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

numbers <strong>of</strong> pests killed. Operational values such as cost-effectiveness, non-target
effects, efficacy <strong>and</strong> humanness <strong>of</strong> control techniques should also be monitored to
allow <strong>management</strong> strategies to be refined.
Monitoring seldom goes on for long enough. A fall in fox numbers may be recorded
in <strong>the</strong> year after baiting, <strong>and</strong> everyone is satisfied, but because <strong>the</strong> monitoring does
not continue, no one notices that fox numbers rebound in a couple <strong>of</strong> years.
Inadequate monitoring <strong>of</strong>ten produces misleading results. A fall in <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong>
pests, or a rise in <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> threatened <strong>animals</strong>, may be taken as a sign <strong>of</strong> success,
when it may owe to some o<strong>the</strong>r factor, such as a drought, above average rains, or a
fire on a nearby property. If monitoring is undertaken consistently over many years,
o<strong>the</strong>r factors are less likely to skew <strong>the</strong> results. The slow rate at which biodiversity is
likely to recover provides ano<strong>the</strong>r reason why monitoring should continue over many
years to detect changes.
Proper monitoring is difficult <strong>and</strong> costly, <strong>and</strong> this helps explain why it is seldom done
well. But because it is seldom done well, we cannot assess <strong>the</strong> <strong>impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> many pest
control operations. If <strong>the</strong>re was better monitoring far fewer resources would be wasted
on misguided actions. Although it is expensive, proper monitoring saves money in <strong>the</strong>
long term.
Adequate funding must be included in <strong>feral</strong> animal <strong>management</strong> programs to cover
monitoring costs. One <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> major problems with monitoring both <strong>feral</strong> animal
<strong>impact</strong>s <strong>and</strong> changes in biodiversity is that st<strong>and</strong>ard protocols do not exist. Often <strong>the</strong>
<strong>impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>feral</strong> <strong>animals</strong> is unclear <strong>and</strong> <strong>management</strong> is undertaken because <strong>the</strong> <strong>animals</strong>
are believed to be having detrimental <strong>impact</strong>s. Research into <strong>feral</strong> animal <strong>impact</strong>s on
biodiversity <strong>and</strong> how <strong>the</strong>y can be monitored is urgently required. Similarly, robust
monitoring techniques for biodiversity in <strong>the</strong> Rangel<strong>and</strong>s are also required. This could
take <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> indicator species or vegetation cover/composition, but again requires
urgent research.
• Does <strong>the</strong> <strong>management</strong> plan have sufficient sustained funding?
It is important for any <strong>feral</strong> animal <strong>management</strong> plan to have sufficient funding for
sustained control efforts <strong>and</strong> monitoring. Because <strong>of</strong> normal budgetary <strong>and</strong> election
cycles, funding for pest control is <strong>of</strong>ten provided intermittently or as one-<strong>of</strong>f
allocations. Control over only short time frames <strong>of</strong>ten results in <strong>feral</strong> <strong>animals</strong> quickly
recolonising treated areas, with little to show for <strong>the</strong> resource investment. Sustained
efforts can suppress <strong>feral</strong> animal <strong>impact</strong>s <strong>and</strong> provide longer-term benefits. Even if
eradication is attempted, sustained investment is required to ensure that adequate
monitoring takes place.
• Will <strong>the</strong> <strong>management</strong> be strategic?
A strategic approach aims to prevent damage ra<strong>the</strong>r than having to deal with damage
that has already occurred; in o<strong>the</strong>r words, acting pre-emptively not reactively. In <strong>feral</strong>
animal <strong>management</strong> <strong>the</strong> overall strategy is usually to reduce <strong>the</strong> <strong>feral</strong> animal numbers
wherever <strong>the</strong>y are having detrimental <strong>impact</strong>s, ra<strong>the</strong>r than rectifying <strong>the</strong> problem once
damage occurs. For example, strategic sustained control <strong>of</strong> rabbits can produce longterm
reductions in <strong>the</strong>ir population size <strong>and</strong> environmental damage. Reactive
<strong>management</strong> would be to only manage <strong>the</strong> rabbits when outbreaks occur or <strong>the</strong>ir
numbers go above a threshold. This method allows <strong>the</strong> rabbits to build up to high
numbers <strong>and</strong> inflict damage before <strong>the</strong>y are controlled. The strategic approach results
in less damage <strong>and</strong> should be <strong>the</strong> aim <strong>of</strong> all control programs. Buffalo <strong>and</strong> deer
191