A reply to “A recent investigation highlights the
importance of honesty in ornithology and conservation”
Olsen & Menkhorst published in The Emu
On-line. (Copy attached below)
12.7.20
How papers based on poor research,
innuendo, assumption, deceit with a vendetta included unfairly destroy careers.
Truth must always rise above
mediocrity and malevolence and in this instance the truth needs to be revealed!
THIS IS THAT TRUTH!
Penny Olsen’s ongoing vendetta
against John Young
Having read the paper “A recent investigation highlights the
importance of honesty in ornithology and conservation” by Penny Olsen and
Peter Menkhorst published on-line, the Emu
– Austral Ornithology (2020), the unproven allegations, the inaccuracies, poor
research and lack of science contained in this paper are not only staggering
but must be challenged! The paper blatantly though not in so many words but
quite dishonestly denounces John Young as a fraud as were at least two recent
papers singularly authored by Olsen. In reality, it is nothing more than a very
shameful, highly defamatory attempt
to further attack Young, and another hollow and desperate attempt to convince the
greater birding community he is a hoaxer.
One wonders why this
paper was ever accepted for publication by the journal (Emu) which must leave not only the authors but also the journal and
its editor open to litigation! Young was never contacted concerning this
publication nor given the opportunity to reply!
From her previous hateful
and malicious writings concerning Young, one can assume Olsen is the lead
author of the above paper. Consequently,
the whole paper can be and should be dismissed as outright dishonest drivel,
something entirely inappropriate for any publication, let alone a leading
scientific, ornithological journal!
Ms Olsen, who seems to
be very obviously and blatantly spearheading another assault against Young, has
over time, shown that she publicly conducts vendettas against targeted people –
one notable failed attempt being against
J. Olsen concerning the status, etc. of the Little Eagle in the Australian
Capital Territory (Olsen & Rae 2017; Olsen 2018) ). She has conducted several against John Young, the reason for which
only she knows (Olsen 2007; Olsen 2018a;
Olsen 2020a; Olsen & Menkhorst 2020).
It is widely known
that she has had a very personal, savage, obsessive and ongoing vendetta against
Young for about 20 years and has many times, with scoff and scorn, gone to
extreme lengths to try to destroy the substance of his field work, extensive
conservation work and reputation with false accusations, e.g. the classic but
cowardly attempts in her books “Glimpses
of Paradise” (Olsen 2007) and “Night
Parrot” (Olsen 2018a) where she knew Young would have no comeback. When Glimpses of Paradise appeared, a
prominent ornithologist asked Young if he was going to commence litigation against
her for the defamatory statements against him which the book contained (pers. comm. Name withheld on request). To
his credit, Young has never replied to her hostility and has always ignored her
onslaught.
Her attacks on Young have
been denounced by a number of reviewers of her books, even as far away as the
United States of America, yet she obsessively carries on (e.g. Olsen &
Menkhorst 2020). In a review of Night
Parrot in Australian Field Ornithology: “Olsen occasionally makes assertions or implies
behavior, regarding John Young in particular, that does not enhance the book. I
find this aspect of the book quite unprofessional and it disappoints me
considerably. Although there may be some lack of clarity about the
contributions of John Young in recent times, and perhaps several unanswered
questions raised in the birding community, there are far more reasonable ways
and more appropriate places to approach better understanding. A one-sided
attack in a book of this nature is not one of them.” (Valentine 2019).
And again – “Penny Olsen’s book attracted censure even before it was fully
launched. The criticism is mostly directed at the way she portrayed John Young
and his work….. Even his account of the hours and kilometres spent searching
for the Night Parrot is questioned….. Unfortunately, all indications are that
she relied solely on secondary sources for information about him…..Clearly,
more effort should have been made, since he was the one who rediscovered the
species and triggered major research and conservation efforts.” (Lenz 2018)
Another example from a well-known museum curator
whom Olsen knows well, “I was very
disappointed with the Olsen Night Parrot book, mainly due to the fact that we
would know very little about this bird had it not been for the efforts of John
Young”. (pers. comm., name
withheld on request).
Sadly, despicably and
disgracefully in the current paper, Olsen and Menkhorst have directly
associated Young with noted fraudsters, George Bristow and Richard
Meinertzhagen, two infamous British con-artists operating during the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Harrop et al. 2012). Not only are their assumptions completely baseless
but they have executed extremely poor research, basing their case on conjecture
and innuendo. For anyone who uses the appellation of “scientist”, “doctor” or “professor”
such action is reprehensible and immensely unprofessional!
Summarising, and sadly,
it is very obvious that Olsen and Menkhorst together with Olsen’s very small
band of supporters, are attempting to prove Young is a fraud on false
“evidence”! Unfortunately, very important ornithological and conservation work
is being hampered by such unproductive and hateful action all for the sake of a
personal vendetta for which the entire birding community is oblivious of the reason.
Young’s persistence and eventual discovery of the Night Parrot, at a great cost
to himself in time and income, should be given the ongoing recognition it
deserves – but thanks to this craziness it often draws derision and thoughts of
fraud.
FOR THE SAKE OF HONESTY, FAIRNESS AND
CONTINUATION OF IMPORTANT RESEARCH, THIS NEEDLESS LUNACY MUST CEASE!
However, despite these
attacks, Young’s discovery heralded some important things – not only ongoing knowledge
of the parrot which must go a long way to ensuring the bird’s continued
survival – but to other spin-offs as well, i.e. “It has been another busy 12 months for the growing Night Parrot
research community. There is now systematic search occurring across the
continent and more people than ever before are directly involved in the study
of Night Parrots, including scientists, land managers and traditional owners.”
(Birdlife Australia 2019).
I have personally
known John Young for about 30 years and have done numerous field research trips
with him, including to the site where the Night Parrot was eventually discovered.
I can state with complete confidence and honesty, that
he NEVER indulges in fraud and NEVER HAS! Many others who have worked with him,
many with substantial credentials, wholeheartedly agree and are highly disappointed
at the continued accusations. (See references below).
It
is incredible that Olsen and Menkhorst seem to be the only people aware of the
“fraud” and “dishonesty” that they attribute to Young. Many others, some with far greater distinguished credentials than either
Olsen or Menkhorst, continue to pour high praise on him for his skill in the
field ability and honesty (Hollands 2008; Mason & Pfitzner 2020 and many
others).
I used much of Young’s data, with credits,
in one of my books Birds of Queensland’s
Wet Tropics and Great Barrier Reef” (Nielsen 1996) and that data is still
correct today! It was rechecked when I produced an updated version of the book in
recent years (Nielsen 2015).
Richard Schodde & Ian Mason relied on some
of Young’s extensive experience with owls on the east coast and through the northern
tropics of Australia for their monumental work Nocturnal Birds of Australia (Schodde & Mason 1980). Again,
that data still stands today. Mason & Pfitzner state “The publications (i.e.
Nocturnal Birds of Australia (Schodde
& Mason 1980), Owls, Frogmouths and
Nightjars of Australia (Hollands 2008) and Eagles Hawks and Falcons of Australia (Hollands 1984)) would not
have been a success without John’s climbing abilities and knowledge gained by
his past collecting experiences.”
The esteemed senior ornithologist, David Hollands,
engaged Young numerous times over many years when producing his two ground-breaking
books on owls, Birds of the Night (Hollands
1991) and Owls Frogmouths and Nightjars
of Australia (Hollands 2008). Again, that data still stands today. In the
latter, Hollands pays tribute to Young, i.e. “Without John, I would have undoubtedly given up and my debt to him is
enormous….finder of unfindable nests and builder of impossible hides, he is the
most remarkable bushman and naturalist whom I have ever met. His overall
knowledge of owls is profound and much of the new information in the Field
Guide (section) has come from him.”
Young was at the
forefront when Rod Kavanagh worked on a thesis on large forest owls in central
western New South Wales. Kavanagh acknowledged Young’s assistance and input with
– “Special thanks go to the indefatigable
and jocular John Young for teaching me to ‘think like an owl’, and for
demonstrating the basic field techniques needed to find and study owls at their
nests and roosts.” (Kavanagh 1997). A secondary benefit from Kavanagh’s
work with the input from Young resulted in large areas of habitat and forest
owl territories being protected.
Young has been hired by professional people of high standing – ornithologists, entomologists, lepidopterists, film makers and
others – from around the world over
many years for his ornithological and lepidoptery expertise,
bushman skills, and an exceptional, uncanny understanding of wildlife in the
field. He has been engaged by people such as Sir David Attenborough, Dr. Jim Frazier and Densy Clyne, Jack and Lindsay
Cupper (Cupper & Cupper 1981) – as well as many professional ornithologists,
film makers and others.
One of Olsen’s and
Menkhorsts’s major errors is that Young is NOT
a scientist, but they attempt to judge him as one. At the same time
ignoring the great field and conservation work he has done. He has never set
out to be a scientist, nor has he had an interest in publishing material. He is
a field naturalist of the highest order, gifted with a rare sixth sense (which he
uses to assist others in their research). Whereas, Ms Olsen presents herself as
a historian and an author relying on published material and the work of others
to produce her books and other writings, often with a nasty overtone as in this
paper and some of her books. For many years she has repeatedly demonstrated
that she is not a field biologist but is quick to give an opinion whether right
or wrong on other’s work.
From her writings and
statements, she seems oblivious of what really happens in the field. For
example, Young and his brother found 17 nests of Lesser Sooty Owl in the Ingham
area in one breeding season (1987) when working with Hollands. He witnessed
this amazing feat himself, visiting every nest (Hollands 2008). Up until that
point, the nest and breeding habits of Lesser Sooty Owl were virtually unknown
(Higgins 1999). Yet, while most lauded the work, Ms Olsen condescendingly
scoffs, dismissing this amazing feat without question, research, examination or
contact with any of the three men as “unbelievable owl survey numbers” (Olsen
2018a), a case of the ignorant doubting the skilled! It was also a disgusting smear
to the credibility of David Hollands.
It has been revealed
that Olsen has recently written a comment piece for publication throwing some
trivial doubt on data supplied by Young in a paper published 23 years ago
(Young & De Lai 1997). This concerned large numbers of owls in the sugar-cane fields in the Ingham
district, north Queensland, conducted over a number of years and “Klerat” (Brodifacoum), an anticoagulant
toxicant rodenticide used by cane farmers to control the rats. It was found to
be responsible for large numbers of owl deaths.
Her questioning
concerns owl
numbers quoted, claiming that owls (the Tyto group) are “boom-bust birds”
and numbers quoted for year after year are “unbelievable”, i.e. “the sheer numbers seem extraordinary” and
“nor are the patterns believable, with little variation in breeding between
years…”. Here she once again shows great ignorance of the situation which some little
research (there are many scientific papers and other reports available (e.g.
Geiger 2015)) would have revealed, i.e. rodent numbers in sugar-cane crops where
rodents are an annual and perennial problem for growers worldwide. It is generally
“boom” for the owls in most years where the main food source of the rodents
turns to a vast supply – standing sugar cane stalks as the cane develops,
resulting in heavy crop losses.
I have personally
counted 72 Eastern Barn Owls and 6 Eastern Grass Owls along about 4 km of
roadway in a couple of hours on one night. Further, Young’s figures are based
on estimates of numbers over a huge area, not on smaller specific surveys.
Unbelievably, both
Olsen and Menkhorst have had virtually no contact with Young at any time or on
any subject, yet they castigate him severely. Even when Olsen was working on Night Parrot, her entire contact with
Young was two very short emails (copies retained) the first asking if he would
help with “some text” or “photos”. Young initially agreed (by email) to help but
not before complaining at the way she treated him in Glimpes of Paradise, i.e. “You
did not even give me the time of day to converse with me personally to ensure
your writings were fact which they sure as hell were not. Instead you wrote
what others fed you which shows no scientific value whatever.” Young went
on regarding breeding Paradise Parrots he was supposed to have found at Ingham,
north Queensland “I found some unusual
holes in termite mounds and merely joked to one individual ‘wouldn’t it be
funny if these were Paradise Parrots’, nothing more, nothing less. Then you
accused me of taking 31 eggs (of Paradise Parrot). What the hell were you
thinking – no one in their right mind would do such a despicable thing – LEAST
OF ALL ME!”
Her second short email
in reply made no reference to, nor apology for Young’s grievances, simply
thanking him for his generosity for his offer to help and asking him if she
could use some of his “lovely photos” in the forthcoming Night Parrot. However, while asking for photos, a rumour was circulating
that she was intending to do a “hatchet job on Young” in Night Parrot. On hearing this, Young decided not to go ahead with
his offer of help and made no further contact. Later, Olsen deceptively covered
herself, commenting (in Night Parrot) “I invited John Young, a key figure in the Night Parrot story, to
contribute – he agreed but nothing happened” (Olsen 2018a).
Any competent
journalist, author or scientist would have attempted earnestly to spend as much
time as possible interviewing Young face to face. As the finder of a bird that
had been “lost” for many decades and thought probably extinct, the finding of which
made world headlines, should they be producing a book on the very subject.
Instead, Olsen went ahead, with back-stabbing veracity, savagely carrying out
the “hatchet job”. She gave almost no credit to Young for his amazing feat
after more than a decade of search – all at his own expense. She was true to
her word! The rumour proved to be accurate! How to reveal one’s true colours!
She even stooped to a
lower level to ridicule such things as the time taken, the kilometres travelled
etc. before he eventually met with success. As well as other items, spent over
more than a decade in his attempt to locate the Night Parrot (Olsen 2016). Again,
in an interview with The Guardian (12.10.18),
Olsen states Young “has always claimed that he went out into the bush, called
it in (the Night Parrot) and he stood there and took the photos. I
questioned that seriously in the book” (Night
Parrot). Contra to Olsen’s utterly
ridiculous and misleading statement which is nothing more than a blatant LIE in which she ridicules Young’s
estimates of time and travel as “embellished”, Young has always honestly stated
that he took 15 years of searching and travelled about 320,000 km over those
years before he found the bird. Olsen would be very aware of Young’s statement
in this regard – he has never wavered from it. Sadly, all it does is display
her lack of understanding of the vastness of the Australian inland and how it
works, her abuse of the truth and lack of field experience!
However, on the other
hand, she used and quoted extensively and in great detail, the field and diary notes
and comments of Steve Murphy, who worked as the scientist with Young following
the find. Unashamed, she sided with Murphy to attack Young and even stooped
lower still to use malicious and personal comments made by Murphy in his field notes
against Young. This even included personal details of a hospital visit by Young
when he was suffering from heat stroke! Professionalism?
She would be well
reminded that the chances are very high that she would never have been able to
write a reasonable book without Young’s years of effort! Yet she castigates him
at every opportunity which also greatly diminishes the value of her book!
Some of the false statements
in the current Olsen & Menkhorst paper need rebuttal. Their statement
“Young’s questionable claims relating to birds, mammals and butterflies are
scattered through the scientific literature, and eggs of dubious provenance,
collected by him are in our museums. Unfortunately, there has been little
revision of these records.” (Menkhorst & Olsen 2020).
Firstly, this
statement is so far from the truth that it is absolutely ridiculous,
unresearched, fabricated out of all proportions, unprofessional and verges on
the point of being libellous! Young has NEVER attempted personally to publish
his findings and he has NEVER contributed personally to museum collections.
Some eggs collected by
Young and exchanged with other collectors in times gone by have reached museums
when those collections have been donated to museums and similar institutions.
Mason and Pfitzner (2020) found less than 500 clutches collected by Young over
20 years in these institutions, a miniscule number when there are many thousands
of clutches probably many more than 100,000 in our museums. Furthermore, Young
kept detailed data for every clutch
he collected, meticulously entered onto specially printed data cards, one for
each clutch (Mason & Pfitzner 2020), (even to the extent of measuring size
of nest, diameter of entrance, height (measured) from ground to the nearest
foot, detail of material used and so on) which a little research would have
revealed (cf. Mason & Pfitzner
2020). “Provenance” in every case was far from “dubious” — another fallacy
based entirely on blind conjecture. His personal nest records, along with many
other collectors, has been the base information for the breeding information in
the volumes of HANZAB, ornithological field guides and conservation management.
There is no single living
person in Australia who has the knowledge of eggs, nests and breeding of
Australia’s birds than Young, having amassed a massive collection of nearly all
of Australia’s birds’ eggs between 60 and 40 years ago – every clutch with substantial
data attached (Mason & Pfitzner 2020). During that time, he found the nests
of over 600 species of Australian birds! This experience is the very reason he
has been hired countless times by credible researchers and others. (Young gave
up egg collecting in 1979 to concentrate on locating endangered species such as
the Night Parrot as well as conserving some of our most precious bird and other
species, and their habitat). WHY can’t
Olsen give him credit for his achievements and honesty as many, many others
have done instead of producing such fallacious, unscientific nonsense?
In regard to Young’s
work on the Night Parrot in Diamantina National Park, Olsen and Menkhorst make
a completely weak, desperate and illogical accusation, i.e. “There are extremely damaging consequences of Young’s behaviour. His
claims give the false impression that Night Parrots were being found at a
rapidly increasing number of locations. Consequently in 2017 certain mining
companies began lobbying to have the parrot dropped from environmental
assessments of potential mine sites, on the grounds that it was widespread.”
(Olsen 2020).
This statement, not
only being unbelievable, is again, nothing more than sheer nonsense! Young
found the parrot at only three areas in western Queensland, i.e. Brighton Downs
Station (now Pullen Pullen Reserve), Diamantina National Park where a headless
bird was found years earlier in September 2006 under a fence on the boundary of
Diamantina National Park (Cupitt & Cupitt 2008), and at Goneaway National
Park – all within a relatively small area about 150 km. With access to a
helicopter, a drone and song metres, he located the Night Parrot in the
Diamantina National Park at seven locations over months of survey work and
searching for suitable habitat, often working in extreme heat and other oppressive
conditions.
There is no large
scale mining conducted here, even over the much greater area of mid-western and
south-western Queensland. Young’s Night
Parrot records would have had absolutely no bearing on conveying a false
impression of the bird’s wider status. Finding Night Parrots far away in
Western Australia (the mining state) by others would have been a far greater
instigator to the mining companies to try to claim the Night Parrot should be
dropped from environmental assessments of potential mine sites. The most
probable result from such poorly researched papers and wild innuendo would be
to drive some of our better field naturalists into silence when their work is
so heavily and dishonestly criticised.
It is interesting to note that while AWC has removed
all of Young’s Night Parrot records from their database, Queensland National
Parks has retained them! (Wildnet,
Internal publication, Queensland National Parks)
The authenticity of a Night Parrot feather found in a Zebra Finch nest by Young
at Kalamurina Sanctuary (AWC property) bordering Lake Eyre, South Australia close to where Night Parrots were collected in
the late 1800s (Andrews 1883) has been questioned. The feather was deposited in
the South Australian Museum much later. It’s authenticity was also questioned by the Independent Review Panel,
i.e. whether the feather deposited was the original feather taken from the Zebra
Finch nest. The assertion was that the original feather was not the feather
which reached the South Australian Museum, the blame being immediately directed
at Young, accusing him of substitution.
Olsen typically took her suspicious and negative position ignoring facts
and what eventuated but immediately laying blame entirely on Young, i.e. “Young.... visited Kalamurina Sanctuary …. where
he claimed he found a Night Parrot feather in a finch nest in samphire
habitat. An unconvincing photograph showed a fresh looking Night
Parrot feather perched atop the soiled, matted nest contents. On the
basis of the feather and the extremely blurry image, AWC published a statement
that Young had discovered a 'population' and that the parrot had been found in
similar habitat in the area in 1883.” See illustrations of the feathers
below.
This site is in the same region where Andrews collected specimens in
the vicinity of Coopers Creek in 1874 (Andrews 1883). The Parker expedition of
1979 (Parker 1980) flushed several birds roosting in samphire (which those from
the party who saw them were convinced were Night Parrots, including Parker),
both probably only kilometres from where Young and Keith Bellchambers, an ecologist with AWC were working, all from
similar samphire habitat.
At the time, Young and Bellchambers, were actively examining disused
Zebra Finch nests searching for Night Parrot feathers, a time worn method of confirming
the presence of some rare species. When Young found the feather, he called Bellchambers
over who confirmed the presence of the feather and they photographed it in the old
nest lining. The photo shows a faded, weathered feather embedded in the
lining and excreta of the nest (not “fresh-looking and perched atop the matted soiled nest
contents” as Olsen writes. (A feather used as nest lining is far from
“fresh-looking” once the young have departed, as was the feather Young had
found).
How Olsen could call it “fresh-looking” is again distorting the truth
(Olsen 2018a). Later, in an interview with The Guardian, she contradicts
herself, referring to it as a “rather clean looking rather light
parrot feather” (Henriques-Gomes
2018).
However, nothing is
mentioned of the procedure that followed which gave others many opportunities to substitute the feather! Young was directed
to post the feather to AWC’s head office (Perth, WA) from where it was taken to
the Western Australian Museum for confirmation. Then apparently back to AWC
head office where it was held for considerable time before it was finally sent to
the South Australian Museum. Young posted the feather in August 2017 but it was
not received at the South Australian Museum until September 2018 – a period of
13 months! (Australian Wildlife Conservancy 2018).
In the meantime, many
people had the opportunity to handle and inspect the feather. After it reached
the SA Museum, it was declared by some to be different from the original
feather photographed in the Zebra Finch nest – which it was! Naturally, Young
was never given the benefit of the doubt but immediately received the blame for
substituting it with another feather before posting. What the detractors failed
to mention is that there was more than ample opportunity for an unknown person
to substitute the feather while it lay for 13 months. Much better to take the
opportunity and blame Young!
There was a strong
rumour at the time that one of the protagonists from the scientific team, who
was a friend of Olsen’s surreptitiously retained a number of Night Parrot
feathers. The rumour goes that he was known to have inspected the Kalamurina feather
before it was sent to the South Australian Museum.
Interestingly, Ron
Johnstone then Curator of Ornithology at the Western Australian Museum who with
little doubt would have been one of the first to verify the feather was that of
a Night Parrot and was apparently satisfied that the feather he initially examined
was the same from the Zebra Finch nest. Many months later when shown the photo
of the feather which was received at the South Australian Museum, he agreed it
was a different feather from the one originally taken from the nest.
(Australian Wildlife Conservancy 2018). One would assume on these grounds that
the feather from the finch nest got to AWC head office satisfactorily. So who substituted it? Not Young!
Thinking outside of the
square, one must ask – what advantage would it have been to Young to deliberately
switch the feather. Answer: Absolutely NONE! Further, Young is far too experienced
with feathers used for nest lining to do something as daft as that.
Young’s knowledge of
butterflies and their food plants is equally as immense as his knowledge of
birds and is supported by many entomologists, lepidopterists and others. As an
example, he worked frequently with highly acclaimed people such as Dr Jim Frazier and Densey Clyne on their international film,
produced by Oxford Scientific Films, “To
Be A Butterfly” which featured his work on the carnivorous Moth Butterfly, Liphyra brassolis. He is highly regarded
by many, e.g. Dr. Jim Frazier OAM,
ACS (pers. comm., reference retained.
See below).
Contrary to what Olsen
and Menkhorst imply, Young’s interest in mammals has been towards saving
critical habitat, e.g. the nationally endangered Mahogany Glider, and
cinematography, (Giandomenico & Clark 2020) gaining scientifically valuable
data and footage. Not only of the glider but also of Lumholtz’s and Bennett’s
Tree Kangaroos and others, some of which has been used extensively worldwide. His
filming of the Mahogany Glider was used in the acclaimed documentary “Race Against Extinction” aired
nationally and internationally.
The very few ornithological
papers published with Young as co-author have been authored by others and have
incorporated some of Young’s field work, hence him being quoted as co-author. An
example criticised by Olsen (Olsen 2020) recently concerns field work done
almost 20 years ago on birds using mistletoe for nest base, support, etc.
(Cooney et al. 2006). Young was asked to assist with his field experience. Olsen
recently and once again threw doubt on the number of species quoted as using mistletoe,
again demonstrating her lack of field experience and knowledge but was quick to
criticise the work done. To an experienced field biologist, the paper was
accurate. I personally collected eggs in my youthful days during the late 1950s
and early 1960s and found many nests of many species. Having recently reread
the paper and based on my field experience, I consider the data is very much in
order. (Young collected eggs diligently for 20 years, finding the nests of over
600 species for goodness sake!)
We were also informed
by reliable informants within AWC that Olsen carried
her vendetta against Young directly to Australian Wildlife Conservancy when she
discovered that Young had been given a job as a Senior Field Ecologist with
that organization. This started a malicious ball rolling, eventually ending in
a call for his resignation. Had that not happened I (and many people) believe
Young would still be employed by AWC – and still doing great work! It was
revealed to us that there were phone calls and emails (by Olsen) to AWC board
members and senior personnel, one to a very senior member, suggesting that if
we were “going to get John Young, we need more evidence” (a copy of the email
ended up in my inbox!). We were also informed that there was another phone
call from one of her small band of supporters to the AWC board demanding that
Young be fired, giving fabricated reasons and falsehoods.
With all the evidence that came our way, it
was blatantly obvious that Olsen had a devious and despicable plan to discredit
John Young at all cost — and have him fired.
Eventually Young was
asked to resign from his position with AWC (by email). He did not resign on his
own accord as Olsen and Menkhorst intimate. Consequently, the loss of extremely
important work Young was undertaking on AWC properties with such species as the
(critically ?) endangered Buff-breasted Button-quail at Brooklyn Station
(Sanctuary) (Wildlife Matters 2016), Red Goshawk, Sarus Crane and Buff-breasted
Button-quail at Piccaninny Plains in northern Cape York Peninsula – to name a
few, (in some of which I was assisting) – was lost. In addition, follow-up work
is also lost forever. Blame for this must be put squarely on Olsen’s shoulders
where it belongs!
Olsen and Menkhorst
make no mention of the extensive very important environmental work and the long
list of successes Young has achieved in conservation management over many years.
He successfully campaigned almost solely, to save thousands of hectares of
habitat, which was to be cleared for exotic pine plantations, for animals as
diverse as the Mahogany Glider and Rufous and Masked Owls in Queensland’s Wet
Tropics. He saved habitat of Sooty and Masked Owls in central New South Wales which was
earmarked for urban development. He and David Hollands campaigned heavily to
have the rodenticide “Klerat” removed from the market, saving thousands of owls
of several species.
Another example of
John’s conservation achievements was the Tyto Wetlands at Ingham in north
Queensland. It was once a large disused area (100 ha) of public land. Local pressure
was building to convert it to sugar-cane growing. Following Young’s
intervention, overcoming much hostility from some residents but with eventual support
from the Hinchinbrook Shire Council, Tyto Wetlands came into existence. The
bird list now stands at more than 260 species (previously 160 species as per an
EIS by Queensland National Parks and Wildlife) – supporting species such as Eastern
Grass and Masked Owl, Australian Painted Snipe and other equally rare species.
A northern population of Australian Little Bittern has also established itself
at the Wetlands. It is now not only the most important wetlands in Queensland’s
Wet Tropics but a huge tourism success employing many local people, as well as increasing
visitors’ interest in and support for birdlife. (Giandomenico & Clark 2020).
Young worked with the
Canegrowers Organisation for many years advising and encouraging sugar-cane
farmers to bring birds and other beneficial wildlife to their properties. He
encouraged them to erect owl nesting boxes to help to reduce the use of highly
toxic rodenticides. For seven years he wrote a regular column, entitled “Wildlife on Your Farm” for the Australian Cane Grower. He saved
widespread clearing of the magnificent Darwin Stringybark forests on Cape York
Peninsula, vitally important for the last extant Queensland population of Red
Goshawk. To smaller things such as saving the nesting trees and breeding
territory of Square-tailed Kites at Mount Molloy, the saving of a patch of old-growth
eucalypts at a sporting ground at Julatten where 17 species of birds nested
including Lesser Sooty Owl – all of which were to be cut down for a swimming
pool and facilities.
Olsen and Menkhorst
touch on the endangered Buff-breasted Button-quail on Brooklyn Station, knowing
absolutely nothing about the bird or its current status and again use it in an
attempt to further discredit Young. Brooklyn Station (Sanctuary) is a known
site for the Button-quail and probably one of the best in the southern part of
the bird’s range (Wildlife Matters 2016; our own field work). I first found the
species on Brooklyn Station in the early 1990s and followed it up intensively
through following years!
In 2016, having found
nests of Buff-breasted Button-quail previously, I was able to confirm that at
least five of the six nests that Young found on Brooklyn Station were genuine nests
(and eggs) of this species after doubt was placed on the authenticity of the
records. I was also able to confirm the photo Young took of a male in flight
was of that species (request from AWC after doubt was placed on it by
acquaintances of Olsen, email retained).
But thanks to Olsen’s interference,
this important data is now lost (removed from AWC’s database). Unfortunately
all the continuing work we had planned to do on the property on the Button-quail
(which seems to be teetering on the brink of extinction) and may have helped
its survival has now been cancelled.
Finally, Ms Olsen would be well advised to
set her own house in order before tearing down the work of others, for example —
Little
Eagle status in the ACT: Olsen’s attempt to discredit Jerry Olsen’s work (numerous
papers published in journals, Canberra Bird Notes and as reports over many
years) regarding Little Eagle status, etc. in the Australian Capital Territory
(Olsen & Rae 2017). Jerry Olsen completely crushed their argument (Olsen, J.,
2018). His summary and conclusions were rightly savage and severe, i.e. “The
Olsen and Rae article contains false, unreferenced claims, inaccuries, and no
science….”
Doubt
from Western Australia:
Olsen was criticised by one of her
colleagues, a scientist for not including all the records of Night Parrot from
Western Australia in her book, i.e. “Little
of our Night Parrot data from the West was used or discussed in the book” (pers.
comm. name withheld on request). The question remains – WHY – when she wrote
pages demonising John Young in the Queensland section.
There was another concerning rumour about
at that time, i.e. a murky incident occurred where something went wrong with a
Night Parrot find. The rumour was that Olsen knew about it but failed to
include all the data from WA, and that the leading scientist, a close associate of Olsen’s got
his assistants to swear to secrecy explaining that their careers and
reputations would be lost forever if the event became public knowledge. All
placed their right hand, one on top of each other and swore to secrecy.
Attempts to discredit John Young: On one of several attempts to discredit Young,
this time from a photo he had taken of a Night Parrot nest with two eggs in Diamantina
National Park, western Queensland, Olsen made the ludicrous claim that the nest
was fake and the eggs were
made of plaster (with absolutely no scientific backup). (Taylor 2018).
Some of her colleagues
described her claim as “utter insanity” and “loopy” at the time (emails
retained). Others asked where was the science to prove her assertions! (There
was none!). Her contribution was also published in the Canberra Times and on ABC Science website (12.10.18), without a skerrick of proof entitled “Blind Freddy could see that they are fake", (Taylor 2018).
Unbelievably, she determined the eggs were fake from the photograph of the nest
and eggs partly hidden by spinifex foliage. The photograph was taken from three
metres away. No experienced oologist could honestly determine if the eggs were
fake from that photograph, no matter how much it was blown up on a computer
monitor. One would need the eggs in hand to properly determine whether they
were fake or genuine. Also, one can vaguely see small bumbles or nodes on the
surface of the eggs which is typical of calcification (Alltech 2018), and which
probably fooled Olsen into claiming them as fake.
Calcification or calcium deposits is common in
some birds’ eggs such as cormorants and grebes and it occasionally occurs in
many other species. Egg collectors of old would often discard calcified eggs,
other than cormorants and grebes, because of their unattractive surface. There
is much information available concerning egg deformities and irregularities
etc. e.g. “Calcium deposits are irregular shaped spots on the
external surface of the shell. They have only a visual effect on the shell.
These calcium spots may be caused by a defective shell gland, disturbances
during calcification, retention of the egg within the shell gland and poor
nutrition”
(Roberts 2019). Olsen, as any
scientist would have done, should have considered this probability before her
foolish rush to assert they were either made of plaster, fake or were dummies!
Another well-known scientist, again whom
Olsen knows very well commented “For her
as a supposed scientist, to suggest that the eggs in the photographs were
artificial is utter madness. She has clearly lost all sense of perspective in
her mad rush to destroy John Young. What on earth could she have been thinking
when she made this crazy assertion?” (pers.
comm., name withheld on request, email retained).
In response to her
Blind Freddy comment and fake assertions, the media lapped it up wholesale. The
word “fake” was manna to nearly every news source. Even many small-time country
newspapers across the continent made front page headlines of it mostly describing Young’s
actions as “fake” and that he was a “fraudster”. And did Olsen pause long
enough in her headlong rush to try to prove Young a fraudster to realise what
she had done was highly defamatory and open to legal action (which Young is
still considering)? Undoubtedly NO! And in turn a strong case for litigation.
The Independent Review
Panel called on experts to pass opinions of the authenticity of the eggs. In a
more recent paper (Menkhorst et al.
2020), the Panel discussed the three nests and eggs which Young had found in
Diamantina National Park including the nest and two eggs where Olsen had
declared the eggs to be “dummies”. The panel sought the opinion of more than a
dozen people SUPPOSEDLY experts in oology, including a retired poultry farmer
and two bird veterinarians. (Serious oologists have all but disappeared from
the ornithological world in this modern era, egg collecting without a permit
being very much illegal and attracting heavy fines).
Opinions from the
“experts” were so varied, one could conclude that not one was an expert! (See
photographs of nests and eggs below including the nest and eggs in question). The
opinions ranged from slightly positive to downright silly, e.g. “thought he would have done a better job” (of
making them);“look like plaster and
finished off with sandpaper – had seen similar on Ostrich eggs”; “absence of an air-cell” (so not
authentic); “absence of surface spores” (so
not authentic). And the best of all from one “respected expert, curator of
birds eggs to one of the world’s largest egg collections at the British Museum”
— “They are not birds eggs. The chance of
them being parrot eggs is vanishingly remote”! And the two which were
slightly more positive – “consistent with
eggs of a parrot”; “if they are fake,
they are very realistic”.
Can you believe it?
All from a photo taken from three metres! All from unquestionably non-experts,
most (probably all) of whom know nothing about birds’ eggs! Why did the panel
not get an opinion from the very few elderly oologists still living?
Overall, the general
consensus by the panel was that not enough was known about Night Parrot nests
and eggs to be certain. Calcification appeared not to be considered by the
panel. (Australian Wildlife Conservancy 2018). The Panel did concede that the
eggs in nests 2 and 3 were birds eggs, (not dummies) and “probably of a small parrot”. Important
data on three genuine Night Parrots nests and eggs is now lost forever for
which Olsen must once again shoulder the blame!
But again, Olsen
displayed her poor research. Her reason for claiming the nest and eggs were
fake in the first instance was that the “nest
in the photo was missing many of the hallmarks seen in other Night Parrot nests”,
and the eggs in the photograph initially “looked” as if they were made of
plaster” and later “were fake” and “were dummy eggs”. Through
her previous researching for Night
Parrot, she would have known that there had never been authentic nests nor
eggs of the Night Parrot described in detail prior to 2016. J. Forshaw (Forshaw
and Cooper 2002) states “ There are no authenticated nesting records and the
scant information on breeding comes from unconfirmed reports”. P. Higgins
(Higgins 1999) accepted three breeding records as authentic (in the 1930s), two
concerning fledged young (four and six) from Cootanoorina Station in South
Australia, the other a nest and four eggs but with no description from Lake
Disappointment in Western Australia. Apart from those in Diamantina National
Park which Young found in 2016, only after the recent finding of the species on
Pullen Pullen Reserve have a very small number of contemporary nests been found,
the first on 24 April 2016 and reported as “……. an active Night Parrot nest,
the first recorded for over 100 years” (Murphy et al. 2017).
Yet, unbelievably,
Olsen managed to jumble her facts when commenting on the three nests that Young
located in Diamantina National Park (Australian Wildlife Conservancy 2018). She
states that “All three are unlike any
confirmed nests that have been found in both WA and Qld and described
historically – this applies variously to the situation, the structure of
the tunnel and the nest cup, and the nest material”. Again, a photograph of
a nest and two eggs appears in an ABC Science report (Taylor 2018) with a
caption “This photo shows a night parrot
nest in keeping with what appears in the historical literature, Dr Olsen
said”.
The fact is that NOTHING other than a few general notes
appear in the historical literature! NO nests prior to 2016 were
described in detail and NO
photographs were ever taken which showed the actual nest and eggs or young. (Forshaw
& Cooper 2002; Higgins 1999; Murphy et
al. 2017; Olsen 2018a). Murphy et al.
(2017) state “Before 2013 most information about Night Parrots, including
their breeding biology, was either based on anecdotes or inference, or was
non-existent.” Once again, she fails in her research and in turn ignores the
truth.
The extremely meagre
descriptions of probable occupied nests (possibly three historically) lack all
detail so much so that they are useless for comparison with the nests found from
2016. Further, people in those times were not interested in detailed
descriptions of nests – they were mostly there to collect specimens (skins and eggs)
as the historical literature and the collectors of the time indicated!
N. Leserberg quoted after finding a nest on
Pullen Pullen Reserve “We found one nest that had a well-developed nestling…….
and an infertile egg still in the nest chamber. We left it alone, returning a
couple of weeks later to find the chick gone. We collected the abandoned egg
which is now lodged at the Queensland Museum and is the only complete Night
Parrot egg in a museum anywhere in the world.”
The Independent Review Panel should have
asked some basic questions such as what other bird of the arid inland builds a
nest under spinifex and lays small rounded white eggs. There is no indication
that this question was posed. Only two Australian Parrots actually construct a
nest, the Ground Parrot of coastal heaths and the Night Parrot. Only one builds a nest under spinifex or
samphire in extreme arid conditions – the Night Parrot. (Forshaw & Cooper
2002; Beruldsen 2003; Higgins 1999)
At this time, it is
also very clear that Olsen was doing her utmost to influence the Independent
Review Panel’s decision before it reported to AWC. On 9 October 2018, she
emailed Dr John Kanowski, Chief Science Officer with AWC but not
a panellist, i.e. “Further to my previous
email, raising concerns about whether the Night Parrot actually nests on DNP
(Diamantina National Park), I am
attaching these purported photos of Night Parrot nests (John
Young’s) from your website: …… Apart from
the strange too open nests and the grass lining, if you zoom in on the
upper clutch of two, it is clear that they are dummy eggs. I suggest
that this is another urgent matter for investigation. Regards, Penny” (Australian
Wildlife Conservancy (2018). (She did not explain what her “it is clear” meant! Note also that Ms Olsen is NOT considered an authority
on the Night Parrot.)
But Olsen slipped. Her
“grass” lining was identified for the panel as leaves of a wattle tree Acacia shirleyi (Lancewood) which grew
commonly in the area, by Dr Jennifer
Silcock, Threatened Species Recovery Hub, University of Queensland (Australian
Wildlife Conservancy 2018). Another error! She mistook the Acacia leaves as “grass”
but could see the eggs were dummies from
a distance!
The very small number
of Night Parrot nests and eggs which have been found in more recent years (most
after Olsen was going about her devious ways) indicate that it is impossible to
determine what is “normal” for nests of this species. Even the Independent
Review Panel agreed on this point, i.e. “The panel concluded that the nests (Young’s) were inconsistent in structure and
placement, and one nest was substantially different to the few confirmed Night
Parrot nests and should be regarded as “unconfirmed” until a larger number of
Night Parrot nests are found, and a greater understanding achieved of the
variability in nest structure and positioning.” (Australian
Wildlife Conservancy 2018; Menkhorst et.
al. 2020).
Further, Young had a
very reliable assistant with him when each of the three nests were found, including
the disputed nest and eggs. The finding of this nest was by chance, as were the
other two. Young had stopped the ATV (All Terrain Vehicle) they were using to watch
a disturbed Black Honeyeater feeding chicks. Thinking there was a feral cat
present, he walked towards it when a Night Parrot flew from the nest beside him.
His accomplice later photographed the Night Parrot nest and eggs from three
metres away, before they quickly moved off on their ATV.
Concerning Young’s
nest being fake and eggs made of plaster, a comparison of Young’s photo with the
Pullen Pullen nest where the eggs were later supposedly taken by a King Brown Snake (Pseudechis
australis) (Murphy et al. 2017)
is interesting! (See
illustrations below). Both nests are very similar except the eggs lie on a platform
in Young’s nest (on top of a small broken-off termite mound) under spinifex,
but on the ground with some dry vegetative material in the Pullen Pullen nest! Does
Young’s nest and eggs look as authentic as the Pullen Pullen nest? I think so!
The Emu journals from
the early to mid twentieth century when egg collecting and nest finding was
widespread contain many photographs of unusual and strange nests and sites of
many species, very different from what has been regarded as “normal”. Surely this
can occur with the Night Parrot as well. Some quick research would have shown
that nests of many species, including that of Superb Lyrebird Menura novaehollandiae can vary
considerably (Maisey et al. 2016;
Crossman et al. 2011; Powell &
Brown 2000).
Knowledge of eggs and breeding: A complete lack of knowledge of eggs was well
demonstrated when Olsen was unable to identify a Brown Quail’s egg that had
been held in the CSIRO collections for many years, collected as an addled,
discarded egg from the Tanami Desert, central Australia and thought to be a
possible Night Parrot egg. (Olsen et al.
2016). Her obvious lack of field experience is further
demonstrated in a joint paper, "Cracked
it! A 30-year cold case involving an egg and the mysterious Night Parrot"
when DNA evidence proved the Tanami Desert egg to be that of a Brown Quail. (Joseph et
al. 2016; Olsen 2016). The differences between
quail and parrot eggs is considerable and very obvious. Those of Brown Quail
are ovate with a pale bluish,
greyish-white to yellowish-white or greenish-yellow ground colour and often
fairly thickly freckled with tiny spots of brown over the surface. (Marchant & Higgins 1993; Beruldsen 2003).
These features combined, are diagnostic charactistics of Brown Quail eggs as
aviculturists familiar with quail eggs would agree – or if they had an experienced
oologist on the panel. A few freckles can still be seen
around the larger end of the egg in the photograph which immediately rules it
out as an egg of a parrot. However, mere ground colour and shape should have
indicated it was not a parrot’s egg which are spherical, rounded, and always pure white, never marked with speckling.
Ironically,
Olsen was unable to discern the difference between a Brown Quail’s egg in the
hand from a Night Parrot’s egg, but she was able to see from a photograph taken
from a distance that Young’s Night Parrot eggs were “dummies”!
Repeat
Offender: Olsen also denigrated Young’s work in Glimpses of Paradise (Olsen 2007)
where she described him (on her own assumption) as a “repeat offender….. of
sensational finds”. Here she accused him of recording the endangered Red
Goshawk (breeding) at Narran Lake in north western New South Wales (in the
early 1960’s), far out of its known range and with “an unbelievably large clutch of three eggs (one egg is the
norm)”. Again it was fallacious. In a study of the Red Goshawk where 61
clutches were examined, eight were of one egg, 52 of two eggs and one of three!
(Marchant 1993). Wikpedia states “She
is internationally recognized as an expert on raptors”.
However, Young’s mention to Jack Cupper
(Cupper & Cupper 1981) of the Narran Lake (North-western NSW) nest with three eggs was hearsay some
years later (pers. comm. Young), but
Cupper wrote it as if Young had found the nest himself. Olsen dashed in with
her suspicion “More worryingly, Young was
a repeat offender…..”. However, she overlooked one small detail as did
Cupper which some quick research would have revealed: Young was a schoolboy of
about nine or ten years of age and living many hundreds of kilometres away close
to the New South Wales central coast with his parents on their farm when the nest
and eggs were supposedly found!
In the same publication, she accused Young
of collecting six clutches of eggs (31 eggs altogether) of the extinct Paradise
Parrot near Ingham in north Queensland in the late 1970s, far out of the bird’s
known range and later accusing Young of writing a letter of his supposed collecting
to another “collector”. She did not include a copy of the letter in Glimpses of Paradise but quoted from it
in length. Young denied that he had ever sent such a letter to anyone so it was
suspected that there was something suspicious and consequently we asked for a
copy of the letter. When it arrived (through AWC), it was merely a copy of a typed letter. (John never owned a
typewriter, knew nothing about typing and always hand wrote everything, including
data of each clutch onto his data cards). Much more suspect was the body of the
letter written in flowing English with the wording far from John’s manner of
speaking and writing. (As with most people, Young’s writing and grammar are
easily recognizable). It was certainly not his writing and deliverance.
However, a further surprise awaited! Incredibly,
the letter was addressed to the late John Izzard a no-nonsense conservationist who
deplored collecting, especially egg collecting. I knew John Izzard well and if
Young had sent such a letter to Izzard, claiming to have collected six clutches
of Paradise Parrot eggs, the latter would have reported it to the authorities
post haste as would most people. Further, Young had only met Izzard on one
occasion (at Iron Range, Cape York Peninsula), barely saying much more than
“hello”. The origin of that letter still needs close examination.
Personal
experience: As a personal example of poor research,
Olsen mentioned me several times in “Glimpses
of Paradise” and twice in “Night
Parrot”. I gave her information verbally by way of a telephone call (from
her) for Glimpses of Paradise but I
was not contacted for the information she used in “Night Parrot”. Altogether four items concerning myself appeared in Glimpses of Paradise and two in Night Parrot. Two in each book were
completely false. In one (Glimpses of
Paradise) she had me visiting a property near Ingham (“Cattle Creek”) in 1982 with my wife and daughter looking for the
Paradise Parrot where Young had supposedly found breeding birds several years
earlier. (I do have a son as well and we always travelled as a family
together). She had me revisiting the property for a second time some time later
with my wife. The property owners told us that we were welcome to stay in the
“shearers quarters” but we were not to venture into the “back blocks” of the
property, with no reason given. The owners were also supposed to have told me
that “they were weary of visits by National Parks staff, conservationists and
birders, one of whom had recently spent three weeks on an unproductive search!”
The facts are firstly, that the nearest
shearers quarters and sheep are more than 300 km to the south – tropical areas
such as Ingham on the high rainfall coastal plain are far too hot and wet for
sheep farming. Secondly, I was busy managing my own wholesale plant nursery
with 20 employees on Tamborine Mountain in southeast Queensland, south of
Brisbane, 1200km away at the time. And at that stage knew nothing of the supposed
northern Paradise Parrot sightings nor its alleged breeding. Further, we could
not afford far off birding trips at that time when running a business not long established.
And I met John Young for the first time some years later (about 1990) at an
O’Reilly’s Bird Week. I first heard of the supposed Ingham Paradise Parrot breeding
records several years after my supposed visits to the area from an indirect
source, probably about 1986.
In conclusion, Ms Olsen’s seeming appetite
for innuendo, wild assumption and downright falsehoods in her writings as
displayed in these instances and several of her papers and books should be in
question rather than the work of John Young. It is certainly not John Young who
is the “repeat offender”! To
continually denigrate someone from hearsay rather than from fact and lack of good
research is nothing short of gutter tactics and should never be tolerated.
Finally, Olsen must be held accountable for
turning an ongoing normal situation into a debacle to the detriment of
ornithology. Every piece of evidence points to her meddling, attempting to
influence the Independent Review Panel’s decision and to influence the AWC
board to sack Young as well as feeding her long standing nasty and foolish vendetta
against Young. The evidence strongly points towards the fact that immediately
she heard that Young was given a job by AWC, she commenced her destructive and
malicious work. She succeeded in putting doubting thoughts into people’s heads
and from there it gained momentum. As one of her colleagues put it, “Olsen has turned it into a bitchy business.
Some very good people have had their reputations destroyed”. So true! (pers.
comm. Name withheld on request but email retained).
The knock-on effect has been enormous, resulting
in loss of important records, loss of critical ongoing scientific work such as
that of the endangered (near extinct?) Buff-breasted Button-quail and others. Research
programmes have been upset, useless tedious papers have been written (mostly by
Olsen) and published, innuendo has been turned into “fact” (mostly by Olsen),
lies told (mostly by Olsen), Young unfairly and dishonestly accused of fraud (mostly
by Olsen) and a livelihood destroyed.
Amazingly, the authors of the current paper,
but especially Olsen seem oblivious of Australian law in regard to defamation.
Much of what she has written about Young over time reeks of defamation. There
seems to be a very strong case for litigation as the legal fraternity has already
advised and encouraged Young to commence.
Indeed, one could rightly twist a quote
from Steve Murphy, i.e. “If the AWC is guilty of anything, it’s trusting John
Young” (Jones et al. 2019). It would
be far more accurate to say that “If the AWC is guilty of anything, it’s allowing
itself to be duped by Ms Olsen!”
And perhaps with errors as easily exposed
as in these few publications, her previous publications need scrutiny?
Lloyd Nielsen OAM
Recipient:
John Hobbs Medal for 2014 (Awarded
for outstanding amateur contributions to Australasian ornithology
Author: – Birds of the Wet Tropics and Great Barrier
Reef (2016)
– Birds of Queensland’s Wet
Tropics and Great Barrier Reef (1996)
–
Daintree – Jewel of Tropical North Queensland (1997)
–
Birding Australia – A Directory for Birders (1999)
–
Birding Australia – Site Guide – The South-east (2000)
–
Birds of Lamington National Par and Environs (1991)
–
Identification Guide – small difficult bird of Australia (2020) in press
Author: –
various papers and notes on ornithology (journals)
Honorary
Life Member: – Birdlife Australia from 2007
Honorary
Life Member: – Birds Queensland from 2010
References
Andrews, F. W. (1883). Notes on the Night
Parrot Geopsittacus accidentalis. Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of South Australia 6:
29-30.
Australian Wildlife Conservancy, (2018). A
report to Australian Wildlife Conservancy by Peter Menkhorst, James Fitzsimons, Richard Loyn and John Woinarski,
pp. 1–36 .
Beruldsen, G. (2003). Australian Birds their nests and eggs. Self-published, Kenmore
Hills, Qld.
Cooney, S.J.N., Watson, D.M. and Young, J.
(2006). Mistletoe nesting in Australian birds: a review. Emu 106, 1–12.
Crossman, C. A., Rohwer, V. G. and Martin,
P. R. (2011). Variation in the structure of bird nests between northern Manitoba and southeastern Ontario. PLoS ONE 6(4): e 19806.
Cupitt, R. and Cupitt, S. (2008). Another
Recent Specimen of the Night Parrot Pezoporus
occidentalis from Western Queensland. Australian Field Ornithology 25. 69–75.
Cupper, J. and Cupper, L., (1981). Hawks in Focus – A study of Australia’s
birds of prey. Jacklin Enterprises, Mildura, Vic.
Forshaw, J.M. and Cooper, W.T., (2002) Australian
Parrots, (Third revised) edition. Alexander Editions, Robina, Qld.
Geiger, D., (2015). Rodents running rampant
in Far North Queensland sugarcane fields. The Cairns Post, 13 November 2015. p.3.
Giandomenico, P. &
Clark, R. (2020). Reference. Mayor Hinchinbrook Shire Council 1994-2000, 2004-2012
and Deputy CEO Hinchinbrook
Shire Council 1981-2012.
Harrop, A. H. J., Collinson, J. M., and
Melling, T. (2012). What the eye doesn’t see: The prevalence of fraud in ornithology. British Birds 105:
236–257.
Henriques-Gomes, L.
(2018). Wildlife Group investigates claim Night Parrot photos were staged. The
Guardian Fri 12 October 14,
p.49 AEDT.
Higgins, P.J., (Ed.) 1999. Handbook of
Australian, New Zealand & Antarctic Birds, Vol.4 Parrots to Dollarbird.
Oxford University Press,
Melbourne.
Hinchinbrook Shire Council 2020 – reference
(attached below).
Hollands, D. (1984). Eagles Hawks and Falcon of Australia. Thomas Nelson Australia,
Melbourne.
Hollands, D. (1991). Birds of the Night – owls, frogmouths and nightjars of Australia.
Reed Books, Balgowlah, NSW.
Hollands, D. (2008). – Owls, Frogmouths and Nightjars of Australia – Bloomings Books,
Melbourne, Vic.
Jones, A., Sveen, B.
and Lewis, D. (2019). Night Parrot Research labelled ‘fake news’ by experts
after release of damning report.
Background Briefing, ABC RN radio 22 March 2019.
Kavanagh, R. P.
(1997). Ecology and Management of large forest owls in southeastern Australia
PhD Thesis, University of
Sydney, Sydney.
Lenz, M. 2018. Book Review Night Parrot.
Australia’s most elusive bird. Canberra
Bird Notes 43(3): 318-319.
Leseberg, N.P.,
Murphy, S.A. and Watson, J.E.M. (2019). Automated acoustic surveys for the
Night Parrot (Pezoporus occidentalis) on
Diamantina National Park. Report to Australian Conservency. Adaptive NRM, Malanda.
Maisey, A. C., Carter,
N. T., Incoll, J. M. and Bennet, A. F. (2016). Environmental influences on
variation in nest- characteristics
in a ling-term study population of the Superb Lyrebird, Menura novaehollandiae, Emu 116
(4): 445- 451.
Marchant, S., and
Higgins, P.J. Eds. (1993). Handbook of
Australian, New Zealand and Antarctica Birds, Vol 2, Raptors to Lapwings.
Oxford University Press, Melbourne.
Menkhorst, P.,
Fitzsimons, J., Loyn, R. & Woinarski, J. 2020. Assessing the strength of
evidence for records of Night Parrots at
Kalamurina Wildlife Sanctuary (South Australia) and Diamantina National Park
(Queensland, 2016- 2018. Emu-Austral Ornithology, DOI:
10.1080/01584197.2020.1774394.
Murphy, S.A., Austin, J.J.,
Murphy, R.K., Silcocks, J., Joseph, L., Garnett, S.T., Leseberg, N.P., Watson,
J.E.M. and Burbidge. A.H. (2017).
Observations’ on breeding Night Parrots (Pezoporus
occidentalis) in western Queensland.
Emu-Austral Ornithology, 117: 107–113.
Mason, I. J. and
Pfitzner, G. H. (2020). Passions in
Ornithology: A Century of Australian Egg Collectors. Self-published, Fyshwick, ACT.
Nielsen, L. (1996).
Birds of Queensland’s Wet Tropics and Great Barrier Reef and where to find
them. Gerard Industries,
Bowden, SA.
Nielsen, L. (2015).
Birds of The Wet Tropics of Queensland & Great Barrier Reef & Where to
Find Them. Self- published.
Mount Molloy, Qld.
Olsen, P. (2007). Glimpses of Paradise – The quest for the
beautiful parakeet, National Library of Australia, Canberra, ACT.
Olsen, J. (2018). – Eleven historic
breeding territories of ACT Little Eagles is an underestimate – a reply to
Olsen and Rae (2017). Canberra Bird Notes 43 (2): 120-131.
Olsen, P. (2018a). Night Parrot – Australia’s most elusive
bird. CSIRO Publishing, Clayton South, Vic.
Olsen, P. (2018b). "Cracked it! A 30-year cold case involving an egg and the
mysterious Night Parrot".
CSIROscope. https://blog.csiro.au/night-parrot-egg/
Olsen, P. (2020a) Extraordinary numbers of
breeding raptors impacted by brodifacoum: comments on Young and De Lai (1997) Unpublished.
Olsen, P. Austin, J.,
Murphy, S., & Dally, G. (2016). The only known egg of the Night Parrot? A
molecular and morphometric
assessment of an alleged egg from the Tanami Desert. Australian Field Ornithology 33:
211-214.
Olsen, P., and Rae, S.
(2017). Invalid evidence for purported ‘collapse’ in the number of breeding
Little Eagles in the Australian
Capital Territory. Canberra Bird Notes 42 (3): 245-249.
Parker, S.A. (1980).
Birds and Conservation Parks in the north-east of South Australia. South
Australian Parks and Conservation 3 (1): 11–18.
Powell, L. A., Rangen,
K. L., (2000). Variation in Wood Thrush dimensions and construction. North
American Bird Bander 25:89-95
Roberts, J. R. (2019).
Egg Quality Reference Manual.
Australian Eggs Limited.
Schodde, R., &
Mason, I.J, (1980). Nocturnal Birds of
Australia. Landsdowne Editions, Melbourne.
Valentine, P. (2019).
Night Parrot: Australia’s Most Elusive Bird by Penny Olsen. Review Australian Field Ornithology 36:13–14. (Published on-line).
Wildlife matters:
Winter 2016, 11. Newsletter of Australian Wildlife Conservancy. Brooklyn: a
stronghold for the Buff- breasted
Button-quail, one of Australia’s rarest birds.
Young, J. and De Lai,
L. (1997). Population declines of predatory birds coincident with the
introduction of Klerat rodenticide
in North Queensland. Australian Bird
Watcher 17: 160–167
Left: John Young’s nest
and eggs (Diamantina NP) “Blind Freddy could see these are dummies” (Olsen). Probable
calcification is just visible on the eggs. The eggs are on a platform on a
small broken-off termite mound covered by a clump of spinifex. Right: The nest and eggs from Pullen
Pullen Reserve – these eggs were later taken by a King Brown Snake (Murphy et al. 2017). Little difference in eggs?
Left.Feather in situ
(under thumb) in Zebra Finch nest at Kalamurina Sanctuary, South Australia.
When taken to WA Museum after received by AWC, Ron Johnstone curator of WA
Museum noted that he thought it was the same feather he originally identified
as in the nest photo. When shown the two photos months later, he agreed that
they were two different feathers (Australian Wildlife Conservancy 2018)
Right: The feather which was received
by the SA Museum. “Blind Freddy” could see that this feather has never been in
a Finch nest. The downy barbs at the base of the feather are still fresh.
However, the base of the quill is broken indicating it may have been pulled
from an old museum specimen. Young with his years of experience would not have
been naïve enough to substitute a weathered, pale feather from a finch nest
with one such as this feather. Who substituted the original feather?
| Left: The Tanami Desert Brown Quail
egg. Note shape and colour. There are still a few dark freckles on the larger
end. Right: Night Parrot eggs. Note
the whiteness and roundness. Both species are close to true size in the photos.
Note also the size difference.
|
e
The offensive and defamatory Paper!
“A recent
investigation highlights the importance of honesty in ornithology
The offensive and defamatory Paper!
“A recent
investigation highlights the importance of honesty in ornithology and
conservation”
Penny Olsen & Peter Menkhorst
Received 13 Dec 2019, Accepted 17 Apr 2020,
Published online: 18 May 2020
Society trusts that scientific research results are an honest and
accurate reflection of a researcher’s work. Researchers equally trust that
their colleagues have gathered data carefully … [and] have reported their
results accurately. (National Academy of Sciences 2009)
In this era of ‘fake news’, science remains a search for truth.
Ornithological research is underpinned by the careful documentation of findings
by a great many honest ornithologists, both amateur and professional. The
outcome of dishonesty can be costly: it wastes time, resources and funding,
divides the community, damages reputations and produces poor environmental and
conservation outcomes.
In any scientific field, there is likely to be some misconduct,
ranging from carelessness to falsification and fabrication of data (e.g. Harrop
et al. 2012). Most serious scientific misconduct is identified,
although sometimes it takes decades. In Britain, a famous ornithological case
is known as the ‘Hastings Rarities’: a slew of sightings and specimens of rare
birds supposedly collected in Sussex and Kent from 1894 to 1924 that was much
later exposed as fraudulent, in part by demonstration that the sightings were
statistically at odds with those from the rest of Britain (Harrop et al.
2012).
George Bristow, the alleged culprit, added about 30 species or subspecies of
birds to the British List and defrauded his clients of £7000 for specimens on
the basis that they were British, when they were most likely collected
elsewhere. Even more infamous is the extensive fraud by Richard Meinertzhagen,
a member of British high society, who fabricated the provenance of many of the
20,000 bird specimens in his collection (Harrop et al. 2012).
Meinertzhagen stole specimens from museums and faked data to accompany them. He
also published many scientific papers with dubious data. His misconduct has
ongoing ramifications for ornithological research, not only in Britain.
In Australia, as elsewhere, the falsification of bird sightings is
recognised to occur periodically among the competitive world of birdwatchers.
There are instances of exaggeration and hubris, suggestibility, and deliberate
mislabelling of a few museum specimens (Olsen 2018).
These small-scale cases are often insignificant, but can be important,
especially in the case of environmental impact assessments and the designation
of threatened status. Attempts to seriously mislead or deceive by fabrication
or falsification of scientific evidence seem to be rare or, at least, to have
gone undocumented.
The recent investigation into the publicly released results of
fieldwork by John
Henry Young on the endangered Night Parrot Pezoporus occidentalis
has formally exposed an exception. The inquiry was instigated by the Australian
Wildlife Conservancy (AWC), Australia’s largest non-government conservation
land manager. It followed complaints from several scientists about the veracity
of some of the results of Young’s fieldwork while employed by the organisation
as a senior ecologist (AWC 2019). Young
was alleged to have fabricated evidence in three separate cases: i) three
nests, each with eggs, that he claimed to have photographed in Diamantina
National Park (DNP), southwest Queensland in 2016; ii) a vocalisation recorded
on remote sound monitors at Kalamurina Sanctuary, northeast South Australia, in
2017; and iii) the discovery of a single Night Parrot feather in a finch nest,
also at Kalamurina in 2017.
In October 2018, an independent panel of four professional
ornithologists (including P.M.) was engaged by AWC to assess the veracity of
Young’s evidence using the National Health and Medical Research Council’s
guidelines for investigating potential research misconduct (AWC 2019). As part of the process, Young was invited
to respond, but he chose not to participate and declined a request from AWC to
provide high-resolution images (J. Kanowski, AWC, pers. comm. to P.O.).
The investigation panel found that in each of the three allegations
Young’s evidence was inadequate to support his claims (AWC 2019). Firstly, the consensus was that the three
purported nests were unlike known Night Parrot nests and that one held fake
eggs. Secondly, the vocalisation recorded at Kalamurina was the broadcast of a
publicly available recording of a Western Australian Night Parrot. Thirdly, the
feather supposedly found at Kalamurina, later submitted to the South Australian
Museum, differed from that photographed in the finch nest at the time.
This left no convincing evidence of a resident, breeding Night
Parrot population on DNP or of the presence of Night Parrots on Kalamurina
Sanctuary. The findings also had implications for Young’s reported observations
of Buff-breasted Button-quail Turnix olivii and their nests at the AWC
property, Brooklyn, in northeast Queensland, the legitimacy of which had also
been queried, but which AWC chose not to include in the investigation. AWC
retracted all of Young’s purported ‘discoveries’ made while he was an employee,
including those relating to the button-quail (AWC 2019).
His Night Parrot observations made independently during the same period in
Goneaway National Park, ~100 km east of DNP, must also be discounted. On
recommendation of the panel, AWC committed to ensuring that appropriate
scientific standards and oversight are implemented in future. However, the
organisation has declined to release the panel’s report.
Young resigned in late September 2018, soon after the release of
P.O.’s book (Olsen 2018), which
challenges a number of his claims regarding the parrot, and following questions
from the South Australian Museum regarding the Kalamurina feather. In addition,
AWC had been alerted to one of Young’s published photographs that casts doubt
on his account of the manner of his 2013 rediscovery of the species (the first
confirmed sighting of a living bird in 80 years) and supported the
contention that the bird appeared to have been handled, injured and
constrained, which would have been illegal (Borrell 2018;
Olsen 2018).
There are extremely damaging consequences of Young’s behaviour. His
claims gave the false impression that Night Parrots were being found at a
rapidly increasing number of locations. Consequently, in 2017 certain mining
companies began lobbying to have the parrot dropped from environmental
assessments of potential mine sites, on the grounds that it was widespread
(Olsen 2018). In fact, the rejection of
Young’s evidence leaves the number of locations where Night Parrot breeding has
been confirmed at a mere two – an area centred on Pullen Pullen Reserve, in
southwest Queensland (which may well include parts of DNP) and in the East
Murchison district, Western Australia (Olsen 2018).
The panel’s findings also mean that there has been significant waste
and misuse of conservation funding, much of it originating from private donors
to AWC, and the associated erosion of public trust. Young’s salary and expenses
during his employment, amounting to several hundred thousand dollars, could
have been diverted to valuable conservation work such as pest control or fire
management. His Night Parrot surveys on DNP were intended to inform a 3 AUS
million investment plan developed by AWC for Bilbies Macrotis lagotis
and Night Parrots at DNP and nearby Astrebla Downs National Park, for which the
Federal Government pledged 1.2 AUD million (Olsen 2018).
This included a proposed predator exclusion fence, which has not been built.
Young’s questionable claims relating to birds, mammals and
butterflies are scattered through the Australian scientific literature, and
eggs of dubious provenance, collected by him, are in our museums.
Unfortunately, there has been little revision of these records.
Dishonest reporting and its costly and divisive consequences are
rarely publicly documented, or even investigated. An unrelated exception, with
similar repercussions to the Night Parrot case, is a recent inquiry conducted
in Tasmania, which has been mercifully free of the invasive Red Fox (Vulpes
vulpes). The Fox Free Taskforce, later renamed the Fox Eradication
Programme, was set up in 2002 to investigate reports of fox presence and
prevent the establishment of a population in the state, which would have been
devastating for wildlife conservation and livestock. Following several
allegations, which included that employees staged evidence of fox presence, the
state government undertook an investigation (Integrity Commission 2017). No evidence was found of misconduct by
employees, but several instances were detailed of evidence of fox presence,
such as cadavers or scats, definitely or likely to have been planted by unknown
members of the public. Issues of poor oversight and poor operational procedures
were also identified. The program was abandoned in 2014, two years early, after
40 AUD million had been expended, and with no definite evidence that living
foxes had ever been introduced to Tasmania, making this yet another example of
misspent, valuable conservation resources resulting from unreliable data.
In this era of ever-increasing environmental threats and species’
declines, it is imperative that conservation effort and scarce funding are
reliably informed and directed, and that the public have faith in scientists
and their institutions and processes.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
REFERENCES for JOHN YOUNG –
From JIM FRAZIER 1st
June 2020. (International acclaimed Cameraman and Film Maker).
(Dr. Jim Frazier and the late Densy Clyne, both famous naturalists and
cinamaphotographers travelled the world filming for Sir David Attenborough for
his “Life on Earth Series”, “The Living Planet” and “Trials of Life”.)
“People like Professor Penny Olsen haven’t half the
knowledge John Young possesses. Her malicious attack on John is an unwarranted
and unjustified vendetta against him. I believe she is trying to justify her
inferior scientific field knowledge and experience by belittling him. If she
spent serious research time by contributing facts rather than fiction,
Australian taxpayers would be far better off. I believe John Young has stolen
the limelight from Penny Olsen and she hates him for doing that. I find her
obnoxious to say the least and I know that
John Young’s extraordinary knowledge has helped me put material on the
world stage with Sir David Attenborough and others and I sincerely thank him
for his expert contribution.
I met John Young because of his knowledge of birds and butterflies.
I recognised in him amazing traits because of my own knowledge of birds and
butterflies, which was acquired because of my father’s involvement in
entomology and his huge collection of butterflies and moths, now in the
National Archives in Canberra. As well, I grew up with aviaries where I could
observe the behaviour of a wide variety of birds.
I joined forces with Densey Clyne and together we travelled the
world filming for Sir David Attenborough for his “Life on Earth Series”, “The
Living Planet” and “Trials of Life”. For many of the subjects included in these
series, I had no hesitation in contacting John Young to tap into his expertise
and extraordinary knowledge.
The first subject was Liphyra Brassolis, the moth butterfly.
At the time we filmed this amazing sequence, there was great consternation in
the scientific world, because this butterfly caterpillar was then believed to
be carnivorous, feeding on the larvae of the Green Tree Ant. John managed to secure
for me several larvae and pupae of the butterfly which is not like a regular
pupae, but like an overgrown armour-plated Slater, to prevent attack. Its only
vulnerability is its underside. I was able to set up the larvae on glass so was
able to film the vulnerable part of the butterfly caterpillar reaching out and
pulling in and consuming ant larvae under its protective shell. In doing so, I
was able to establish solid proof that it was, indeed predatory. The next part
of the procedure was to film the amazing emergence of the adult butterfly from
its protective armour-plated shell. It is an astonishing event. Having
observed this phenomenon himself, John was able to prepare me for the best
result in filming.
I realised his knowledge of birds was more superior than anyone I
had ever met. He has a wide knowledge of bird calls, with an ability to name
any bird that we observed when we were filming. His skills in hide-building
were nothing short of amazing, able to get me into situations verging on impossibility,
sometimes even over 100 feet high. On that particular occasion it was to film
birds that live in the canopy, including the Palm Cockatoo, of which I was able
to film it storing its tools to drum.
One of the other amazing events that we filmed for Sir David
Attenborough, was an example of siblicide in nature, which John knew about.
Building a hide some eighty feet up in a very thin tree, we were able to
observe and film the Crested Hawk. The first-born monopolises the incoming food
supply to the detriment of the other chicks. Filming the look of abhorrence on
the mother’s face as she removed dead chicks was incredible. John’s knowledge
of this bird included its ability to mimic the call of the Green Tree Frog, so
it was then able to catch it to use as a food source. Included in our filming
was the adult birds bringing in these frogs to feed the dominant chick.
The next big event was from a hide built in the rainforest in
Queensland, to observe and film the courtship and mating behaviour of
Victoria’s Rifle Bird. One other memorable occasion, John built a hide in a
tree to film the nesting behaviour of the Australian Shining Starlings, where
they steal each other’s nesting materials. At this stage, Channel 9 sent a
helicopter in to film us filming this sequence, nearly blowing us out of the
tree because of the downdraft.
Dr Jim Frazier has spent 30 years
travelling the world filming wildlife for the BBC, ABC and National Geographic
He has received over 30 national and international awards for his work which
includes an Oscar and an EMMY. Among many of his notable achievements was
filming the birth of a Koala, the birth of a Kowari and the Symbiotic
relationship between a moth and the Yucca plant, and the courtship and mating
behaviour of Victoria’s Rifle Bird.
Dr Jim Frazier OAM ACS
DAVID HOLLANDS
(Dr
David Hollands is well known for his wonderful books on a number of bird groups,
well illustrated with brilliant professional photography. Some of the rarer
species have been photographed on rare occasions but never with such quality.
Together with accurate excellent text, they are masterpieces).
19th
July 2020
JOHN YOUNG
In my life, I
have known many fine naturalists. Among them, there is no question that John
Young is the outstanding one of all.
John and I first
met 35 years ago. I was starting a project to study and photograph all the owls
in Australia and the advice I received from every quarter was. “See if you can
get John Young to help. He knows more about owls than anyone in Australia.” It
was good advice. I contacted John and he readily agreed to help. Help was an
understatement. Without him, my project would never have seriously left the
ground but, in six years, we had achieved our goal, while becoming the greatest
of friends at the same time.
To go into the
bush with John is a revelation. He has an understanding of the environment and
of his target like no other. He can look at a piece of country and predict at
once if it is a likely spot for an owl, a grass-wren, a Black Bittern or
whatever species he is seeking. Then, having set himself the goal of a
particular species, he doesn’t try to find it. He finds it. There is no
question of failing in John’s mind.
With the owls,
it was a splash of whitewash, a moulted feather, a half-concealed tree hollow,
the discarded tail of a Sugar Glider. John spotted them and they all meant
something. He found the nest of every Australian owl for me and then, with
great courage and skill, constructed hides high in the trees. From them, I was
able to study and photograph every species that I was seeking. The culminating
feat of this remarkable effort was when, in partnership with his brother Bruce,
he tracked down seventeen active nests of the Lesser Sooty Owl in one season,
all of which I visited. The fact that HANZAB had to report that there were no
nest records at all in the Nest Record Scheme will give an idea of the
significance of this discovery.
From owls, he
went on with me to kingfishers, then cranes and herons, giving me a little help
with waders along the way and all pursued with the same dedication and skill,
which is a hallmark of all John’s work.
He certainly did
not spend his whole time with me. In the 1980s, he also assisted both the ABC
and BBC Natural History units in the makings of the documentary films BIRDMAN
of PARADISE and LIFE ON EARTH. This involvement with television also led to him
having his own wildlife programme, a short weekly segment before the evening
news on WIN in North Queensland, which proved very popular.
John’s work
reached its peak in 2013 when, after 15 years of searching, he re-discovered
the Night Parrot, a challenge which, for nearly 100 years, had defeated every
ornithologist who had tried to find it. This was no chance discovery. It was
the result of repeated visits to one of the remotest parts of Australia,
searching and listening in the dark on nights of great heat, of intense cold,
of flies, drought and sand. Nobody else could have shown this dogged and
skilled perseverance and I have little doubt that, had it not been for John,
the Night Parrot would still be a lost bird to this day.
It is not as
just a naturalist that John is outstanding. He has also done a huge amount for
conservation and the environment, almost entirely unrecognised and unsung.
In the 1980s
close to Ingham, an area of around 2000 hectares of tropical woodland had been
earmarked to be cleared and planted with pines. To lose this would have been
disastrous and John was able to convince Queensland Forests not to go ahead and
to protect it permanently, saving not only this woodland but other similar
areas to the north.
This was around
the time that the threat to the endangered Mahogany Glider became apparent. The
total world population of this marsupial occurs in a few isolated pockets of
forest between Townsville and Tully in North Queensland. One of these had been
scheduled for clear-felling and John was able to have not only this area
protected but also all known Mahogany Glider habitat.
At Iron Range on
Cape York Peninsula, a company, Future Corp, was proposing to begin logging the
priceless and irreplaceable rain forest. John brought this to the attention of
the aboriginal elders and the project was stopped.
Then there was
the Klerat revelation. It was, I think, in the 1990s that the new rodenticide
Brodefacoum, marketed as Klerat, began to be used by cane farmers for rat
suppression. An anti-coagulant, similar to Warfarin but many times more potent,
it only needs a rat or mouse to sample it once to produce fatal consequences.
The downside is, that the poison is so potent that it will also kill any
raptor, which catches the rat before it dies. John noticed that owl, kite and
other raptor numbers appeared to be declining rapidly. He also found a pair of
Rufous Owls, which he knew well, dying with blood coming from eyes and
nostrils. The cause was confirmed and, in a remarkable show of cooperation,
cane farmers and poison manufacturers came together and agreed to cease using
the substance for broad acre farming. It was a win for conservation, achieved
without argument or acrimony.
Just south of Ingham was a 100 hectare block
of public land. The council was under pressure for it to be drained and
developed for growing sugar cane. John saw the potential for it to become an
environmental wetland and, against considerable opposition from some quarters,
his wishes were granted. Under John’s planning and supervision Tyto wetlands
became a reality, a rich ecosystem of woodland, islands, swamps and reed beds.
It has become a magnet, not just for birdwatchers but for environmentalists of
all persuasions, both from Australia and around the world. He is now working to
create a similar wetland in New South Wales. There, he has gone one step
further than at Tyto, erecting two massive dead trees, their bases secured in
concrete, in the hope of attracting Ospreys or Black-necked Storks. At the time
of writing, both species have shown interest and the prospects look to be
promising.
Further south,
the councils at Lake Macquarie and Wyong, both in New South Wales, engaged John
to survey for owls in areas earmarked for housing development by Stockland. His
advice was widely accepted, resulting in a satisfactory outcome for both sides,
protecting a number of breeding sites for the scarce Masked Owl, while allowing
Stockland to go ahead in owl free areas.
Further south
still, John worked together with Dr Rod Kavanagh to conduct owl surveys over
large forest areas around Eden, identifying country where forest owls were
found and protecting then from clear-fell logging.
From 2013, John
continued his pursuit of the Night Parrot, while working for Australian
Wildlife Conservancy until suddenly, for reasons which are impossible to
comprehend, his contract was terminated.
John’s
contribution to Australia and its environment is immense. There are those afoot
whose aim appears to be to decry him and discredit his huge achievements. They
must not be allowed to prevail. John should be recognised and lauded for his
extraordinary achievements. A nationally recognised award would not be out of
place.
David Hollands,
M.B.,Ch.B., FRACGP, OAM
HINCHINBROOK SHIRE COUNCIL
The following information is provided to
acknowledge the significant economic and environmental contribution made by
John Young to Hinchinbrook Shire. John was formerly a long term resident of
Hinchinbrook Shire and during that time his efforts have left a lasting legacy.
In the early 1990's the
Cane Industry in the Shire was expanding into virgin bushland involving large
scale clearing of vegetation. John was very concerned at the effects of these
actions on wildlife particularly the endangered Mahogany Glider. In view of his
understanding of the Shire bushland and wildlife habitats, he was a great
source of advice for the State Government Departments and his efforts
contributed greatly to the recognition of the Mahogany Glider habitat and the
need to preserve low level crown lands as he could prove that the Gliders
didn't exist above 350m AHD.
During this time the Cane Industry was
using a rat bait product and in his field studies John noticed that the product
was having a devastating mortal effect on the owl population by them eating
poisoned rats. John lobbied the industry via local cane industry research
organisation and successfully had the product withdrawn from use in the entire
cane industry. Consequently John then encouraged the farming community to
establish artificial owl nesting boxes on their land to introduce more natural
predation on the rat population and removal of seed grasses from adjacent
farmland to discourage rat populations by eliminating their food supply.
Also, during this time the cane industry
expressed an interest in expanding into vacant crown land near Ingham. John was
commissioned to investigate and his efforts identified that the land was in
fact the home of the Grass Owl (Tyto Longimembris), which is the only
Australian owl to build its nest on the ground under dense tussocks of long
grass and a degraded wetland which required protection.
Consequently in 1996 the
Hinchinbrook Shire agreed to take responsibility for the land and subsequently
a Recreation Reserve was established under Councils control as Trustee. John
urged the Council to rehabilitate the degraded wetland. In the late 1990's
Council secured funding under the Natural Heritage Trust program and undertook
a major redevelopment including construction of island refuges for bird
nesting, birdhides, elevated pathways for public use and removal and control of
noxious weeds and vegetation.
John designed the wetlands
rehabilitation work and supervised the physical earthworks to ensure that the
environmental integrity of the area was maintained and enhanced. This resulted
in the establishment of 90hectares of rehabilitated wetland which is now world
renowned and a must visit for every serious bird twitcher. According to
verified sightings the area contains over 240 species of birds and many Agile Wallabies.
It has a bird species that rivals Kakadu National Park being home to 27.4% of
Australian Bird species in one location, nearly the same as Kakadu but in a
space 18,000 times smaller.
In 2005 Council built the Tyto Wetlands
Centre which is situated on Highway 1, 500 metres from Ingham CBD. The Centre
contains educational information on the value of wetlands and physical displays
that explain the habitat and its importance to our community, including
ecologically, economically and environmentally. It also includes displays and
information on how local farmers have and can improve their farming practices
to better manage the environment. John contributed much knowledge and resources
including physical display of abandoned bird nests which he collected under
permits, to establish a Centre which is used by school groups and visitors to
better understand and improve their environmental knowledge.
In 2006 Council
embarked on a Shire Revitalisation Plan to encourage more visitors to stop in
Ingham and enjoy our cultural and environmental heritage. The Plan involved
building on Tyto Wetlands by creating a mini wetlands for locals and visitors
to enjoy and to entice them to take a short walk into the Tyto Wetlands proper.
Once again John was involved in designing the mini wetland and that together
with building development included an elevated walkway, a small conference
centre, several offices housing Stage Government agencies involved with land
protection, a Shire Library and Regional Art gallery. This has resulted in a
major increase in visitors to our shire and providing a much needed boost to
our local business economy.
Robert Clarke
Mayor Hinchinbrook Shire 1994 to 2000,
2004 to 2012
Robert Clark
Deputy CEO Hinchinbrook 1981 to 2006. CEO 2006 2004 to 2012
17/6/2020
Hinchinbrook
Shire Council Mayor Pino Giandomenico (left) is pictured with wildlife
consultant John Young at the site of the proposed wetlands and wildlife
sanctuary. (Courtesy Herbert Rive Express)
John’s comment regarding Tyto
Wetlands
“Recently, I had the honor of spending an
evening in Ingham with my long time friends Pino and Katie Giandomenico and
Guido Giliberto and his wife Maria. It was a fantastic evening with four Ingham
residents who supported me from the very beginning for the Tyto Wetlands idea.
Pino was Mayor of the Hinchinbrook Shire at that time.
Unfortunately, any project with an
environmental and conservation theme always attracts detractors and Tyto
Wetlands certainly copped it's share with some savage attacks towards Pino and
myself. It divided the town and the shire. There were times, particularly in
the early stages where Pino and I were nothing more than fair game, especially for
the local newspaper. Many correspondents simply saw the project as a waste of
ratepayers money but there was also a strong lobby group who supported us and
could see the vision of what it might be.
As the project commenced, many started to
scratch their heads at the sheer scale of it. Even some councilors were still scathing
which made it difficult to be able to hold one’s head high and continue. Some
of the attacks were relentless but we kept going and the harder and noisier
some became, the stronger and more stubborn I became. However, I was backed to
the hilt by Mayor Pino and ever growing support from locals, including the
local newspaper who made a turnaround for they began to see my vision being
realised. Even councilors who were negative in the early days were now starting
to turn and support the project.
All I wanted to do from the very start was
to show the town and some hard-nosed farmers and businesses that such a large
conservation project could bring valuable dollars to the Ingham community (as
well as increase and support a much greater wildlife population). Tyto Wetlands
which has since won many awards and has attracted thousands of visitors from
all around the world, has given Ingham national and international recognition.
Lastly I would like to extend my deep
gratitude to all those fine people who believed in me including my good friend
Pat Comben, then Queensland State Environment Minister during part of the
project and most of all to Pino Giandomenico, the mayor during this massive project.
Thank you Pino! Tyto Wetlands was my conception and design but you made it
happen!”
John Young
— 00000000000000000000—
