Skip to content

Queensland’s Common Myna Control Remained a Patchwork of Local Action

Common myna perched on a railing in Cairns, Queensland
Conservation · Management

Management of common mynas (Acridotheres tristis) in Queensland was still split among local trapping schemes, council decisions and volunteer initiatives in June 2026. The species is introduced in Australia and is targeted because it can compete with native birds and other wildlife for resources and nesting sites, although the ecological benefits of broad mainland trapping remain uncertain. ABC News reported on 5 June that some communities were offering bounties or lending traps, while no coordinated state or national programme was operating.

Local schemes rely on traps, bounties and volunteers

In Charleville, wildlife carer Shannon Mathes had funded a private A$5 bounty and reported more than 80 birds trapped. In Mackay, a community group was lending traps with council support, while Gladstone Regional Council offered cages, advice and a A$5 bounty and said about 2,500 common mynas had been removed since its programme began in 2015.

Queensland’s Department of Primary Industries said a statewide campaign was unlikely to have a major effect because common mynas were already established across the state. The department said trapping needed humane euthanasia, enough volunteers to remove substantial numbers and systematic data sharing. BirdLife Australia similarly warned that birds from nearby nests could refill local gaps and recommended pairing control with bird surveys.

RSPCA Australia did not encourage community culling programmes and argued that improving natural habitat could be a better route to greater urban bird diversity. The disagreement therefore concerned not only whether birds could be removed locally, but whether trapping could produce durable ecological change at a broader scale.

Local suppression did not increase overall bird diversity

A peer-reviewed Melbourne study published in February 2026 provides relevant context. Community trapping reduced the relative abundance of common mynas in the treated area, but did not increase overall bird species richness or diversity; the aggressive native noisy miner became more prominent. The Queensland removal totals reported by councils therefore show management activity, but do not by themselves demonstrate a statewide population decline or recovery of native urban bird communities.

Sources and image credit

  1. Walsh, H., & Ford, L. (2026, June 5). Frustration over approach to dealing with Indian myna driving grassroots action. ABC News.Direct reporting on Queensland community groups, council programmes, bounty figures, government responses and comments from RSPCA Australia and BirdLife Australia.
  2. Linley, G. D., Sutherland, D. R., & Weston, M. A. (2026). Population suppression of urban common mynas (Acridotheres tristis) by citizens: Short-term effects on local avifauna and succession among the despots. Wildlife Research, 53(2), WR25166. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR25166Peer-reviewed Melbourne study used as context for measured short-term effects of community trapping on common mynas and the wider urban bird community.

Image: Summerdrought / Wikimedia Commons — common myna in Cairns, Queensland, 24 February 2019; representative species image, not a control-programme bird · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Source

About this content: This story was produced with AI assistance within an editorial workflow developed by Wildlife Vagabond. Editorial responsibility remains with Wildlife Vagabond.How AI is used

Management

SPECIES IN THIS STORY

Species in this story

Common Myna Acridotheres tristis Explore species

Independent research and conservation news archive

Did you find this information useful?

Wildlife Vagabond is independently built and maintained. Voluntary support helps cover source verification, hosting and continued work on research and conservation news.

Support Wildlife Vagabond

The news archive will remain freely available.