Recovery plan for the brush-tailed rock-wallaby - Department of ...
Recovery plan for the brush-tailed rock-wallaby - Department of ...
Recovery plan for the brush-tailed rock-wallaby - Department of ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Approved NSW <strong>Recovery</strong> Plan Brush-<strong>tailed</strong> <strong>rock</strong>-<strong>wallaby</strong><br />
The NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) (now DECC) researched <strong>the</strong><br />
effectiveness <strong>of</strong> NPWS and community fox baiting programs around BTRW colonies. In<br />
Kangaroo Valley, a community baiting program was implemented with NPWS in 1994. NPWS<br />
implemented a monthly 1080 baiting and monitoring program from March 1997 to 2001 around<br />
four BTRW colonies in Broke and Milbrodale in <strong>the</strong> Hunter Valley. Three unbaited sites in <strong>the</strong><br />
Hunter and Hawkesbury area were also monitored. Continual systematic monitoring <strong>of</strong> five<br />
colonies (three baited and two unbaited) has been conducted since 1998 (Rummery et al 1997).<br />
Only limited analyses could be run on <strong>the</strong> combined data <strong>of</strong> Hunter Valley and Kangaroo Valley<br />
because monitoring in Kangaroo Valley began after monitoring in <strong>the</strong> Hunter Valley, and four<br />
years after <strong>the</strong> commencement <strong>of</strong> baiting in Kangaroo Valley. There was no significant<br />
difference in abundance over time between baited and unbaited colonies when data <strong>for</strong> both <strong>the</strong><br />
Hunter and Kangaroo valleys was combined. However, analysis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Kangaroo Valley data<br />
indicated that baited colonies were declining at a much slowly rate than unbaited colonies<br />
(Norton et al 2002). However, as <strong>the</strong> sample size was very small, <strong>the</strong> significance should be<br />
treated with caution.<br />
There was a variable response in <strong>the</strong> baited and unbaited colonies in <strong>the</strong> Hunter Valley study,<br />
which led to difficulties in interpreting data. Some unbaited sites experienced less <strong>of</strong> a decline<br />
than <strong>the</strong> baited areas, suggesting <strong>the</strong>re may have been differences in predation pressure between<br />
<strong>the</strong> colonies be<strong>for</strong>e <strong>the</strong> baiting programs were implemented (Rummery et al 2000).<br />
Predation by <strong>the</strong> red fox was listed as a key threatening process under <strong>the</strong> Threatened Species<br />
Conservation Act in March 1998. The listing was based on <strong>the</strong> potential impact <strong>of</strong> foxes on nine<br />
threatened species listed under <strong>the</strong> Act, including <strong>the</strong> BTRW. A threat abatement <strong>plan</strong> (TAP) <strong>for</strong><br />
predation by <strong>the</strong> red fox was prepared by <strong>the</strong> NPWS in 2001. The TAP proposes actions to<br />
reduce <strong>the</strong> impacts <strong>of</strong> fox predation on threatened species, and conserve biodiversity. The<br />
BTRW has been identified as a priority species <strong>for</strong> investigation and action under <strong>the</strong> fox TAP<br />
and a number <strong>of</strong> priority areas have been identified (see Table 6).<br />
The objectives <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Fox TAP (NPWS 2001) are to:<br />
1. Ensure that fox control programs undertaken <strong>for</strong> conservation purposes in NSW focus on<br />
threatened species which are most likely to be affected by fox predation.<br />
2. Ensure that fox control programs minimise <strong>the</strong> impacts <strong>of</strong> fox predation on targeted<br />
threatened species.<br />
3. Provide an experimental basis <strong>for</strong> validating <strong>the</strong> priority species <strong>for</strong> fox control and <strong>for</strong><br />
measuring <strong>the</strong> effectiveness <strong>of</strong> control programs.<br />
4. Provide support <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> TAP.<br />
42