This is an excellent question, and an important one that I am sure many people have stopped to consider. Everyone who has ever ventured into the Tasmanian wilderness wondering “what would I do if I happened to get a photo of a Tasmanian tiger?” is faced with this question.

During my travels through Tasmania I have discussed this with a number of people. The vast majority seem to say they would rather leave it alone and not share their sighting with anyone. The rationale behind this approach (presuming this person actually does want to see the species survive) is that “if the Tasmanian tiger has made it to this year without our intervention, it should be fine to continue by itself”.

I suspect - although I am not an expert in the legal side of these things - that if incontrovertible proof of a living thylacine was presented, the legal authorities (in this case, the Tasmanian State Government) would be obliged to prepare a species management plan. For this, I am sure there would need to be an attempt made at surveying the extent of any extant population of thylacines.

It is probably only after such a survey that any decision could be made regarding whether or not to attempt to capture individuals for a breeding program. But think about this for a moment - if the species survived, then it has done so without our ability to detect it for well over 80 years. I should guess this makes any attempted survey unlikely to be very successful.

On the other hand, I believe the act of finding a living Tasmanian Tiger would actually inspire further sightings. As a comparison, consider the Night Parrot. If we consider only authenticated evidence for the Night Parrot on mainland Australia, we have:

• The species was rediscovered in south-west Queensland
• Soon after it was also rediscovered in north-west Western Australia by completely independent researchers
• And then after this, its call was recorded in the Northern Territory

How is it that the species could not be found alive for well over 80 years, and then all of a sudden three different groups of people are finding it in three different locations across Australia, all within a few years?

I believe that by finding the Night Parrot:

1. The conviction and belief in the possibility of extant Night Parrots elsewhere skyrockets
2. More people are motivated to search again (or for the first time) for the species, because they now “know” it survives
3. Knowledge about the species is acquired through study of the original population. Even if the sighting had been brief, and no permanent population discovered, even the details around how the species was rediscovered - where, when, what time of day, what methods were employed to locate it - all this adds to our knowledge, which in turn, increases our ability to find it again.

I suspect the same pattern would hold true for the Thylacine if irrefutable evidence would come forward for a living Tasmanian tiger today.

Returning to the question of managing the species, and what should be done, there are several alternatives:

1. Do essentially nothing - it has made it this far, leave it be and let it be.
2. Begin monitoring and searching for reliably detectable populations.
3. Protect the landscape in which it is found - especially if it can be shown the species remains local to a relatively confined area.
4. Carry out active supplemental activities designed to assist the thylacine survive in its own environment. For example, the removal of feral animals and/or potential predators, or supplemental feeding.
5. Remove individuals from the wild in an attempt to start a breeding program.
6. Optionally, move individuals to a sanctuary location.

Some notes on the above:

• The Thylacine was successfully bred at Melbourne Zoo. The young did not survive to adulthood, but it remains that captive breeding was successful (although it seems to have been incidental breeding rather than any conscientious effort)
• Maria Island was set aside to act as a sanctuary for the Thylacine in the event any could ever be captured for a breeding program. It presently acts as a sanctuary for the Tasmanian Devil which has faced plummeting numbers due to Devil Facial Tumour Disease.
• Captive breeding programs have certainly played a role in holding species off from extinction and in rebuilding their population numbers - including Australian native mammal species.

Personally, I think a cautious view should be taken regarding removal of Thylacines from the wild, and I suspect authorities in charge will think likewise. There would appear much that can be done to help preserve them in-situ. Research would necessarily begin with observation of the species in the wild. This, together with landscape preservation, is probably the first and most significant conservation action that could be taken for the species.

The feasibility of preservation in-situ will depend quite a bit on the tenure of the land on which it is found. If the thylacine were found in, say, the remote south-west of the state - which is already a National Park and World Heritage area, and, say, the Tigers were fifty kilometres from the nearest major human activity, it would seem likely that leaving them in situ is a relatively safe course of action.

On the other hand, if they are found at the fringe of tall forests currently being logged, especially with few other tall forests nearby, then there would have to be questions asked about the feasibility of the species surviving those conditions without some kind of radical intervention. Balancing the interests of the various stakeholders over the land at that point would be a difficult task. We, collectively, might be asked to consider what we value most - between facilitating an industry that is consuming the forest, or preserving an iconic species that is known the world over.

You can find out more about Tasmanian tigers - including the examination of the evidence for many sighting claims - at my website Where Light Meets Dark or follow along on Facebook Where Light Meets Dark.