No. The Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA) did not publicly announce the aerial shooting of koalas at Budj Bim National Park. The public only became aware after Yahoo News reported the story on April 15, 2025, following a tip-off from the Koala Alliance. By that time, DEECA had already shot more than 700 koalas from helicopters as part of what they described as a "wildlife welfare emergency response."

There had been no prior media or local reports of a fire, and the public had not been made aware of any emergency. DEECA later claimed the incident was triggered by a lightning strike that burned approximately 2,000 hectares on the western side of the park. The fire was reportedly brought under control quickly—yet DEECA claimed the fire was so severe all koalas needed to be shot. They didn’t start shooting koalas until a month after the fire.

Throughout this period, despite repeated requests, DEECA and the environment minister failed to provide any evidence of the fire's impact or the condition of the animals that were killed. There was no transparency around the decision-making process.

This method of aerial shooting has never been used before to “euthanise” native wildlife in an emergency response—and for good reason. It has never been proven to be a humane practice. In Victoria, aerial shooting has historically only been used to cull declared pest species, not protected native animals like koalas.

DEECA claimed they had no other option but to deploy helicopters with professional shooters and stated that “wildlife experts,” including a veterinarian, had assessed around 2,200 animals before authorising the aerial shooting.

However, DEECA has provided no evidence to support this claim.

Many members of the Koala Alliance are experienced wildlife carers and rescuers, with decades of hands-on experience responding to wildlife emergencies, including post-fire rescues. They all agree: it is not possible to accurately assess whether a koala requires euthanasia from a helicopter—regardless of whether the observer is a vet, a trained carer, or anyone else.

If a koala is not killed instantly by aerial gunfire, the animal is likely to suffer greatly. DEECA themselves claimed they could not access the animals on the ground, which means they were unable to confirm whether the koalas had been humanely killed or were left injured and suffering. This raises serious ethical concerns about the decision to proceed with aerial shootings under the guise of welfare.

DEECA justified the use of aerial shooting by claiming the terrain in Budj Bim National Park was too dangerous and difficult to access for ground-based rescue or assessment.

While Budj Bim is a volcanic landscape and does contain rocky areas, it is not inaccessible—particularly not for experienced wildlife rescue teams. Many trained rescuers with field experience in similar or more challenging terrain believe this explanation does not hold up.

It appears more likely that DEECA opted for aerial shooting as a matter of convenience—an approach they may have assumed could be carried out without public scrutiny. The decision to bypass standard rescue procedures raises serious concerns about the transparency, ethics, and true intent behind this operation

Generally, no. Severely injured koalas—especially those with significant burns—would not remain in trees for long. Within a couple of weeks, they would likely be on the ground, either already deceased or too weak to climb. Yet DEECA began aerial shootings almost a month after the fire had been controlled, casting serious doubt on the claim that the animals were in critical condition due to the fire.

DEECA stated that they followed guidelines to assess whether a koala needed to be euthanised. However, it is not possible to accurately assess injuries such as scorched feet, burns, dehydration, or poor body condition from a helicopter. Most of the approximately 1,000 koalas were shot while still in trees—indicating they were mobile, alert, and potentially healthy enough to survive if given proper care.

Experienced wildlife carers strongly believe many of these animals could have been rescued and rehabilitated. The decision to shoot them from helicopters, rather than attempt rescue, raises serious concerns about the validity of DEECA’s assessment process and the actual condition of the koalas.

DEECA also claimed that the mass shooting was necessary because koalas would eventually starve. They argued the fire had destroyed the tree canopy and that ongoing dry conditions had worsened vegetation loss, leaving the animals without food.

However, despite multiple requests, DEECA failed to provide any concrete evidence of widespread vegetation loss to support this claim. In fact, from many vantage points around Budj Bim National Park, signs of fire damage were minimal. Vegetation appeared largely intact, with patches of scorched areas surrounded by healthy, green canopy.

Once the park reopened, Friends of the Earth conducted an independent on-ground assessment of the areas where the shootings took place. Their findings directly contradicted DEECA’s narrative: while some areas showed moderate canopy scorch, many had substantial green cover, and some locations where large numbers of koalas were shot showed no visible vegetation loss at all.

You can read the full independent report [here].

According to koala ecologist Dr Steve Phillips, between 50–75% of female koalas—particularly those likely displaced from nearby logged plantations—would have been carrying pouch young at various stages of development.

DEECA had already stated that ground access was too difficult, meaning they could not retrieve or rescue any orphaned joeys whose mothers were shot. From a helicopter, it is impossible to determine a koala’s sex, let alone whether she was carrying a joey. As a result, any dependent young were left behind and likely died from starvation, exposure, or predation. These deaths were not included in DEECA’s reported kill statistics.

The fact that so many young koalas were likely orphaned and left to die directly contradicts DEECA’s justification that the operation was carried out on welfare grounds. Causing preventable suffering in defenceless young is not consistent with any recognised standard of wildlife care.

Members of the Koala Alliance conducted multiple visits to Budj Bim National Park during and after the aerial shootings. What they observed raises serious concerns about the true cause of this mass killing.

Surrounding the southern and western edges of the park are extensive bluegum plantations—hundreds of hectares of former koala habitat that had recently been logged. These plantations often serve as temporary refuges for koalas, but once logged, they leave the animals with nowhere to go. Importantly, logging operations are not required to leave trees standing for koalas, so when harvesting is complete, the animals are effectively displaced overnight.

With their habitat gone, the only nearby refuge for these koalas was Budj Bim National Park—a place where, according to locals and wildlife advocates, koalas are regularly “managed” by park authorities. It’s likely that a sudden influx of displaced koalas into the park triggered a response not based on emergency welfare needs, but on population control.

This context suggests the mass shooting may not have been about fire recovery or animal welfare at all—but rather a convenient way to deal with koalas rendered homeless by nearby industrial logging.

None. Since the aerial shootings were exposed, DEECA has provided no evidence to justify the mass killing of over 1,000 koalas. Despite repeated requests, neither the Conservation Regulator nor the Environment Minister has issued a formal statement or responded to public concerns.

In response to a detailed letter from the Koala Alliance, the matter was referred to a senior biodiversity officer—who failed to answer any of the specific questions raised.

This continued lack of transparency, accountability, and public communication only deepens concerns that this operation was not based on sound science or animal welfare principles.

The aerial shooting of over 1,000 koalas at Budj Bim National Park is unprecedented and demands urgent, independent scrutiny. Without transparency and accountability, there's nothing stopping similar actions from being repeated elsewhere — putting native wildlife across Victoria at risk.

DEECA, the agency responsible for protecting wildlife, carried out the mass killing in secret, without public consultation, published evidence, or adherence to due process. They claimed it was a welfare response, yet no independent wildlife experts, rescue organisations, or unaffiliated veterinarians were involved. Those who were involved had existing ties to DEECA, raising serious concerns about impartiality.

This event sets a dangerous precedent: allowing a government agency to create and apply its own standards when it comes to killing protected wildlife — without oversight.

It also highlights a broader structural conflict. DEECA regulates both habitat-destroying industries and the wildlife affected by that destruction. When one agency holds both roles, wildlife will always lose.

An independent inquiry is essential to:

• Uncover what actually happened;

• Assess whether the action was justified;

• Examine who was involved and how decisions were made;

• Restore public trust;

• Ensure this never happens again.