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

The situation today
Buffalo numbers are much lower today than during <strong>the</strong> 1980s, when <strong>the</strong>ir numbers
reached an estimated 350 000 (Edwards et al. 2003). A major reduction took place
under <strong>the</strong> Brucellosis <strong>and</strong> Tuberculosis Eradication Campaign (Wilson et al. 1992).
Concerns about buffalo <strong>impact</strong>s have fallen away since <strong>the</strong>n, yet <strong>the</strong>ir numbers are
rising quickly. The cull was concentrated in western Arnhem L<strong>and</strong>, while <strong>the</strong> smaller
eastern Arnhem L<strong>and</strong> population was deemed to be disease-free <strong>and</strong> was left alone
(Bowman 2003). This population has now reached high densities, is spreading into
new catchments, <strong>and</strong> serious environmental degradation is under way, including <strong>the</strong>
destruction <strong>of</strong> wetl<strong>and</strong>s from seawater inundation. As well, buffalo are now spreading
west to reclaim former habitat, including Kakadu National Park. They were removed
from Kakadu in <strong>the</strong> past as part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> brucellosis campaign, but a deal was struck
whereby a herd is kept in a fenced section <strong>of</strong> national park as a source <strong>of</strong> meat. This
herd serves serves a valuable social role by providing meat to <strong>the</strong> community,
although its <strong>management</strong> is inadequately funded. Now that buffalo are recolonising
<strong>the</strong> park from outside areas <strong>the</strong> need for ano<strong>the</strong>r cull will emerge. But community
leaders may well oppose culling, even though a meat supply is guaranteed by <strong>the</strong>
fenced herd.
Buffalo are a problem that needs significant investment now before <strong>the</strong>ir numbers rise
any higher. As Edwards et al. (2003) observe: ‘Obviously <strong>the</strong> population has
enormous growth potential’. The need for a cull is discussed in detail in Section 7.
3.7.14 Bali Banteng (Bos javanicus)
O<strong>the</strong>r name
Bali Cattle
Summary
A <strong>feral</strong> cow confined to one national park north-east <strong>of</strong> Darwin, where it causes
serious environmental damage, <strong>and</strong> where a cull is urgently needed.
Distribution
Within Australia, confined to Garig Gunak Barlu National Park on Coburg Peninsula
north-east <strong>of</strong> Darwin, where <strong>the</strong> population numbers between 7000 <strong>and</strong> 9000 (K.
Saalfield, pers comm). It was introduced to <strong>the</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Territory as domesticated
livestock in 1845.
Native to South East Asia, where it is listed by <strong>the</strong> IUCN as endangered.
Impacts
Banteng are causing substantial damage to Garig Gunak Barlu National Park
(previously called Gurig National Park). They are damaging foreshore dunes <strong>and</strong>
altering vegetation structure. They browse low-hanging trees, creating a distinct
browse-line (Corbett 1995). They also deplete <strong>the</strong> under story on coastal plains, <strong>and</strong>
<strong>the</strong>y trample wetl<strong>and</strong>s at <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> dry season (P. Fitzgerald pers. comm.). They
are similar enough to domesticated cattle to damage <strong>the</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scape in <strong>the</strong> same ways.
After comparing plots that were fenced to exclude banteng <strong>and</strong> unfenced plots, Panton
(1993) found a ‘highly significant difference.’ Fenced plots had 9.2 per cent herbage
34