About this bit. I for one am a little confused or bemused about the line that “the
two subspecies are genetically similar.” Does that mean anything? Of course they are genetically similar (and physically similar). They are the same species. Geographically
separated (allopatric) it is not unusual to develop some differences. Judged because of some reason to warrant a distinction of subspecies status. So whilst similar, they are also a bit different. Sometimes I think people are trying too hard. I had to search
HANZAB for anything that describes the Tasmanian subspecies (see V 2, page 178 and plate 17) as the only mentions I found. It is not terribly convincing about a big difference.
Philip
From: Canberrabirds [
On Behalf Of Robin Hide via Canberrabirds
Sent: Saturday, 25 October, 2025 8:18 AM
To:
Subject: [Canberrabirds] Possible interest "Preferences for Managing Subspecies: An Australian Case Study of Wedge‐Tailed Eagles"
![]()
Open
Access
Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics
Volume
69, Issue 4 2025
Preferences
for Managing Subspecies: An Australian Case Study of Wedge‐Tailed Eagles
Andrea Allen, Mark Tocock, Darla Hatton MacDonald
Pages: 777-790 | First Published: 15 September 2025
ABSTRACT
The wedge-tailed eagle (Aquila audax) is the largest bird of prey in Australia. It has a unique Tasmanian subspecies (Aquila audax
fleayi), which is listed as endangered. Conservation efforts are hampered by the Tasmanian subspecies being notoriously shy breeders that can easily be disturbed by human activity such as forestry, resulting in nest abandonment. Conservation efforts are
currently focussed on restricting forestry activities around nesting sites. Other potential policies could target the use of rat poisons (especially single-dose, second generation rat poisons) which have the potential to bio-accumulate as wedge-tailed eagles
are known to scavenge. Evaluating the potential benefits of these conservation strategies has been complicated by recent research which suggests that the two subspecies are genetically similar, and therefore the species' genome is not at risk of endangerment.
This impacts the perceived ‘uniqueness’ of the Tasmanian subspecies. A research question that emerges from this conservation problem is whether respondents value conservation efforts differently depending on whether the subspecies is perceived as ‘unique’,
with either differences or the similarities of the subspecies emphasised in a stated preference survey. We sample south-eastern states of mainland Australia (New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia) as well as the island state of Tasmania to investigate
differences in preferences across states based on proximity to the target species. The results suggest a positive willingness to pay for expanding reserve areas around nests, restricting forestry activity in proximity to nests, and restricting rat poisons,
with some variability across mainland states relative to Tasmania.
Robin Hide
