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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

distribution <strong>of</strong> <strong>feral</strong> pigs reported in Section 3. Of those who indicated <strong>feral</strong> pigs to be a problem, only 7% indicated that <strong>the</strong> scale <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>impact</strong> was high. The majority reported low (33%) to moderate (18%) levels <strong>of</strong> <strong>impact</strong> only. A significant number (36%) <strong>of</strong> people indicated that <strong>the</strong> <strong>feral</strong> pig problem was worsening in <strong>the</strong>ir area with most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> remainder reporting <strong>the</strong> situation static (58%). Only two l<strong>and</strong> managers reported reductions in <strong>feral</strong> pig <strong>impact</strong>s on biodiversity in recent times. Feral pigs were frequently reported as having a wide range <strong>of</strong> <strong>impact</strong>s. Habitat destruction (52%) was <strong>the</strong> most common, followed by resource competition (43%), spread <strong>of</strong> disease (36%), predation (33) <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> displacement <strong>of</strong> native species (29%). Wild dogs The majority <strong>of</strong> people survey believed that wild dogs were having an <strong>impact</strong> on biodiversity. These people were relatively evenly divided over <strong>the</strong> scale <strong>of</strong> <strong>impact</strong> <strong>the</strong> dogs were having with 23% believing <strong>the</strong> <strong>impact</strong> was high, 31% reporting <strong>the</strong> <strong>impact</strong>s be moderate <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> same indicating only low <strong>impact</strong> levels. Only one respondent indicated that <strong>the</strong> situation was improving. 53% <strong>of</strong> people reported <strong>the</strong> <strong>impact</strong> level as remaining constant, whilst 44% believed <strong>the</strong> <strong>impact</strong> wild dogs were having on biodiversity were getting worse. As expected, predation <strong>of</strong> natives was <strong>the</strong> most frequently reported <strong>impact</strong> (76%), however displacement <strong>of</strong> natives (29%), resource competition (19%) <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> spread <strong>of</strong> disease (17%) were also frequently reported. It should be noted that <strong>the</strong> definition for wild dogs included dingoes <strong>and</strong> crossbreeds. House mouse A surprisingly high number (92%) <strong>of</strong> people reported <strong>the</strong> house mouse to be having an <strong>impact</strong> on biodiversity in <strong>the</strong>ir area. Most believed that <strong>the</strong> scale <strong>of</strong> mouse <strong>impact</strong>s was low (58%); with only a few reporting high damage levels to <strong>the</strong> environment (10%). House mice were described as competing with native species for resources (31%), spreading disease (33%) <strong>and</strong> displacing native species (33%). Habitat destruction was only indicated by 17% <strong>of</strong> those in areas where mice had an <strong>impact</strong>. 83% <strong>of</strong> people believed that <strong>the</strong> scale <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> problem was quite stable, whilst 14% reported it to be getting worse. Indian mynah The majority <strong>of</strong> respondents indicated that Indian mynahs were not a biodiversity issue in <strong>the</strong>ir area. Only 14% <strong>of</strong> respondents reported Indian mynahs as a low (8%) to medium (6%) level threat to biodiversity. The <strong>impact</strong>s reported involved resource competition with, <strong>and</strong> displacement <strong>of</strong> native species. Most believed that <strong>the</strong> scale <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> problem was stable, but two respondents thought that it was becoming worse. Common starling No one surveyed believed that starlings were having a high <strong>impact</strong> on Rangel<strong>and</strong> biodiversity; however 21% believed <strong>the</strong>y had ei<strong>the</strong>r a low or moderate effect. The majority <strong>of</strong> people also believed that <strong>the</strong> nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> problem was relatively stable, although a few believed <strong>the</strong> <strong>impact</strong>s had worsened. Resource competition <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> displacement <strong>of</strong> native species were believed to be <strong>the</strong> greatest <strong>impact</strong>s <strong>the</strong> starlings were having on biodiversity. 154
Rabbits Eighty-two percent <strong>of</strong> survey respondents reported rabbits to have a negative environmental <strong>impact</strong> in <strong>the</strong>ir area. Approximately half (48%) believed that <strong>the</strong>se <strong>impact</strong>s were small, whilst <strong>the</strong> remainder were concerned that <strong>the</strong> <strong>impact</strong> was ei<strong>the</strong>r moderate (15%) or high (18%). Just over half (56%) <strong>of</strong> those surveyed that had rabbit <strong>impact</strong>s thought that <strong>the</strong> nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> problem was stable, whilst 23% believed that <strong>the</strong> situation was worsening <strong>and</strong> 21% believed it was improving. Interestingly, those who tended to believe that rabbits were having little <strong>impact</strong> or that <strong>the</strong> problem was improving, lived in <strong>the</strong> central arid zones where myxomatosis <strong>and</strong> particularly <strong>the</strong> Rabbit Calicivirus Disease have had <strong>the</strong> greatest effect. Rabbits were reported by many to primarily be having environmental <strong>impact</strong>s through habitat destruction (64%) <strong>and</strong> resource competition (61%). They were also thought to be displacing natives (31%) <strong>and</strong> to a lesser degree involved in <strong>the</strong> spread <strong>of</strong> disease (14%). Water buffalo Only three <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> survey respondents reported water buffalo to be having a negative environmental <strong>impact</strong> in <strong>the</strong>ir region. This was hardly surprising considering <strong>the</strong> buffalo’s restricted distribution. These people reported habitat destruction, resource competition <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> displacement <strong>of</strong> native species to be <strong>the</strong> significant <strong>impact</strong>s on biodiversity. Two <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> respondents believed that <strong>the</strong> nature <strong>and</strong> scale <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>impact</strong> was not changing, however <strong>the</strong> third respondent reported <strong>the</strong> damage to be getting worse. Cane toads Nineteen percent <strong>of</strong> respondents believed that cane toads were having a medium to high <strong>impact</strong> on biodiversity in <strong>the</strong>ir region. These respondents were from <strong>the</strong> tropical margins <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Rangel<strong>and</strong>s in Queensl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Territory. People were evenly divided as to whe<strong>the</strong>r cane toad <strong>impact</strong>s were staying <strong>the</strong> same or worsening. This probably reflects <strong>the</strong> location <strong>of</strong> people relative to <strong>the</strong> cane toad’s distribution. Those who were in areas that have long been populated by <strong>the</strong> toads tended to respond that <strong>the</strong>re was now little change to nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> problem, whilst those who were nearer <strong>the</strong> edge <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> toad distribution reported <strong>the</strong> situation as worsening. The primary <strong>impact</strong>s observed on biodiversity were predation, displacement <strong>of</strong> native species <strong>and</strong> resource competition. Carp Fourteen percent <strong>of</strong> respondents thought that carp were having a significant <strong>impact</strong> on biodiversity in <strong>the</strong>ir region. Of <strong>the</strong>se, habitat destruction, displacement <strong>of</strong> natives <strong>and</strong> resource competition were listed as <strong>the</strong> most common <strong>impact</strong>s. Most people believed that <strong>the</strong> <strong>impact</strong> on biodiversity was not really changing, although a few respondents believed that <strong>the</strong> situation had ei<strong>the</strong>r improved or worsened. Tilapia The majority <strong>of</strong> respondents indicated that tilapia were not a biodiversity issue in <strong>the</strong>ir area. Only three respondents highlighted tilapia as a threat to biodiversity. These were not surprisingly from Western Australia <strong>and</strong> Queensl<strong>and</strong>. Predation was believed to be <strong>the</strong> most common <strong>impact</strong> on native species, whilst a broad range <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>impact</strong>s were also suggested. The nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> problem was indicated as being stable in most areas; however one region reported <strong>the</strong> problem as worsening. 155
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 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?