Australia’s extinction crisis: 39 mammal species lost since 1788, 5 more at risk by 2050 due to colonial land-use and climate change

Indigenous Australians practiced *fire stick farming* for millennia, using controlled burns to create mosaic landscapes that supported biodiversity, including species now at risk. Colonial suppression of these practices, combined with the forced removal of Indigenous people from Country, disrupted these systems, leading to dense, flammable vegetation and habitat loss. Contemporary Indigenous ranger programs (e.g., in the Northern Territory) have demonstrated that cultural burning can reduce extinction risks by up to 40% in targeted areas, yet receive less than 1% of conservation funding.

The extinction of 39 mammal species since 1788 mirrors other settler-colonial extinction crises, such as the near-total collapse of the North American bison (from 30-60 million to ~1,000 by 1890) due to railroad expansion and market hunting. In Australia, the introduction of livestock by British colonizers in the 18th century triggered soil compaction, overgrazing, and the spread of invasive predators (foxes, cats), which drove species like the thylacine to extinction. These patterns reflect a global model of *extractive colonialism*, where Indigenous land management is replaced with industrial monocultures, leading to ecological simplification.

In the Pacific Islands, traditional *tabu* (sacred) marine reserves have maintained fish populations for centuries, demonstrating how Indigenous governance systems can prevent biodiversity loss. Similarly, in southern Africa, *indigenous forest gardens* (e.g., among the Shona) sustain high species diversity by mimicking natural ecosystems, contrasting with colonial plantation models. Across these contexts, the common thread is a *relational* rather than *extractive* relationship with land, where conservation is inseparable from cultural identity and reciprocity.

Peer-reviewed studies confirm that Australia’s mammal extinction rate is the highest globally, with 10% of terrestrial mammal species lost since 1788—primarily due to habitat fragmentation, invasive predators, and climate change. Research also shows that Indigenous-managed lands in Australia have higher mammal abundance and diversity than non-Indigenous lands, challenging the assumption that Western conservation is superior. However, scientific literature often underrepresents Indigenous methodologies, framing them as ‘traditional knowledge’ rather than rigorous ecological science.

In Aboriginal Dreamtime stories, the loss of species like the bilby or quoll is interpreted as a disruption in the *songlines*—ancient pathways that connect humans, animals, and Country—requiring ceremonies to restore balance. Contemporary Indigenous artists (e.g., Vernon Ah Kee, Emily Kame Kngwarreye) use their work to mourn extinctions and assert sovereignty over cultural narratives of land. In Western art, extinction is often framed as a tragedy for ‘future generations,’ obscuring the immediate cultural genocide experienced by Indigenous peoples whose identities are tied to these species.

Climate models project that 30-50% of Australia’s remaining mammal species could face extinction by 2050 under high-emission scenarios, with arid regions (e.g., Western Australia) hit hardest due to increased drought and fire frequency. Scenario planning by the CSIRO suggests that restoring Indigenous fire regimes could reduce fire intensity by 30-50% and increase mammal survival rates by 20-30%. However, current policy pathways (e.g., Australia’s 2030 emissions target) remain insufficient to meet these targets, prioritizing GDP growth over ecological thresholds.

Indigenous rangers, who make up 70% of the workforce in some conservation programs, report that their work is systematically underfunded despite its proven success—receiving AUD$50 million annually compared to AUD$1.2 billion for non-Indigenous conservation. Women-led Indigenous groups (e.g., Martu women in the Pilbara) have documented species recoveries through cultural burning, yet their knowledge is often dismissed as ‘anecdotal’ by Western scientists. The exclusion of these voices from policy-making reinforces a colonial conservation paradigm that treats land as a resource rather than a kin.