’, regardless of its merits.
In order to protect and preserve our environment it is best that we all work together – landholders, NPs, landcare, and LLS.

Philip Creagh9:59 am 24 Jan 25

Whilst I agree with most of Patricia’s positives about NPWS, there are some I disagree with in relation to KNP.

“Feral animal control and support for adjoining landholders” is one. Feral animal control IMO is poor, and of all the farms I visited as a Veterinarian adjacent to a NP, none had a good word for NPWS.
‘Weed management’ within KNP is almost non-existent apart from blaming the horse trekking businesses for introducing weeds, which is a furphy.

In comparison to NSW Forestry’s management of State forests (2 mill. Hectares), NSW National parks (7.5 mill hectares) costs about $20/hectare compared to $5/hectare) from the NSW taxpayer. Notwithstanding that in most years NSW Forestry returns a dividend to the Government.

Any reasonable overview of KNP would show that the culture of upper management is moving towards the hypotheses of Lindenmayer and Zylstra which maintains that fire management is best done AFTER the fire is first seen. What happens if the wind is too strong to ‘chopper in remote ground crews’ as would be the norm? a catastrophe.

Forestry experts within CSIRO and Universities disagree with this concept, however as Lindenmayer and Zylstra have become the darlings of the extreme green conservation groups this is the attitude that is prevailing. Other opinions are rarely heard in mainstream media.

A stark reminder of the severity of fires within KNP can be seen between Round Mountain and Jagumba. This area will never regenerate, it is a sterilised desert. Hazard reduction burns within KNP have become a ‘dirty’ word within upper management.

patricia gardiner7:20 pm 24 Jan 25

In KNP one must consider the considerable effort and expenditure by NP to control feral horses as well as pigs, deer etc during aerial culling activities.
Of course, any horse owners in the area are opposed to this program and are openly hostile and aggressive to all NP personnel.
Horse trekking BUSINESSES should not be permitted to use NP land for their money making enterprise.
Weeds introduced by horses is certainly NOT a furphy. This I know from experience after hosting the Deua River Bush Races on my land for several years. This paddock has weeds found nowhere else on my property.
Note: native forest logging is subsidised by taxpayers
You claim Greens believe, “fire management is best done AFTER the fire is first seen.” How do you manage a fire that hasn’t been seen?
When adequately funded, NPs have provided traps and bait to help me control feral pigs in my valley, adjoining Deua Ntionl Prk.
NP are limited by the funding they receive from the state govt, by feral horse advocates, deer hunters and Green haters(brainless red necks).

patricia gardiner4:04 pm 25 Jan 25

Philip, I think you have overlooked the enormous amount of effort and cost expended on the aerial culling program in KNP targeting feral horses as well as pigs and deer.
Most adjacent landholders are feral horse advocates so of course they would be anti NPs. They are often openly hostile and aggressive towards park staff who are simply doing their job. These antagonists should be charged.
NPs have provided us with traps and bait for feral pig control in our valley They also participate and support weed management along with landcare and landowners.
Weeds spread by horses is certainly not a furphy. I know this from experience after hosting the Deua River Bush Races for many years. The Races paddock has weeds not found anywhere else on my property.
Horse trekking businesses have no place in NPs. Everyone else who runs a business does so on their OWN land or leases the land.
Note: native forest logging is subsidised by taxpayers.
You state that the Green movt support the theory that “fire management is best done AFTER the fire is first seen.”
How do you manage a fire BEFORE it is first seen?

patricia gardiner6:53 pm 22 Jan 25

It is a shame National Parks do not have a publicity dept to inform the public of all the wonderful work they do.
Examples:
* bushfire fighting crews, remote area fire fighting crews dropped in by chopper, chopper support for ground crews., hazard reduction burns
* weed management and info/advice/support for public
* feral animal control and support for adjoining landowners
* maintaining fire trails
* maintaining camping grounds
* flora and fauna studies to inform conservation measures
* identifying and protecting areas of cultural/historic significance
* trying to control ‘dickhead’ behaviour – dogs(that chase/kill wildlife), shooting, lighting of fires during fire bans, irresponsible campers(noise, rubbish, chainsaws, etc), 4WD’s and trial bikes using freshly graded firetrails when advised NOT to due to rain – they hurl the signs into the bush
NPs do so much that the public never hear about

Great to see that scientific monitoring confirms that the work to save threatened species is actually having an effect. Keep it up please NPWS.

If they want a NP to be sustainable and healthy get rid of these overpaid experts from the NPWS as all they do is so-called studies and lets get more money to fund the crap, they promote and the public wonder why the state is unable to pay police nurses etc a decent wage as it’s all vote grabbing to please the inner city greenies

Jenny Knowles6:43 pm 22 Jan 25

Another ill considered and utterly hopeless brain fart. The NPWS do a great job and yes they are experts, which is evidently quite unlike you.

Daily Digest

Do you like to know what’s happening around your region? Every day the About Regional team packages up our most popular stories and sends them straight to your inbox for free. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.