Snipers in helicopters have shot more than 700 koalas in the Budj Bim National Park in western Victoria in recent weeks. It’s believed to be the first time koalas have been culled in this way.

The cull became public on Good Friday after local wildlife carers were reportedly tipped off.

A fire burned about 20% of the park in mid-March. The government said the cull was urgent because koalas had been left starving or burned.

Wildlife groups have expressed serious concern about how individual koalas had been chosen for culling, because the animals are assessed from a distance. It’s not clear how shooting from a helicopter complies with the state government’s own animal welfare and response plans for wildlife in disasters.

The Victorian government must explain why it is undertaking aerial culling and why it did so without announcing it publicly. The incident points to ongoing failures in managing these iconic marsupials, which are already threatened in other states.

Why did this happen?

Koalas live in eucalypt forests in Australia’s eastern and southern states. The species faces a double threat from habitat destruction and bushfire risk. They are considered endangered in New South Wales, Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory.

In Victoria, koala population levels are currently secure. But they are densely concentrated, often in fragments of bush known as “habitat islands” in the state’s southwest. Budj Bim National Park is one of these islands.

Over time, this concentration becomes a problem. When the koalas are too abundant, they can strip leaves from their favourite gums, killing the trees. The koalas must then move or risk starvation.

If fire or drought make these habitat islands impossible to live in, koalas in dense concentrations often have nowhere to go.

In Budj Bim, Victoria’s Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action and Parks Victoria have tackled koala overpopulation alongside Traditional Owners by moving koalas to new locations or sterilising them.

But Budj Bim is also surrounded by commercial blue gum plantations. Koalas spread out through the plantations to graze on the leaves. Their populations grow. But when the plantations are logged, some koalas have to return to the national park, where food may be in short supply.

Animal welfare groups say logging is one reason Budj Bim had so many koalas.

It’s hard to say definitively whether this is the case, because the state environment department hasn’t shared much information. But researchers have found habitat islands lead to overabundance by preventing the natural dispersal of individuals.

So why was the culling done? Department officials have described the program as “primarily” motivated by animal welfare. After the bushfire last month, koalas have been left starving or injured.

Why shooters in helicopters? Here, the justification given is that the national park is difficult to access due to rocky terrain and fire damage, ruling out other methods.

Euthanising wildlife

Under Victoria’s plan for animal welfare during disasters, the environment department is responsible for examining and, where necessary, euthanising wildlife during an emergency.

For human intervention to be justified, euthanasia must be necessary on welfare grounds. Victoria’s response plan for fire-affected wildlife says culling is permitted when an animal’s health is “significantly” compromised, invasive treatment is required, or survival is unlikely.

For koalas, this could mean loss of digits or hands, burns to more than 15% of the body, pneumonia from smoke inhalation, or blindness or injuries requiring surgery. Euthanised females must also be promptly examined for young in their pouches.

The problem is that while aerial shooting can be accurate in some cases for larger animals, the method has questionable efficacy for smaller animals – especially in denser habitats.

It’s likely a number of koalas were seriously injured but not killed. But the shooters employed by the department were not able to thoroughly verify injuries or whether there were joeys in pouches, because they were in the air and reportedly 30 or more metres away from their targets.

While the department cited concerns about food resources as a reason for the cull, the state’s wildlife fire plan lays out another option: delivery of supplementary feed. Delivering fresh gum leaves could potentially have prevented starvation while the forest regenerates.

Lessons for the government

The state government should take steps to avoid tragic incidents like this from happening again.

Preserving remaining habitat across the state is a vital step, as is reconnecting isolated areas with habitat corridors. This would not only reduce the concentration of koalas in small pockets but increase viable refuges and give koalas safe paths to new food sources after a fire.

Future policies should be developed in consultation with Traditional Owners, who have detailed knowledge of species distributions and landscapes.

We need better ways to help wildlife in disasters. One step would be bringing wildlife rescue organisations into emergency management more broadly, as emphasised in the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission and the more recent Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements.

This latter report pointed to South Australia’s specialised emergency animal rescue and relief organisation – SAVEM – as an effective model. Under SA’s emergency management plan, the organisation is able to rapidly access burned areas after the fire has passed through.

Victoria’s dense communities of koalas would be well served by a similar organisation able to work alongside existing skilled firefighting services.

The goal would be to make it possible for rescuers to get to injured wildlife earlier and avoid any more mass aerial culls.

Liz Hicks is Lecturer in Law, University of Melbourne. Ashleigh Best is Barrister, Victorian Bar and Honorary Fellow, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne. This article is republished from The Conversation.

The vast rural expanses of India are often overshadowed by the country’s urban-centric digital growth; digital isolation has long stifled progress. Starlink’s ambitious satellite network now promises to turn night into day, literally and figuratively, by beaming high-speed internet across terrains where cables don’t reach and towers don’t exist. But as this technological advance prepared to bridge the digital divide, it became entangled in a complex web of legal, regulatory, and security challenges. At stake today is not just the rollout of a service but a broader question: can the innovation Starlink represents navigate tradition and sovereignty to bring rural and urban India closer together?

Which regulations apply to Starlink?

In its endeavour to provide satellite-based internet services in India, Starlink must navigate a complex legal and regulatory landscape. The cornerstone of this landscape is the Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) licence from the Department of Telecommunications as required by the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

Section 4 of the Act grants the Union government the exclusive privilege to establish and operate telegraphs (interpreted broadly to include modern communication technologies like VSAT) and empowers it to issue licences. Section 7 further authorises the government to frame rules governing such licences.

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 established the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), which plays an advisory and regulatory role. Section 11 outlines TRAI’s functions, including making recommendations on licensing terms, spectrum management, and ensuring fair competition, thus significantly shaping the regulatory environment for Starlink.

The newer Telecommunications Act, 2023 governs the allocation of satellite spectrum. While it permits administrative allocation, it also requires Starlink to adhere to the security and pricing norms it outlines. Starlink’s use of Ku-and Ka-band frequencies is subject to the telecom department’s spectrum regulations, which are aligned with International Telecommunication Union standards to prevent interference with other services.

The Satellite Communications Policy, 2000 and the Indian National Space Promotion and Authorisation Centre (IN-SPACe) under the Department of Space further require Starlink to coordinate satellite operations and orbital slot use to avoid conflicts with Indian Space Research Organisation assets, and to align with national space priorities.

Finally, the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 impose obligations related to encryption, data storage, and cybersecurity. National security concerns require Starlink to comply with directives from the Ministry of Home Affairs and intelligence agencies, which may include requirements such as real-time signal tracking and user verification.

Why hasn’t Starlink entered India yet?

Several interlinked factors are contributing to delays in Starlink receiving its operational permits in India. First, obtaining a VSAT licence under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 involves rigorous technical and financial assessments by the telecom department, often requiring inter-ministerial consultation.

Second, although the Telecommunications Act, 2023 enables the administrative allocation of satellite spectrum, the pricing and conditions — especially for Ku and Ka bands — are still being negotiated between the department and the TRAI.

Third, a thorough security clearance process led by the Home Ministry and intelligence agencies is underway, complicated by concerns about foreign ownership and potential misuse. These agencies require extensive assurances on data protection and lawful usage before giving the green light.

Fourth, coordination with Indian space infrastructure under IN-SPACe and compliance with the Satellite Communications Policy, 2000 adds further procedural requirements.

All these delays have tangible consequences such as Starlink increasing operational costs and delaying market entry, potentially deterring investor confidence. Nonetheless, Starlink could transform connectivity once operational in India’s remotest regions, reinforcing the need for an enabling regulatory ecosystem.

Has Starlink misuse affected its security clearance?

Reports alleging the misuse of Starlink devices for illegal activities may have likely escalated concerns within India’s security establishment. Such instances, isolated or widespread, could trigger a more stringent vetting process, requiring Starlink to implement robust safeguards such as encrypted data flows, lawful interception capabilities, and enhanced user verification mechanisms.

Compliance with the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 will be scrutinised as well.

Such reports may also strain trust between SpaceX, Starlink’s developer, and Indian regulators and increase the time taken to reach consensus on operating conditions. However, proactive engagement and transparency from SpaceX — such as demonstrating technological safeguards and a commitment to collaborate with Indian authorities — could help rebuild that trust and mitigate delays.

What will Starlink cost in India?

Starlink’s pricing in India remains speculative, but several indicators suggest the service may launch at a premium. The high capital cost of deploying low-earth orbit satellites combined with licensing and spectrum charges under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Telecommunications Act, 2023 will likely drive up initial service rates.

Equipment cost, comprising the user terminal (dish), router, and setup, could also be significant for households in rural India. Monthly subscription fees may remain out of reach for low-income communities unless supported by subsidies or government-backed digital inclusion initiatives.

Although positioned as a rural connectivity solution, the service may initially cater to institutions, businesses, and relatively affluent individuals in remote areas. Its edge lies in offering high-speed, low-latency internet where terrestrial service providers struggle. Over time, as economies of scale reduce hardware costs, affordability and access could improve if regulatory support emerges.

Why does Starlink matter?

Starlink’s regulatory experience in India offers critical insights into the delicate interplay between innovation, law, and sovereignty.

It underscores the importance of early, structured dialogue between technology providers and government regulators, the need for globally agile companies to adapt to local frameworks, and the centrality of national security in shaping digital infrastructure policy. It also reminds us that spectrum, like sovereignty, is a finite national resource: its fair and efficient allocation demands a robust and forward-looking regime.

These lessons are especially pertinent as India positions itself as a global digital leader.

Welcoming technologies like Starlink while upholding sovereignty, security, and equity requires a regulatory environment that is transparent, predictable, and innovation-friendly.

However, perhaps more symbolically, Starlink’s journey is not just about satellites and signals; it is about bridging divides. Satellite internet holds the potential to unify rural to urban not merely in connectivity but in opportunity, voice, and visibility.

Shrawani Shagun is pursuing a PhD at National Law University, Delhi, focusing on environmental sustainability and space governance.