Saving Tasmanian Devils Could Help Control Killer Cats

Tasmanian devils (Sarcophilus harrisii) disappeared from mainland Australia centuries ago, probably not long after humans first brought dingoes to the continent.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Tasmanian devils (Sarcophilus harrisii) disappeared from mainland Australia centuries ago, probably not long after humans first brought dingoes to the continent. A new plan could bring the infamous, snarling predators back from the island of Tasmania to Oz. That would not only benefit the devils, which are dying out due to a communicable cancer, but also theoretically help control populations of feral cats and foxes that are driving much of the country's other wildlife to extinction.

Conservation biologists have called cats one of the greatest threats to Australia's mammals. The country is home to 15 to 23 million feral cats, which eat about 75 million native animals a year. The Action Plan for Australian Mammals, published earlier this year, predicts that cats could soon wipe out four of five species and threaten 60 more. European red foxes (Vulpes vulpes), meanwhile, have also taken a terrible toll on a wide range of native wildlife, including birds, bilbies, wallabies and turtles.

Reintroducing devils may help to slow this down. A plan is now in the works to release a small group of the animals into the 50,000-hectare Wilsons Promontory National Park in Victoria to balance out the populations of native wildlife and invasive cats and foxes. The park is home to more than 30 mammalian species. None is endangered at present, but that could change—cat populations are on the rise. (Ironically, cats are thriving due in part to efforts to control populations of foxes, which are feline predators.)


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Mammologist and former Macquarie University professor Tim Flannery proposed reintroducing Tasmanian devils 20 years ago in a book called The Future Eaters. Tasmanian devils placed into Australian habitats could eat young foxes and cats while also competing with them for food during key breeding times, thereby reducing their reproductive success, he told the Australian Broadcasting Corp earlier this week. The devils could also compete with the invaders for nest space.

Evidence from Tasmania suggests that this plan might work. Foxes have never successfully colonized Tasmania because they nest on the ground and have a strong odor that the devils easily sniff out, allowing the natives to eat the invaders' young. Cats have the evolutionary advantage—they can nest in trees, which the devils can't climb. That doesn't mean cats are safe from devils, though. Areas with strong Tasmanian devil populations appear to lack large numbers of cats—and where devils have declined due to cancer (Devil Facial Tumor Disease, or DFTD) cat populations have exploded.

Nothing about this plan is foolproof. Although the move may allow time to find a cure for DFTD, the cancer may still devastate devil populations regardless of where they live. And reintroduced devils may not wind up controlling fox and cat populations, says invasive species specialist and University of Sydney professor Rick Shine. "I support releasing Tasmanian devils in mainland Australia,” he told me. “They belong here. We wiped them out and we have the opportunity to release them—and hopefully save them from the tumor disease."

This is all still theoretical. Scientists are likely to try a controlled experiment before any widespread release. No schedule has been announced, but it can't wait too long. DFTD is so bad that some scientists predict Tasmanian devils could be extinct in the wild by 2025. That doesn't leave much of a window to try to make a difference.

Photo by Jon Clark via Flickr. Used under Creative Commons license

John R. Platt is the editor of The Revelator. An award-winning environmental journalist, his work has appeared in Scientific American, Audubon, Motherboard, and numerous other magazines and publications. His "Extinction Countdown" column has run continuously since 2004 and has covered news and science related to more than 1,000 endangered species. John lives on the outskirts of Portland, Ore., where he finds himself surrounded by animals and cartoonists.

More by John R. Platt

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe