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

4.3 Comments on current legislation
• The current EPBC Act arrangements concerning <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> national
threat abatement plans appear adequate <strong>and</strong> effective in developing <strong>the</strong> initial
framework. However, listing <strong>of</strong> key threatening processes usually only occurs
when a species is threatened with extinction <strong>and</strong> when action to reverse this may
be costly or ineffective. As one NRM person described, “Shutting <strong>the</strong> gate after
<strong>the</strong> horse has bolted”. The main focus generally appears to be on remnant
populations <strong>and</strong> final extinction events. The long-term processes that have led to
rarity <strong>and</strong> vulnerability in <strong>the</strong> first place seem to be given less countenance. Under
<strong>the</strong> EPBC Act section 188(4), a process is eligible to be listed as a key threatening
process if it may threaten biodiversity. This occurred with regards to <strong>the</strong> listing <strong>of</strong>
Fire Ants as a KTP. There is a strong need for more attention to be paid to longterm
threatening processes that may not <strong>impact</strong> upon threatened species. It would
be beneficial if more threatening processes were recognised <strong>and</strong> listed prior to
species becoming threatened.
• Treat Abatement Plans (TAPs) under <strong>the</strong> EPBC Act provide a national plan,
however <strong>the</strong>y are <strong>of</strong>ten not fully implemented. As more key threatening processes
are listed it will be important to ensure <strong>the</strong>re is adequate funding to ensure TAPs
are developed (as required) <strong>and</strong> implemented, including those for invasive species.
• Introduced fish have been considered a major causal factor in <strong>the</strong> threatened status
<strong>of</strong> 42 per cent <strong>of</strong> freshwater fish recovery plans. The majority <strong>of</strong> new freshwater
pests are introduced through <strong>the</strong> ornamental fish trade (McNee 2002, Lintermans
2004). Fish are released into local waterways when owners no longer want <strong>the</strong>m.
A recent review <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> aquarium fish industry has identified at least 1181
freshwater species have been recorded in Australia in <strong>the</strong> last 40 years (McNee
2002). Of <strong>the</strong>se only 481 species are currently listed as permitted imports, leaving
700 species known to have been or still present in <strong>the</strong> country. Some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se
species may have been imported under previous legislative regimes. However,
within <strong>the</strong> current permitted live import list <strong>the</strong>re are still fish species which have
already established <strong>feral</strong> populations.
• The inconsistent status <strong>of</strong> pest <strong>animals</strong> across Australia is one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> key statutory
<strong>and</strong> administrative arrangements that hinder effective <strong>management</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> threat
posed by invasive species. The status <strong>of</strong> pest <strong>animals</strong> may vary between each State
or Territory, even though <strong>the</strong> principals <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> legislation utilised are usually fairly
similar. For example, <strong>the</strong> legal status <strong>of</strong> goats varies across Australia.
Commonwealth legislation identifies <strong>feral</strong> goats as contributing to a key
threatening process. Queensl<strong>and</strong>, South Australia <strong>and</strong> Western Australia define
<strong>feral</strong> goats as pests <strong>and</strong> prescribe actions to manage <strong>the</strong>m. O<strong>the</strong>r States <strong>and</strong>
Territories do not define <strong>feral</strong> goats a class <strong>and</strong> do not prescribe particular action
for l<strong>and</strong> managers. This lack <strong>of</strong> consistency in <strong>the</strong> legal definition <strong>of</strong> what
constitutes a <strong>feral</strong> goat, <strong>and</strong> variation in <strong>the</strong> requirements imposed on l<strong>and</strong>
managers, impede actions to ameliorate <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>impact</strong>s on endangered species.
• States <strong>and</strong> Territories have some regulations that insist on continuous suppression
<strong>and</strong> destruction wherever particular <strong>feral</strong> <strong>animals</strong> are found. In most instances
<strong>the</strong>re appears to be have been little attempt to relate <strong>the</strong> costs <strong>of</strong> control to <strong>the</strong>
benefits gained from lowered <strong>feral</strong> animal densities, placing an unrealistic
expectation upon l<strong>and</strong> managers. Instead <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> unachievable goal <strong>of</strong> eradication,
<strong>the</strong> wording should be altered to promote strategic <strong>management</strong> for long-term
71