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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Summary <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> effectiveness <strong>of</strong> carp control methods Method <strong>of</strong> control Netting <strong>and</strong> trapping Environmental manipulation Electr<strong>of</strong>ishing Moderate to high Exclusion screens High Poisoning Moderate Commercial fishing Recreational fishing Efficacy Control method efficiency High Low Target specificity Low to moderate Logistical practicalities Overall effectiveness Low Moderate 146 Advantages <strong>of</strong> method Disadvantages <strong>of</strong> method Unknown Unknown High High Unknown May reduce carp whilst improving river ecosystems <strong>and</strong> High Low Low High High Low High Moderate Cost effective at high densities Locating fish can be difficult Non-target issues native fish assemblages Effective for catching larger specimens Target specific High Low Useful for preventing reinvasion Moderate Low High Low Most useful for small isolated waters Low Moderate Biological control Unknown Unknown Unknown Moderate Moderate Allows targeted control <strong>of</strong> small residual populations Unknown High Low Unknown Target specific control Unknown Unknown Unknown, but possibly low cost implementation through selfdissemination. Does not remove all carp Very expensive <strong>and</strong> labour intensive Effectiveness unknown Difficult to apply in remote areas Does not get all carp present Expensive Suitable only for smaller waterways Only suitable to semi-enclosed waterways <strong>and</strong> lakes All carp need to be removed first Can clog with debris May be circumvented during flooding. Lack <strong>of</strong> target specificity Cannot be effectively applied in flowing waters Only viable at high populations densities. Low market value <strong>of</strong> catch Difficult in remote areas Confined to easily accessible locations Low removal rate Public acceptance Clean-up <strong>of</strong> dead fish Market status
Section 6 Stakeholder survey General survey results A total <strong>of</strong> 42 people responded to our stakeholder survey on <strong>feral</strong> animal <strong>management</strong> in <strong>the</strong> Australian Rangel<strong>and</strong>s. We had responses from private l<strong>and</strong> managers, community groups, l<strong>and</strong> protection boards, aboriginal l<strong>and</strong> managers, state agencies, Rangel<strong>and</strong> consultancy firms, <strong>and</strong> catchment <strong>management</strong> authorities (Table 13). Respondents were evenly spread around <strong>the</strong> Australian Rangel<strong>and</strong>s although <strong>the</strong> response from Queensl<strong>and</strong> was low (Table 14). Table 13 Capacity <strong>of</strong> survey respondents Group % <strong>of</strong> respondents Private l<strong>and</strong> managers 33% Community group 21% L<strong>and</strong> protection boards 12% Aboriginal l<strong>and</strong> managers 12% State agencies 10% Rangel<strong>and</strong> consultants 7% Catchment <strong>management</strong> authorities 5% Table 14 Distribution <strong>of</strong> respondents State or Territory % <strong>of</strong> respondents Western Australia 31% South Australia 26% Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Territory 24% New South Wales 14% Queensl<strong>and</strong> 5% In general, <strong>the</strong> survey responses varied with <strong>the</strong> respondents backgrounds <strong>and</strong> capacity more than with <strong>the</strong>ir geographical location. In particular, private l<strong>and</strong> managers <strong>and</strong> consultants were typically dissatisfied with government efforts in <strong>feral</strong> animal <strong>management</strong> in arid regions <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>management</strong> efforts were underappreciated <strong>and</strong> under-valued. The <strong>feral</strong> <strong>animals</strong> most commonly reported to have a detrimental <strong>impact</strong> on Rangel<strong>and</strong> biodiversity were cats, house mice, wild dogs, rabbits, foxes, goats <strong>and</strong> horses (Figure 2). Cats were also reported <strong>the</strong> most frequently to have a high detrimental environmental <strong>impact</strong>, followed by wild dogs, foxes, goats, rabbits <strong>and</strong> donkeys. 147
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 102 and 103:
Summary of <strong
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 112 and 113: Summary of <strong
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 120 and 121: 5.8 Management of
Page 122 and 123: conservation value rathe</s
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?