Review of the management of feral animals and their impact on ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

conservation value ra<strong>the</strong>r than larger, remote areas. However, once <strong>feral</strong> pig trapping materials are purchased <strong>and</strong> traps are established, <strong>the</strong> costs <strong>and</strong> time taken for subsequent trapping campaigns are reduced significantly. New technology, such as shape recognition trapping may improve <strong>the</strong> applicability <strong>of</strong> this method. Research is required to assess <strong>the</strong> applicability <strong>of</strong> trapping to broad-scale <strong>feral</strong> pig control. The practice has <strong>the</strong> advantage <strong>of</strong> being highly target specific <strong>and</strong> providing a means <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>f-setting <strong>the</strong> cost <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> control efforts. Commercial harvesting In total since 1998, between 140 000 <strong>and</strong> 332 000 <strong>feral</strong> pigs have been inspected annually at game meat processing plants in Australia (Lapidge & Cowled 2004 unpublished). These rates <strong>of</strong> commercially harvested pigs, although significant when applied to some local areas are small in comparison to <strong>the</strong> total numbers <strong>of</strong> <strong>feral</strong> pigs in Australia. Commercially harvested pigs are sourced from accredited field harvesters who utilise dogging, ground shooting <strong>and</strong> trapping to source <strong>the</strong> pigs Ground shooting Hunting by non-commercial hunters <strong>and</strong> commercial harvesters using ground shooting, dogging <strong>and</strong> trapping can have a significant localised reduction on <strong>feral</strong> pig numbers. Generally, <strong>the</strong> benefits <strong>of</strong> hunting <strong>and</strong> harvesting <strong>feral</strong> pigs are unquantified. A criticism <strong>of</strong> hunting as a control method is that non-commercial <strong>and</strong> commercial hunting may hold <strong>feral</strong> pig numbers at a point where <strong>the</strong> benefits <strong>of</strong> hunting exceeds <strong>the</strong> cost <strong>of</strong> hunting. The ability <strong>of</strong> hunting <strong>and</strong> harvesting to reduce <strong>feral</strong> pig <strong>impact</strong>s on conservation outcomes is unknown. In some areas <strong>the</strong> methods have markedly reduced <strong>feral</strong> pig populations, however, <strong>the</strong> efficacy <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> method is reduced by deliberate introductions <strong>and</strong> decreasing returns in hunted areas. The method is generally inexpensive to apply since hunters <strong>and</strong> harvesters will <strong>of</strong>ten volunteer <strong>the</strong>ir time. The method may be difficult to apply in remote areas <strong>and</strong> can result in <strong>feral</strong> pig translocations. The non-target effects <strong>of</strong> hunting <strong>and</strong> harvesting have not been researched (escape <strong>of</strong> hunting dogs, <strong>feral</strong> pig translocations), but if conducted responsibly <strong>the</strong>y should be low. Aerial shooting Aerial shooting is a method which can deliver rapid <strong>and</strong> large reductions (up to 80%) in <strong>feral</strong> pig numbers across extensive areas in appropriate habitats, including remote locations. However, <strong>the</strong> technique can be expensive, generally is undertaken in isolation, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> effect can be short-lived. It is highly target specific <strong>and</strong> can be cost effective. The main disadvantages are that <strong>the</strong> method is not applicable to all habitats <strong>and</strong> is expensive when <strong>feral</strong> pigs are in low densities. Aerial shooting is especially useful to extend <strong>feral</strong> pig control to remote or inaccessible areas <strong>and</strong> is one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> efficacious techniques available for use over broad areas in many areas <strong>of</strong> Australia. However, aerial shooting is not effective in all habitats, such as mountainous or heavily forested areas. The target specificity <strong>of</strong> aerial shooting is extremely high <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> logistical practicalities are relatively easily met. Fencing Fencing can be a useful method <strong>of</strong> <strong>feral</strong> pig <strong>management</strong> through reducing or eliminating <strong>impact</strong>s on small, valuable areas. Its use is however expensive <strong>and</strong> time consuming <strong>and</strong> is generally limited to small areas or isl<strong>and</strong>s to allow eradication <strong>and</strong> exclusion. Ongoing maintenance requirements can be high. Fencing will potentially 114
educe <strong>the</strong> ease <strong>of</strong> movement by some terrestrial vertebrates but <strong>the</strong> non-target <strong>impact</strong>s <strong>of</strong> fencing have not been quantified. Fencing can improve <strong>the</strong> efficacy <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r methods <strong>of</strong> control since it can prevent reinvasion <strong>and</strong> re-establishment <strong>of</strong> <strong>feral</strong> pig populations. Judas pig The Judas pig technique can aid in <strong>the</strong> detection <strong>of</strong> small isolated populations, <strong>and</strong> to improve <strong>the</strong> overall planning <strong>and</strong> effectiveness <strong>of</strong> control operations. The Judas pig method can improve <strong>the</strong> effectiveness <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r control methods by allowing <strong>the</strong> targeting <strong>of</strong> control procedures to areas where <strong>feral</strong> pigs are present. However, it is expensive, can have some difficult logistical requirements, <strong>and</strong> is generally not applicable to reducing <strong>feral</strong> pig populations in high densities. It is also likely to reduce <strong>the</strong> non-target <strong>impact</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r method <strong>of</strong> control which is utilised with <strong>the</strong> Judas pig technique. Neck snaring Neck snaring has been a useful means <strong>of</strong> managing <strong>feral</strong> pigs overseas, but would not be applicable to Australia, due to animal welfare concerns, non-target issues <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> inefficiency <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> method. The method requires many worker hours per pig removed from <strong>the</strong> population (Lapidge & Cowled 2004) <strong>and</strong> also requires workers ‘on <strong>the</strong> ground’ in all pig habitats, meaning it is not feasible for large l<strong>and</strong> areas in remote places such as <strong>the</strong> Rangel<strong>and</strong>s. It is likely to have extremely high non-target <strong>impact</strong>s. Habitat modification Habitat modification includes active <strong>management</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>feral</strong> pig food, water <strong>and</strong> shelter sources. Removal <strong>of</strong> water sources through <strong>the</strong> capping <strong>of</strong> bore drains is currently occurring on some properties in <strong>the</strong> Australian Rangel<strong>and</strong>s. However, generally habitat modification would not have wide-spread value due to potential undesirable <strong>impact</strong>s associated with vegetation clearing. Biological control Biological control could be an effective means <strong>of</strong> controlling <strong>feral</strong> pig populations in Australia. Biological control <strong>of</strong> <strong>feral</strong> pigs in Australia could <strong>the</strong>oretically be attempted using African swine fever <strong>and</strong> classical swine fever. Both viruses are passed on by direct contact <strong>and</strong> fomites <strong>and</strong> are highly contagious, with porcines being <strong>the</strong> only natural vertebrate hosts (Geering et al. 1995). Rates <strong>of</strong> mortality from acute infections <strong>of</strong> both diseases can be in excess <strong>of</strong> 90%, generally significantly greater than o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>feral</strong> pig control methods discussed herein (Hone et al. 1992). However, Choquenot et al. (1996) cast doubts over <strong>the</strong> usefulness <strong>of</strong> CSF due to <strong>the</strong> disease remaining in low prevalence in areas that have previously had outbreaks <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> disease. The potential <strong>impact</strong>s on <strong>the</strong> commercial pig industry will most likely make this control method unacceptable <strong>and</strong> currently no biocontrol research is being undertaken in Australia for <strong>feral</strong> pigs. Current <strong>management</strong> efforts NSW - The main investments in control efforts in NSW are poison baiting with 1080 (21%) <strong>and</strong> CSSP (14%), recreational hunting (21%), ground shooting (13%), trapping (15%) <strong>and</strong> commercial harvesting (11%). Aerial shooting (4%) <strong>and</strong> exclusion fencing are also used at times (1%). NSW NPWS are spending a lot <strong>of</strong> 115
Page 1:
Review of<
Page 4 and 5:
Contributors Andrew Norris Pest Ani
Page 6 and 7:
3.7.36 Common Myna (Acridot
Page 8 and 9:
Table of figures F
Page 10 and 11:
Section 2 Introduction Feral <stron
Page 12 and 13:
Amanda Dimmock, QD
Page 14 and 15:
Section 3 A status review o
Page 16 and 17:
3.4 Birds Thirteen (or 14) species
Page 18 and 19:
Information on the
Page 20 and 21:
Summary A rodent that contributes t
Page 22 and 23:
Dingoes can become a threat to wild
Page 24 and 25:
The significance of</strong
Page 26 and 27:
macropods and b<st
Page 28 and 29:
^Lasiorhinus krefftii North
Page 30 and 31:
Perceived threat Geopsittacus occid
Page 32 and 33:
conservation areas. It is less clea
Page 34 and 35:
Table 8 Rare species found in <stro
Page 36 and 37:
Competition Several examples are re
Page 38 and 39:
In truth, camels do substantial dam
Page 40 and 41:
the Tanami. Buffal
Page 42 and 43:
The situation today Buffalo numbers
Page 44 and 45:
qualify under IUCN criteria as enda
Page 46 and 47:
3.7.16 Goat (Capra hircus) Summary
Page 48 and 49:
Drakonorchis drakeoides Hinged Drag
Page 50 and 51:
3.7.19 Red Deer (Cervus elaphus) Su
Page 52 and 53:
Impacts Much is known about <strong
Page 54 and 55:
Distribution Ostriches have won <st
Page 56 and 57:
nest in tree hollows along
Page 58 and 59:
Distribution The skylark is found i
Page 60 and 61:
Distribution The blackbird is wides
Page 62 and 63:
Land, and<
Page 64 and 65:
have been translocated to o
Page 66 and 67:
esources. Significant investment in
Page 68 and 69:
many native species (Clarke et al.
Page 70 and 71:
spread across the
Page 72 and 73: Section 4 Legislative framework 4.1
Page 74 and 75: protection, as long as it falls wit
Page 76 and 77: Native Vegetation Conservation Act
Page 78 and 79: ehabilitate existing native vegetat
Page 80 and 81: suppression, which is the</
Page 82 and 83: al. 1986, 1987). The use of
Page 84 and 85: 5.1.4 Mustering Commercial musterin
Page 86 and 87: etal. (1997) found that many native
Page 88 and 89: the vaccine <stron
Page 90 and 91: Where possible, integration <strong
Page 92 and 93: strategy, relative cost-effectivene
Page 94 and 95: Fencing Feral buffalo have a reputa
Page 96 and 97: 5.3 Management of
Page 98 and 99: Summary of <strong
Page 100 and 101: time comes for the
Page 104 and 105: Individual tracking Tracking is a l
Page 106 and 107: SA - Currently cats are not widely
Page 108 and 109: Method of control
Page 110 and 111: Aerial shooting Aerial shooting can
Page 114 and 115: 80% of export was
Page 116 and 117: ensuring effective treatment <stron
Page 118 and 119: the lower cost, wi
Page 124 and 125: effort on the cont
Page 128 and 129: follow transect lines, one kilometr
Page 130 and 131: as a refuge from predators. Removal
Page 134 and 135: was completed it was the</s
Page 136 and 137: warren structure amenable to recolo
Page 138 and 139: Poisons Traditionally, strychnine,
Page 140 and 141: infected and steri
Page 142 and 143: of high priority.
Page 144 and 145: Method of control
Page 148 and 149: technique can allow for cost-effect
Page 152 and 153: In South Australia, between 30 <str
Page 156 and 157: % respondents 100% 90% 80% 70% 60%
Page 158 and 159: a) b) Figure 3. a) Extent o
Page 160 and 161: Figure 4 Response frequency for lik
Page 162 and 163: distribution of <s
Page 164 and 165: Section 7 Key problems and<
Page 166 and 167: • Goats degrading temperate woodl
Page 168 and 169: conservation problems in Europe <st
Page 170 and 171: message that camels are a valuable
Page 172 and 173:
In the Koolatong R
Page 174 and 175:
environmental degradation’ (Nor<s
Page 176 and 177:
ecause dingo and d
Page 178 and 179:
Various control methods have been a
Page 180 and 181:
Pascale Taplin, an Indigenous L<str
Page 182 and 183:
Lack of a Strategi
Page 184 and 185:
eradicated after seeing the
Page 186 and 187:
In some situations, payment <strong
Page 188 and 189:
could have led to better protocols
Page 190 and 191:
Game hunting is a growing business,
Page 192 and 193:
Much as we might like it, t
Page 194 and 195:
conservation outcome. In such a sit
Page 196 and 197:
community consultation and<
Page 198 and 199:
• Have the non-t
Page 200 and 201:
provide opportunities for strategic
Page 202 and 203:
Section 9 Priorities for investment
Page 204 and 205:
contacted for exact locations <stro
Page 206 and 207:
way. Achilles heel research should
Page 208 and 209:
efficient in any given situation. R
Page 210 and 211:
west Queensland re
Page 212 and 213:
Crossland, MR, 199
Page 214 and 215:
Forsyth, DM, and P
Page 216 and 217:
Lange, RT, and Gra
Page 218 and 219:
Morgan, LA and But
Page 220 and 221:
Parkes, JP, 1990, Feral goat contro
Page 222 and 223:
Van Rensberg, PJJ, Skinner, JD, <st
Page 224 and 225:
Appendix A Ferals animals</
Page 226 and 227:
Indigenous lands I
Page 228 and 229:
Appendix B Stakeholder survey form
Page 230 and 231:
222
Page 232 and 233:
224
Page 234 and 235:
226
Page 236 and 237:
Appendix C Database on past NHT fun
Page 238 and 239:
Lachlan Rehabilitation of</
Page 240 and 241:
Northern Territory
Page 242 and 243:
Cape York Ambiilmungu-Ngarra tradit
Page 244 and 245:
Wet Tropics Expansion and</
Page 246 and 247:
Avon Protecting and</strong
show all

Review of the management of feral animals and their impact on ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?