Is the Tasmanian Tiger Still Alive?

One of the most famous instances of human-caused extinction in contemporary history is the Tasmanian Tiger, also known as the Thylacine. Due to its unusual appearance and the continuous discussion regarding its potential survival, this rare marsupial predator—which vanished from mainland Australia thousands of years ago and only existed in Tasmania until the 20th century—continues to pique scientific and public interest. Is it still alive?

Description

With a wolf-like body structure and characteristic tiger-like stripes on its tail and lower back, the Tasmanian Tiger was an amazing animal. Its distinctive features included an abdominal pouch found in both males and females, the ability to expand its jaws to an amazing 120-degree angle, a maximum length of 130 cm, which consisted of its stiff tail, and a maximum weight of 30 kilograms. Its dark-striped, sandy coat let it blend in well with its wooded surroundings (Owen, 2004).

The thylacine, a nocturnal predator, showed intriguing behavioral characteristics. It was mostly solitary, hunting either by itself or in couples, and its main prey were tiny mammals, birds, and marsupials. It was renowned for being comparatively timid and avoiding conflict with people, in contrast to many other predators. Although little is known about its behavior prior to extinction, scientists think it combined ambush and chase hunting tactics.

The species’ decline and eventual extinction in the 20th century tell a sad story of human persecution. After European settlers arrived in Tasmania, they believed that the thylacine was the cause of cattle losses, so they used bounties to stimulate intense hunting. The Tasmanian government paid more than 2,000 rewards for thylacine kills between 1888 and 1909 alone. The final captive specimen, Benjamin, passed away on September 7, 1936, in Hobart’s Beaumaris Zoo from exposure to severe weather, and the last recorded wild specimen was shot in 1930 (Gmelch & Gmelch, 2017).

Thylacine Survival?

Reports of thylacine sightings from Tasmania and mainland Australia persist despite the species’ proclaimed extinction status. Some experts argue that the species may be able to live in isolated locations, while the majority of scientists are still doubtful. Given Tasmania’s extensive wilderness areas and the animal’s tendency toward secrecy, some researchers believe that tiny populations may survive unnoticed. Nevertheless, no tangible proof has surfaced to support these claims, even after multiple searches and the placement of camera traps (Bulte, Horan, & Shogren, 2003).

One of the most fascinating mysteries in zoology is the likelihood of thylacine survival. Hundreds of sightings from Tasmania and mainland Australia persist despite the species’ official declaration of extinction, raising questions about its possible survival. The southwest of Tasmania, home to both isolated wilderness areas and lush rainforests, is the most likely habitat for any remaining population. This region encompasses large swaths of essentially uncharted land, marked by difficult terrain and restricted human access. Dense vegetation and frequent cloud cover make aerial surveys challenging, while severe weather and remote location complicate ground-based study.

Reports of sightings display specific patterns that lend them credibility. Many come from park rangers, seasoned bushmen, and those who know the local species and are unlikely to confuse ordinary animals for thylacines. These witnesses frequently provide accurate descriptions of distinguishing characteristics, such as the stiff tail, peculiar pace, and striking stripes. The inclusion of behavioral features, not widely recognized at the time of the species’ extermination, increases the veracity of some tales.

But even with the development of technology and countless systematic searches, tangible proof is still difficult to come by. Although trail cameras have been successful in documenting other rare species, they have not yet obtained conclusive evidence of thylacines in the wild. Over the years, a number of encouraging images and movies have surfaced, but none have lived up to the exacting standards needed for scientific validation. Although it generated excitement, a Tasmanian trail camera image from 2021 proved to be inconclusive.

A major obstacle to survival hypotheses is the lack of tangible evidence like droppings, traces, or remnants. Since 1936, researchers have not collected any confirmed thylacine specimens, and environmental samples have not produced any conclusive DNA evidence. Considering the species’ breeding requirements and minimum viable population demands, it would be remarkable to maintain a viable population for over 80 years without detection.

If any thylacines do survive, according to some researchers, they probably do so in small, isolated colonies that might be too dispersed to be sustainable over the long run. The species’ timid nature and naturally low population density may explain the absence of tangible evidence, but these same traits would make any surviving population highly susceptible to extinction due to disease, habitat loss, or genetic bottlenecking (Smith, 2012).

De-Extinction

Recent developments in genetic technology have triggered discussions concerning the possibility of de-extinction to bring the species back to life. After successfully sequencing the thylacine genome from conserved specimens, scientists at the University of Melbourne are investigating the possibility of reviving the species through gene editing. Scientists plan to use the closely related numbat as a host species and gradually alter its genome to resemble the thylacine’s genome. Although technically difficult, such endeavors offer a possible route to the resuscitation of this extraordinary organism.

Scientists, philosophers, and legislators must address the many difficult ethical issues raised by de-extinction. Early attempts at genetic engineering or cloning raise concerns about animal welfare immediately, as they could lead to unsuccessful pregnancies, birth deformities, or sick animals. Since the first specimens would essentially serve as experimental subjects, the morality of creating life with the potential for suffering would come into question.

In the de-extinction debate, ecological effect and resource allocation are interrelated issues. Many argue that it would be more beneficial to focus on preventing future extinctions instead of trying to reverse past ones, as the former requires substantial financial resources that could potentially aid in the conservation of currently endangered species. If we bring back extinct species, it could upset existing ecosystems that have adapted to their absence. Since they became extinct, the ecosystem may have drastically changed, potentially depriving them of sufficient habitat or prey, which could lead to new ecological problems.

Concerns about cultural ramifications and authenticity complicate the problem. Since genetically modified creatures will only be approximate representations of extinct species based on available DNA rather than exact replicas, there are philosophical concerns regarding whether we are indeed bringing back extinct species. This issue becomes even more significant when considering species that hold cultural significance for indigenous peoples, like the thylacine. The question of who has the authority to decide whether to bring back culturally significant species introduces an additional layer of ethical difficulty.

The last significant ethical issue is the idea of scientific arrogance and moral hazard. A risky “we can fix it later” mentality in conservation efforts might result from the prospect of de-extinction, which would lessen the urgency of extinction prevention. De-extinction, according to some, is an example of mankind going too far, playing God, or refusing to acknowledge that extinction is inevitable. However, some view it as a moral use of technology to rectify the damage humans have caused to the planet’s biodiversity. This conflict between ethical obligation and technological competence still centers the de-extinction argument (Waterhouse & Mitchell, 2022).

Conclusion

The story of the Tasmanian Tiger serves as both a cautionary tale about human-caused extinction and a source of inspiration for future conservation initiatives. Although its demise signifies a substantial loss to Australia’s distinctive biodiversity, there is some hope for its possible resurgence due to the advancement of scientific skills. The thylacine continues to enthrall scientists and the general public, whether through potential rediscovery or genetic resurrection, serving as a reminder of our duty to safeguard and conserve Earth’s amazing biodiversity.

References

Bulte, E. H., Horan, R. D., & Shogren, J. F. (2003). Is the Tasmanian tiger extinct? A biological–economic re-evaluation. Ecological Economics, 45(2), 271-279.

Gmelch, S. B., & Gmelch, M. Z. (2017). Lost then loved: the case of the Tasmanian tiger. Natural History, 125(4), 36-41.

Owen, D. (2004). Tasmanian tiger: The tragic tale of how the world lost its most mysterious predator. Taylor & Francis US.

Smith, N. (2012). The return of the living dead: unsettlement and the Tasmanian tiger. Journal of Australian Studies, 36(3), 269-289.

Waterhouse, J., & Mitchell, C. (2022). ‘Has Anybody Seen a Tasmanian Tiger Lately?’: Ethical and Ontological Considerations of Thylacine De-Extinction. Green Letters, 26(1), 14-27.