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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Appendix A Ferals <strong>animals</strong> in <strong>the</strong> Rangel<strong>and</strong>s workshop summary A workshop held in Canberra on 22 February 2005, brought toge<strong>the</strong>r experts on pest animal control <strong>and</strong> policy to discuss options for better pest <strong>management</strong> for biodiversity conservation within <strong>the</strong> Australian Rangel<strong>and</strong>s. This report summarises key issues raised, but does not review <strong>the</strong> various methods <strong>of</strong> control that were mentioned. What are <strong>the</strong> goals? There was some disagreement about what biodiversity conservation means. Some participants said that any control measure that helps native species is a gain for conservation. O<strong>the</strong>rs disagreed, saying that ‘conserving biodiversity’ really means assisting rare <strong>and</strong> threatened species. Bob Henzell, (South Australia Animal <strong>and</strong> Plant Control Commission), expressed a third view, saying that a more important goal is to save whole habitats. He spoke about a national park where rabbits are preventing mulga woodl<strong>and</strong>s from regenerating; this habitat may vanish over large areas along with all <strong>the</strong> species it contains. Along with this disagreement about ‘biodiversity’ is uncertainty about <strong>the</strong> goals <strong>of</strong> many control programs. Culling <strong>and</strong> baiting programs have <strong>of</strong>ten been implemented with agricultural objectives, but <strong>of</strong>ten without specific conservation goals. In <strong>the</strong> past especially, too much emphasis has been placed upon numbers <strong>of</strong> pests killed, not upon biodiversity gains. Control needs to minimise <strong>the</strong> <strong>impact</strong>s <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>feral</strong> <strong>animals</strong>, not just <strong>the</strong>ir presence. For example, park rangers might bait <strong>the</strong>ir parks once a year to suppress foxes, but not be able to specify any target measure <strong>the</strong>y were expecting to achieve (i.e. <strong>the</strong>y want to reduce <strong>the</strong> <strong>impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> foxes on biodiversity or species Y by X percent). Infrequent baiting may not necessarily produce any long-term biodiversity benefit. In <strong>the</strong> Top End, Keith Saalfield, (Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Territory Parks <strong>and</strong> Wildlife Commission) said that most control programs have not produced any significant long term gains. In New South Wales, Paul Mahon, (Dept. <strong>of</strong> Environment <strong>and</strong> Conservation), found that <strong>the</strong> infrequent fox control in most parks – all too <strong>of</strong>ten undertaken to assist neighbours breeding sheep - were not reaching any measurable goals, although <strong>the</strong> rangers believed – without evidence – that small mammals were benefiting. Strategic, targeted control programs have proven to be <strong>the</strong> most effective. Paul wants fox control concentrated into areas where a clear benefit can be shown, i.e. into parks where foxes are known to threaten rare species. Where do <strong>the</strong>y apply? Pests are a problem at <strong>the</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scape level. Pest <strong>management</strong> should <strong>the</strong>refore operate at <strong>the</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scape level, i.e. via a nil-tenure approach where <strong>the</strong> actions <strong>of</strong> many l<strong>and</strong>holders are coordinated to meet a common goal. PESTPLAN, <strong>of</strong>fers a bestpractice tool for doing this, by bringing toge<strong>the</strong>r neighbouring l<strong>and</strong>holders, including national park managers, to decide upon realistic <strong>and</strong> common goals <strong>and</strong> put <strong>the</strong>m into action. PESTPLAN can prove very effective. But its capacity to deliver can be limited when: 1. The goals <strong>of</strong> conservation <strong>and</strong> surrounding l<strong>and</strong> <strong>management</strong> are wildly divergent 216
2. L<strong>and</strong>holders are too preoccupied with o<strong>the</strong>r problems (poverty, drought, locusts) 3. There is no local champion to drive <strong>the</strong> process 4. Absentee l<strong>and</strong>lords cannot be incorporated readily into <strong>the</strong> process 5. Interest is lost after initial successes are achieved, or after new problems emerge. As an example <strong>of</strong> (1), Keith Morris (CALM) spoke about parks acquired in Western Australia, surrounded by l<strong>and</strong>holders who value <strong>feral</strong> goats. Mike Braysher mentioned hunting groups based in Sydney which acquire rural l<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> stock <strong>the</strong>m with pigs <strong>and</strong> goats. While pest <strong>management</strong> can operate on a nil-tenure approach, biodiversity conservation usually cannot. Biodiversity within <strong>the</strong> Rangel<strong>and</strong>s is spread across three key categories <strong>of</strong> l<strong>and</strong> tenure: 1) Grazing l<strong>and</strong>s (private l<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> leasehold) 2) Public l<strong>and</strong>s (including national parks) 3) Indigenous l<strong>and</strong>s. Conservation on each kind <strong>of</strong> l<strong>and</strong> tenure is constrained in different ways. Grazing l<strong>and</strong>s On grazing l<strong>and</strong>s, biodiversity conservation is <strong>of</strong>ten a low priority compared to productivity. Graziers may care about biodiversity but <strong>the</strong>y are too preoccupied with problems (drought, plague locusts, low incomes) to do anything, <strong>and</strong> rate it as a low priority. As Mike Braysher (UC), said: ‘It’s very hard to be green when you’re in <strong>the</strong> red’. Graziers in this situation need incentives <strong>and</strong> resources, or at least support. Those who are making a pr<strong>of</strong>it are more likely to practise conservation, but making a pr<strong>of</strong>it need not translate into conservation. Many, if not most, l<strong>and</strong>holders practise some <strong>feral</strong> animal control. Agricultural pests are more likely to be controlled through co-ordinated efforts because <strong>the</strong>re is a common goal between <strong>the</strong> farmers <strong>and</strong> conservation agencies. However, when control is undertaken primarily for conservation, motivating l<strong>and</strong>holders can become difficult. Major pests on farms are likely to be controlled more heavily than <strong>the</strong> same pests in national parks, leading to complaints from nearby farmers. But <strong>the</strong> levels <strong>of</strong> control that meet production needs are not always high enough to benefit <strong>the</strong> local biodiversity. The rabbits preventing mulga regeneration in South Australia occur at such low densities that l<strong>and</strong>holders cannot be convinced <strong>the</strong>re are any rabbits <strong>the</strong>re. The level <strong>of</strong> goat culling that suits l<strong>and</strong>holders is not necessarily sufficient to bring back rare plants. Public L<strong>and</strong>s A range <strong>of</strong> techniques are used to control various <strong>feral</strong> <strong>animals</strong> on public l<strong>and</strong>s. As noted in <strong>the</strong> next section, effective control is <strong>of</strong>ten compromised by lack <strong>of</strong> knowledge about pest <strong>impact</strong>s, lack <strong>of</strong> resources in remote regions, lack <strong>of</strong> suitable control techniques, <strong>and</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> adequate monitoring. Success is more likely if control is part <strong>of</strong> a larger co-ordinated campaign involving adjoining l<strong>and</strong>holders. PESTPLAN <strong>of</strong>fers a way to achieve this. If PESTPLAN cannot be made to work, <strong>the</strong> fall-back position is control undertaken in isolation on public l<strong>and</strong>s. 217
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 126 and 127:
5.9 Management of
Page 128 and 129:
follow transect lines, one kilometr
Page 130 and 131:
as a refuge from predators. Removal
Page 132 and 133:
Summary of <strong
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 146 and 147:
5.11 Management of
Page 148 and 149:
technique can allow for cost-effect
Page 150 and 151:
Summary of <strong
Page 152 and 153:
In South Australia, between 30 <str
Page 154 and 155:
Summary of <strong
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 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?