5.1
This chapter examines the key elements of successful control programs for the management of feral deer, pigs and goats highlighted in evidence to the committee. It also covers future research priorities for the management of these species.
5.2
As pointed out by Professor Paul Martin, Director Australian Centre for Agriculture and Law, University of New England:
There is a great deal of good work being done by many people, attempting to manage the chronic problems of highly mobile pest species in Australia. However, implementation of reforms and programs does seem to be under-supported compared to the challenge, which suggests the potential for implementation of government policies to be insufficiently effective to achieve sufficient control of harmful species.
Examples of successful control programs
5.3
The committee heard evidence of a number of successful feral species control programs that have occurred across Australia.
Kangaroo Island
5.4
The Kangaroo Island Natural Resources Management Board reported that it has completed the eradication of feral goats and the functional eradication of feral deer from Kangaroo Island. This was achieved at a cost of $1.3 million, with the Australian Government contributing over 90 per cent of the funding. The submission noted:
The success of these eradications was possible because of the long term commitment from the Australia[n] and State governments, with full support from the community. This success was the result of thorough planning, engaging the community from the beginning, and taking a staged approach to the eradications. The projects ensured that control officers employed by the NRM Board had the necessary skills, strong links with the community and good knowledge of local terrain.
5.5
Mr Richard Trethewey, Presiding Member, Kangaroo Island Natural Resources Management Board, explained that the use of Judas goats contributed to the success of the program. Ms Trish Mooney, Team Leader, Animal and Plant Control, Natural Resources Kangaroo Island, Department for Environment and Water emphasised the importance of having 'skilled, accurate, experienced marksmen'. Mr Damian Miley, Regional Director, Natural Resources Kangaroo Island, Department for Environment and Water and Executive Officer, Kangaroo Island Natural Resources Management Board, highlighted that the marksmen were part of the community, and were there for the entire project, and they as well as their skills were trusted by the local community.
5.6
Mr Miley spoke about the key principles for the success of programs:
…a committed community, an agreed approach, support from all levels of government over a long period of time, the support of new technology—particularly the ability to trial new technology—and to bring the community in to share the success. As an island, we've very much been able to do it quicker than in other locations.
'Bounceback' program in South Australia
5.7
Several submitters and witnesses mentioned the 'Bounceback' program in South Australia, which is a 'landscape scale conservation program that aims to protect and restore the semi-arid environments of the Flinders, Olary and Gawler ranges in the SA Arid Lands region'.
5.8
The Nature Conservation Society of South Australia noted that this program began in 1992 and was 'one of the first programs to operate at a landscape scale across several properties'. Dr Jody Gunn, Executive Manager, Bush Heritage Australia, stated that the program had a clear purpose about the outcomes to be achieved, included community engagement and was also well coordinated and resourced. Dr Gunn explained the program in more detail:
It is coordinated across multiple tenures and supported by aerial culling across multiple properties, regardless of tenure, [it is] delivered and coordinated by an agency, and it has incentivised baiting programs, onground management programs and whatever other mechanisms and means are suitable for that particular species. I think that that multiple-mechanisms approach across tenures is really critical.
5.9
In arguing that commercial farming is not the answer to reduce feral population numbers, Mr Michael Stead, President, Nature Conservation Society of South Australia, also mentioned the successful feral goat control measures in the Flinders Rangers implemented as part of the Bounceback program, reporting that:
[It] has maintained densities between five and twelve goats per square kilometre whereas in western New South Wales, where goat farming is permitted, rangeland goat densities can be as high as 30 to 50 goats per square kilometre.
5.10
The Nature Conservation Society of South Australia reported that in addition to the Bounceback program, other successful pest control case studies in SA are the Fleurieu Feral Deer Program and the South East Deer Control Program. The South East Deer Control Program emphasised taking a targeted approach and working closely with participating landholders.
Other successful programs highlighted by submitters
5.11
Bush Heritage Australia submitted that, in addition to the Bounceback program, the intensive effort to remove buffalo from Kakadu National Park was a further example of a successful, well-resourced campaign which has effectively reduced numbers of pest species.
5.12
Shoalhaven Landcare Association reported that Landcare has operated a successful goat control program in Kangaroo Valley over the past 15 years. Trusted relationships were established between landowners, Landcare and the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS). Landowners contacted Landcare when goats were seen and a contractor visited the site as soon as possible. The program was jointly funded by Landcare and the NPWS.
5.13
Mr Stead mentioned the Australian Feral Camel Management Project, which was a $19 million national program delivered by Ninti One that aimed to 'address the urgent need to significantly reduce feral camel densities to lessen their impacts in remote Australia'. Mr Stead commented:
That was an effective model where, ostensibly, the states coordinated their actions and reported back to a governing body and then, with consultation, decided what was the best course of action and which regions required perhaps more investment in control or further surveys, whether they be aerial or ground based, and allocated funds accordingly.
5.14
The Department of the Environment and Energy pointed to the Nest to Ocean Turtle Protection Program, where marine turtle rookeries in Queensland have been identified 'for active nest protection and predator control efforts to reduce the threat posed by feral pigs'. The program has delivered 'impressive results'. The department reported that the program 'is an example of how an effective system of identification of an issue at a national level can provide coordinated support to deliver outcomes on the ground'.
Key elements of successful control programs
5.15
The examples above display some of the key elements of successful control programs, which were drawn out further in evidence to the committee. Submitters and witnesses highlighted the need for:
clear objectives and measurement of program outcomes;
a coordinated approach to program management which integrates all relevant stakeholders;
adopting a nil-tenure approach that enables species to be controlled across all properties in a given area; and
community engagement and education on control measures.
Clear objectives and measurement
5.16
The committee heard that the objectives of a feral species control program will be determined by a range of factors, including how well established the invasive species is in the landscape.
Determining the objectives of control programs
5.17
The Victorian Farmers Federation outlined the approaches to management of different stages of invasion by a feral species: starting with prevention (e.g. through biosecurity controls that stop a species from entering an area); eradication of feral populations (most commonly possible during the early stages of a feral species incursion); containment of populations that cannot be fully eradicated; and finally asset-based protection, where efforts are focussed on protecting critical environmental, agricultural or social assets from an established species that cannot be more broadly contained.
5.18
There appears to be general acceptance that eradication of feral deer, pigs and goats, on mainland Australia with current methods, numbers and use, is not feasible. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) submitted that 'total eradication of these species is not possible on mainland Australia but local population reduction to minimise adverse impacts is achievable'. When asked whether eradication is possible for deer, pigs and goats, Mr Stead responded that, although technology is changing, for the foreseeable future he sees that a containment and asset-protection strategy would be most effective and pragmatic for states.
5.19
The CSIRO pointed to the New Zealand experience with managing deer, which 'demonstrates the futility of attempting widespread population control without sufficiently cost-effective techniques, and multiple competing interests'. It noted the same issues are present in Australia for deer, pigs and goats. CSIRO argued that as eradication is 'not technically feasible at scale, the word 'eradicate' should not be used in any context other than localised areas that can be effectively considered as islands'.
5.20
In this context, the need to remove sufficient numbers of animals to reduce populations was emphasised to the committee. The National Parks Association of the ACT pointed out that although the thresholds for population reduction vary between species, places and seasons, in ideal conditions, estimates indicate a need to remove half or more of the population for most species. The Invasive Species Council (ISC) included Table 5.1 in its submission showing indicative removal rates required to see effective population reduction.
Table 5.1: Indicative removal rates required for feral species
|
Invasive animal
|
Maximum population growth (per cent)
|
Proportion to remove annually (per cent)
|
|
Hog deer
|
85
|
52
|
|
Chital
|
76
|
49
|
|
Rusa deer
|
70
|
46
|
|
Fallow deer
|
45
|
34
|
|
Sambar
|
55
|
40
|
|
Pig
|
78
|
55-70
|
|
Goat
|
53
|
35
|
Notes: The maximum annual population growth is the maximum percentage increase in numbers that occurs when resources are not limiting and there are no predators, parasites or competitors. The maximum annual proportion to remove is the maximum percentage that needs to be removed (by control, predators or disease) to stop population growth.
5.21
While eradication is not feasible on the mainland, the committee did hear that the eradication of feral goats is possible on islands, for example Dirk Hartog Island, located off the Gascoyne coast of Western Australia. As noted earlier, the committee was also advised of the successful eradication of feral goats and functional eradication of deer on Kangaroo Island, following long term control programs. It was also reported that feral goats have also been eradicated from conservation reserves in the Warby Range, Victoria.
5.22
The committee notes advice from the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (DAWR) that the Australian Pest Animal Strategy 2017-27 recognises that 'management of established pest animals with rapidly increasing or widespread distribution and abundance should focus on containment and asset-based protection respectively to mitigate impacts on priority public or private assets'. DAWR added:
This approach applies to feral deer, which are rapidly increasing in distribution and abundance, and pigs and goats, which are now widespread and abundant throughout their potential ranges. Accordingly, management of these pests might not necessarily mean direct control, reduction or destruction of the animal.
Measuring the impacts of feral species and control programs
5.23
The need for clear program objectives so that the efficacy of control measures can be assessed and measured was highlighted to the committee. The ISC noted the importance of 'defining objectives in terms of desired outcomes (such as the recovery of a certain threatened species) and careful planning and monitoring to assess whether the objectives are being met'.
5.24
The Australian Pest Animal Strategy 2017-2027 includes eight principles of effective pest animal management. Principle 5 recognises that pest animal management 'should be based on actual rather than perceived impacts and should be supported by monitoring to measure whether impact reduction targets are being achieved'.
5.25
The Centre for Invasive Species Solutions (CISS) advised that the focus of any intervention should be on minimising the impact of the invasive species rather than just reducing the numbers. CISS added:
This outcome-based approach allows an effective, integrated, landscape scale approach to invasive species management resulting in a greater reduction of impact across all environmental, agricultural and community sectors.
5.26
Dr Gunn agreed that the focus needs to be on the impact and not just understanding numbers. Dr Pip Masters also drew attention to the need for a coordinated approach which needs to take account of breeding rates and population replenishment and not just the number of animals killed.
5.27
The Australian Deer Association also agreed '[i]t is important that effective management is viewed through the prism of addressing impacts rather than of numbers of animals taken'.
5.28
As noted above the definition of a 'successful' program can vary according to the objectives. Nillumbik Shire Council noted the need to be clear as to whether a control program is trying to achieve prevention, eradication, containment or asset risk reduction. It was pointed out to the committee that '[m]easurement of the efficacy of containment methods for these species, where they exist, is not currently occurring'. Mr Stead explained:
The issue with simply reporting on the number of animals culled or controlled as a measure of effectiveness is that you have no ability to assess whether or not you have ultimately achieved your aim… There needs to be an appreciation, using statistical measures…of whether or not that impact that you set out to ameliorate has in fact been ameliorated.
5.29
As an example, Mr Stead explained that in South Australia they use several indicator species which goats are known to favour or impact upon. It is then a threshold measure:
Are 50 per cent or more of those individuals being consumed to the point where they're not reproductively viable or are being damaged to the extent that there's a risk that they could be grazed out over time? If that is the case, if we see that 50 per cent threshold, it is time to engage control action to bring that level of grazing pressure back down to a sustainable level.
5.30
Ms Samantha Bradley and Mr Clayton Simpson from Manningham City Council highlighted the scientifically rigorous monitoring protocol they have set up in Manningham, monitoring vegetation to see what effect the deer have, which will provide good data in five years.
5.31
Dr Heather Channon, National Feral Pig Management Coordinator, Australian Pork Ltd, also highlighted the need for meaningful performance metrics:
The number of pigs killed, not their impact, is what is generally reported to funders and landholders. This really doesn't mean a lot, even if the numbers are large, especially if the active population of feral pigs in the area is not known. The need to set ambitious targets to make a real difference and the need to establish performance metrics, measures and successive programs to reduce the threat feral pigs pose to Australia were recognised as priorities by the National Feral Pig Action Plan steering group last week.
Coordination of control program efforts
5.32
Witnesses stressed that improving coordination between all stakeholders is the key to successful control program outcomes.
5.33
Dr Channon summarised these issues in her appearance before the committee in July 2020:
Over the past couple of months, I have identified that there are many feral pig control activities being conducted across Australia. These are largely unknown by others, and there does not appear to be much coordination between them. Funding to support community led activities from local, regional, state and national sources is difficult to obtain and is typically short-term. Grants are project based and relatively small. This results in sporadic, inconsistent activity. When the grant fund has been spent, the gains made are lost and pig numbers can be re-established unless other funds are sought. This needs to change.
5.34
Bush Heritage Australia suggested that:
Integrated control efforts have been successful in suppressing populations of these pest species, when coordinated across different land tenures and a concerted effort to achieve specific reduction goals.
5.35
The Bounceback program in SA was described as 'a major collaborative effort between government, non-profit organisations, regional authorities and property owners' which 'demonstrated the effectiveness of an integrated and coordinated approach to regional control of a pest species'. Bush Heritage Australia recommended that the Bounceback program 'be used as a model for further goat control efforts, and the model also be trialled on deer and pigs, particularly in isolated populations—such as deer in the Gariwerd (Grampians) National Park in Victoria'.
5.36
CISS summarised that the 'continent-wide distribution of feral deer, pigs and goats requires a coordinated and consistent national, landscape scale nil-tenure approach to their management to minimise the impacts of these species on the environment, agriculture and community values'.
Integration
5.37
Principle 2 of effective pest management in the Australian Pest Animal Strategy 2017-2027 states that pest animal management 'is a shared responsibility between landholders, community, industry and government'.
5.38
As well as coordination, witnesses spoke about the need for an integrated approach which engages all stakeholders. The Local Government Association of Queensland highlighted 'the importance of collaborative, integrated control programs to ensure positive results are realised'.
5.39
The Australian Bowhunters Association also acknowledged there needs to be an integrated approach from governments, farmers, traditional owners and hunting associations. Mr Philip Ingamells, Park Protection Officer, Victorian National Parks Association, suggested that 'there's an increasing opportunity for employment of traditional owners in the land management of Victoria and that they may also provide part of the solution to this problem as we go on'.
5.40
The Vertebrate Pest Managers Association of Australia, which represents professional wildlife and pest controllers, advised that its members would be pleased to take an active role to contribute to co-ordinated programs.
5.41
The Foundation for Australia's Most Endangered Species (FAME) advocated for a transdisciplinary approach which 'actively engages with the problem on the ground and involves all the actors…e.g. the farmers, community, government, private sector and academia'.
5.42
Mr John Gavin, CEO, Cape York Natural Resource Management, speaking about feral pigs, indicated that 'landholders across tenure are happy to participate in coordinated control programs, so long as there is security that those programs will continue and be funded'.
5.43
Mr Bart Dryden, Operations Manager, Terrain NRM, added that for feral pigs a barrier to coordinated control efforts is that not every landowner is affected equally. Mr Darren Marshall, General Manager, Southern Queensland Landscapes, also noted this as an issue, and highlighted the need for landholders to work together:
It's a bit provocative, but if feral animals are a massive issue to either the environment or to agriculture due to disease transmission in areas where enterprises are united and they do have that impact, then landholders do unite and work together. The difficulty is when you've got a whole heap of different enterprises and the feral animals impact on those enterprises at different times of the year. A really quick example: in southern Queensland a wool producer wants to control pigs before lambing, a chickpea producer wants to control pigs before he plants chickpeas, and a wheat and sorghum producer wants to control pigs at the milky stage of their crops, but of course those times don't line up. A lot of people talk about asset protection, but while ever we just focus on asset protection and not on when the feral animal is at its weakest then we only ever knock the top off the population.
5.44
Dr Gunn spoke about the need for integrated pest management across both species types and land tenure types:
Integrated pest management both with regard to species that are being managed and with regard to tenure is important. So, when you talk about integrated pest management, it's about really understanding what reducing or taking out one animal might do to a broader population. For example, it's very common with foxes, cats and rabbits—removing one species from a landscape and the influence that may have on a rising or a decreasing population in another. It's about fully understanding and implementing an integrated approach. If you take out a particular species, what impact is that going to have on another?
Nil-tenure approach
5.45
Principle 3 of effective pest management in the Australian Pest Animal Strategy 2017-2027 states that 'management of mobile pest animals requires a coordinated approach across a range of scales and land tenures'.
5.46
As indicated above, the evidence around successful programs was clear that a strategic, coordinated, integrated and consistent approach is required which works across multiple tenures. The need to apply control strategies across all properties regardless of tenure (nil-tenure) was emphasised. Ms Samantha Bradley, Senior Environmental Planner, Manningham City Council, highlighted that deer 'can travel up to 10 kilometres in a day, which means they are crossing municipal boundaries, land tenures and private land'.
5.47
Ms Amanda Smith, Coordinator, Biodiversity Conservation, Yarra Ranges Council, also supported the need for an approach which works across boundaries:
I think one of the key issues for a lot of our municipalities is that we have significant areas of public land abutting private land. Private landholders don't want to invest their hard-earned dollars on a small part of the landscape where they feel, if they spend a significant amount of money themselves as individuals but their neighbours don't do or the public land managers aren't doing the same thing, what's the point?
5.48
Mr Andrew Cox, Chief Executive Officer of the ISC, also emphasised that a nil tenure approach is crucial:
With any pest animal you need to look across all boundaries, because the animals don't respect the fences. For deer you need very high, two-metre fences. One landowner's mismanagement is everyone's problem. If they don't pull their weight then it affects everyone else. Nil tenure is an absolute prerequisite.
5.49
Mr Tom Crook, Program Manager and Facilitator, East Gippsland Rainforest Conservation Management Network, spoke about the East Gippsland Deer forum held in June 2018 which was the result of initial planning work around their 'cross-tenure deer control trial project'. He reported that 'there was a resounding feeling—and this is even coming from recreational hunters—that everyone acknowledges that the deer are now a problem'. The outcome was a commitment from the stakeholders to participate in a control trial funded through biodiversity response planning by the state government. The federal government is involved through the National Landcare Program.
5.50
Dr Gunn also emphasised the need for any approach to be cross-tenure, 'not just land tenure but also state boundaries'.
5.51
Mr Gavin from Cape York Natural Resource Management provided an example of some of the complexity that needs to be dealt with when bringing people together for cross tenure planning in Cape York:
The…complexity which impacts on Cape York that may not impact in other areas of the country is the complexity of tenure and the large areas of traditionally owned land. So, in everything that we do, we need to take into account the cultural impacts and cultural values as well. On Cape York, we've got the Torres Strait to the north of us, but we're really on the frontline with international incursions for biosecurity threats. We have national, we have state and then we have local government, all overlaying tenure that is either Crown land pastoral lease or CYPAL—Cape York Peninsula Aboriginal lands—or protected areas, such as through Parks and Wildlife. So the tenure model actually adds a level of complexity when you're trying to bring people together for cross-tenure planning.
Landscape scale
5.52
CISS advocated for best practice strategic management of all invasive species in Australia at a scale that is appropriate to best mitigate their impact. It added that '[f]or most invasive species, management action needs to be undertaken at the landscape scale to have measurable sustained impact'.
5.53
Nillumbik Shire Council also reported there is a need to undertake projects over an appropriate scale so that re-invasion is less likely. The Victorian Farmers Federation advocated co-ordinated planning at a landscape scale for all species. Mr Ted Rowley and Ms Jo Roberts also advocated for landscape scale action:
Deer being very mobile can only be controlled through landscape scale action where ALL the land managers in an area get together and cull cooperatively across boundaries.
5.54
The Local Government Association of Queensland reported that '[c]oordinated, landscape wide approaches are required to ensure maximum success in controlling mobile invasive species'.
Need for community engagement and education on control measures
5.55
Mr Cox reported on surveys conducted in South Australia and New South Wales where community attitudes about deer have been reviewed. Among those not directly impacted, fondness for deer is at around 30 per cent. He emphasised that awareness is very important 'to help people understand that while they might look cute, do we want Australia filled with feral deer, pigs and goats, and no kangaroos and wombats?... Some people think they are native, so I think we need to change that perception'.
5.56
Mr Stead stressed the need for educational awareness to ensure control programs are implemented effectively.
5.57
Mr Neil Hordern, Manager, Connected Communities, Nillumbik Shire Council, and Mr Clayton Simpson, Environment Coordinator, Manningham City Council, spoke about the need to distribute information and communicate with the community about the need to address the numbers of deer.
5.58
Graziers in the south east region of NSW stated that [the treatment of deer under state legislation] conveys the wrong message to the public 'that deer are a valued species when in fact they are now in high numbers in many NSW locations and cause untold damage'. They also suggested a media campaign is needed to portray the right message.
Other elements of success
5.59
As well as the key elements for successful programs detailed above, other elements of successful programs mentioned to the committee were: commitment by all stakeholders to a sustained effort or program, which is well resourced, with a targeted approach.
5.60
In addition to support for national coordination, particularly in relation to feral pigs with the establishment of the National Feral Pig Management Coordinator, Mr Travis Sydes spoke about the need to connect with the people on the ground and for there to be a long term commitment to support programs on the ground. Mr Sydes also discussed the need to look for management approaches that account for public good outcomes where there may be no immediate economic imperative to do so, for example: water quality in the Great Barrier Reef, the survival of a species, the scenic amenity of the landscape, or the experience of fishing resources. He mentioned specific examples of the emergence of reef credits in the wet tropics region by landholders in the cane industry as well as early season burning and carbon sequestration. Mr Sydes emphasised the importance of developing such sustainable programs to deliver long term benefits.
5.61
The Evaluation of the Northern Illawarra Wild Deer Management Program provided by the Wollongong City Council highlighted the importance of gaining trust and buy-in from landholders and other stakeholders, noting this can take significant time. It also saw the need for a dedicated program coordinator who is trusted by landholders and other stakeholders. The report included a number of recommendations including that: future deer control in the area should adopt a regional perspective which would support the goal of halting the southward expansion of deer populations; monitoring should be continued, including collecting data directly related to the outcomes/objectives of the revised program; and the role of value of community engagement should be considered.
5.62
Mr Gavin told the committee that one of the challenges is ensuring coordinated strategies and plans are backed up by resourcing:
We don't have consistency of funding for activities. The on-ground work is driven by whatever the program funding at the time might need to be. That creates a disconnect with communities and councils and partners between the planning and the agreement that's been reached and then the activity that actually occurs.
5.63
Mr Gavin informed the committee about a successful threatened species program involving traditional-owner ranger groups that has feral pig control as a central component:
We've supported a project called the Western Cape Turtle Threat Abatement Alliance, and that's a group of local government and ranger programs, to which really we provide a support or facilitation role so that they can undertake the activities to protect those sea turtles on the Western Cape. That's probably our highlight program in terms of the demonstrable outcomes for coordinated management. Back in 2001, there was estimated to be a greater than 90 per cent predation rate on turtle nests on the Western Cape. Through coordinated threat management, particularly of feral pigs, in the period from 2014 onwards, that predation rate has been dropped down to 10 per cent. That work is driven entirely by those local land trusts and councils and ranger groups, just with the support from external groups like ours.
5.64
However, Mr Gavin informed the committee that funding for this program ceased at the end of June 2020, highlighting the need for consistency of funding. He added that they are still in negotiation and hopeful there will be some funding to at least maintain a level of management while they secure longer term commitment to the program. NQ NRM, which represents three northern Natural Resource Management (NRM) regions that operate across Far North Queensland, submitted that this project 'exemplifies the general approach to funding feral pig management that relies on sporadic, targeted funding for short periods of time in a scatter-gun approach to overall management'.
Disseminating best practice
5.65
CISS noted that it is active in developing and enhancing best practice management for invasive species, and maintains an openly accessible best practice management toolkit available through www.PestSmart.org.au.
5.66
CISS also saw its suggestion of national and/or state facilitator positions for both feral deer and pigs as roles which would also 'encourage and assist with the flow of new tools and techniques and to promote best management practices to land managers and allow the formation of a collaborative and coordinated approach to the management of feral deer and pigs':
This national facilitator approach has proven very effective in managing and reducing the impacts of wild dogs and has resulted in the formation of many regional level management groups working together on a common invasive species problem.
Towards better coordination at the government level
5.67
As mentioned above, coordination was seen as key and a number of suggestions were made to improve legislative and policy settings to enhance coordination between all levels of government in Australia on feral species management.
5.68
CISS emphasised that feral deer and pigs are spreading across the Australian continent, however 'most of the management of these species is undertaken at a local level with few management programs being undertaken at a regional scale and none at a state or national scale'.
5.69
Mr Cox emphasised the need for a collaborative approach between governments, noting that some solutions require action across the federal government along with cooperation from the states. He highlighted that '[w]hat we learned with pest animal problems was that it can't be seen to be one person's problem and everyone else does not need to carry their weight'. He added:
The more we have a collaborative approach which brings the landowners and all the interest groups—both the beneficiaries but also those who are creating the problem—together with us, we won't have a workable solution. It also means that there is a need for leadership and for some proactive effort. At the moment, there has been a bit of change in New South Wales, but the states—particularly Victoria and Tasmania—are still denying there is even a problem and the federal government is not accepting that there is a problem that needs to be solved as well. We have got quite a low awareness and we have not got a set of workable solutions.
5.70
Mr Stead from the Nature Conservation Society of South Australia stated that in his view '[e]ven within states there needs to be a greater level of coordination of control and management programs. There are various regions that are active in the control programs and then neighbouring regions that aren't for whatever reason'. In those circumstances where a neighbouring region is not undertaking control measures, animals may be removed but they will move back in as quickly as you remove them.
National coordinator roles
5.71
When speaking about coordination, witnesses saw the need for an authority, whether that be national or state, to coordinate and show leadership. Mr Clayton Simpson, Environment Coordinator, Manningham City Council, stated that 'we need coordination and leadership from the state government, if not the federal government'.
5.72
CISS indicated in its initial submission that it would like to see regional level management of the species optimised with national level coordination undertaken through the appointment of national and/or state facilitator positions for feral deer and pigs, similar to the positions which exist to promote best practice in relation to wild dog management.
5.73
As noted in Chapter 3, national coordinator roles have now been created for feral pigs and feral deer.
National Feral Pig Management Coordinator
5.74
Since the appointment of Dr Heather Channon to the role of National Feral Pig Management Coordinator in February 2020, a range of work has been undertaken. Dr Channon appeared at the committee's 21 July 2020 hearing and informed the committee of her work to that time, stating:
Since I commenced in this role, I have…identified the need to secure sustainable longer-term funding for feral pig management; increased government and industry awareness for feral pig issues at the local level, and the work being done by community led groups; engaged with and trained landholders to build their capacity and capability in best practice management methods for feral pigs; created a national database to bring all this information together; obtained more consistency across jurisdictions; addressed illegal feral pig hunting activities and their impacts; and explored opportunities to build new markets. For the goal of this grant to be achieved, we need strong coordinated partnerships between everyone involved, using integrated pest management methods for the humane control of feral pigs.
5.75
A steering group to promote leadership and direction for the development of a national feral pig action plan was established, with the intent of the plan to provide 'a consistent policy approach to reduce the impact of feral pigs, and for this to be incorporated into local, regional and state plans and priorities'.
5.76
The draft National Feral Pig Action Plan was subsequently released in January 2021. The vision of the plan, which is to be delivered over a 10 year period with a review at the halfway mark, is to 'actively suppress, or eradicate, Australian feral pig populations to reduce their impacts on environmental, agricultural, cultural and social assets'. It states that the plan will deliver on its vision through a range of implementation measures including:
establishing a network of regional coordinators to work with community groups and land managers to deliver best practice management actions;
building capacity and capability of community-led groups to deliver best practice feral pig management programs;
developing and implementing communication strategies to support the execution of the plan;
identifying, improving and promoting existing and new strategies and technologies to improve the effectiveness of control programs;
enabling the collection and use of data to inform management decisions and measure program success;
supporting the development of standard reporting templates for funded programs; and
supporting the use of local management plans by land managers to monitor, measure and report progress, adapt programs and inform ongoing actions.
5.77
Following feedback from stakeholders, the National Feral Pig Action Plan is due to be submitted to the Environment and Invasives Committee in late March 2021.
Witness views on the national feral pig coordinator role
5.78
The release of the draft National Feral Pig Action Plan occurred after the committee had received the bulk of its evidence to this inquiry, however the committee took evidence in mid-2020 about the progress of the national coordinator position to that time.
5.79
Mr Gavin spoke from his experience of working with wild dogs and noted the achievements of the national wild dog coordinator and was therefore positive about the appointment of a national feral pig coordinator.
5.80
Mr Sydes from the Far North Queensland Regional Organisation of Councils told the committee that the national level of coordination with the new national feral pig management coordinator is very welcome but cautioned that 'we always need to make sure that the people on the ground can actually see and understand the context of that national coordination and what it's seeking to achieve'.
5.81
Mr Marshall argued that while a national approach to feral pig management will be useful, 'I also think we can't underestimate the importance of locally relevant information and what motivates and drives people on the ground' and there is 'still a big part, especially in Queensland, for local governments to play'.
National Feral Deer Management Coordinator
5.82
The Tasmanian Government advised that in relation to the management of deer, it was positively inclined towards exploring a national approach, stating that it could bring economies of scale and resources but would need to deliver the outcomes desired by the local community.
5.83
In July 2020, the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment advised that the establishment of a National Feral Deer Coordinator Project is being progressed through a CISS project. It explained:
This project is tasked to promote existing control tools, best practice methods, improve coordination of community-led deer control activities, and scope the development of a National Action Plan. The project is due for completion in 2022.
5.84
On 2 October 2020, Dr Annelise Wiebkin was announced as the first national Deer Management Coordinator. Dr Wiebkin's role is to 'lead coordinated action to tackle feral deer populations and reduce the damage feral deer cause to Australia's agricultural businesses and environment', with the Commonwealth Government providing up to $550 000 over two years towards the new role'.
5.85
The position is hosted through the Department of Primary Industries and Regions, South Australia (PIRSA) and will 'expand on a successful model employed by South Australia to facilitate more coordinated control of feral deer and establish links between farmers, commercial harvesters and processors'.
5.86
CISS informed the committee that the National Feral Deer Coordinator Project 'will provide coordination for feral deer management through a National Feral Deer Action Plan, and by engaging diverse stakeholders to increase awareness of feral deer impacts and build capacity to control deer at landscape scales'. CISS noted further:
The National Feral Deer Action Plan (2022-32) will be drafted by a Working Group, to guide management of feral deer in areas with severe deer impacts, as well as provide a strategy to prevent feral deer from infesting new areas. This Plan aims to raise the profile of the deer problem, and encourage land managers, industries and governments to work together and use best practice control to reduce deer numbers, impacts and spread. The Action Plan will be informed by surveys, meetings and public consultation, and support for the Plan will be ultimately sought from both the Environment and Invasives Committee and National Biosecurity Committee.
The National Deer Management Coordinator will support the adoption of the Plan by industries, agencies and communities across Australia, through events, training, media, materials and best practice management information…[and] an Action Plan website, promoting and demonstrating best practice and building networks. Together with staff from state governments and regional land management agencies, the Coordinator will help groups of land managers to coordinate their feral deer control programs.
The Coordinator will be working closely with CISS' national deer RD&E collaboration (involving 5 states and territories, 3 local councils and 3 unis), to ensure the latest research findings, validated best practice management approaches and emerging technologies are effectively delivered out into the community and used across Australia.
Other reforms to drive government coordination
5.87
In addition to the national coordinator roles, submitters and witnesses suggested a range of other reforms they considered would improve coordination and feral species management by governments.
5.88
Mr Cox of the ISC commented specifically on the need to reform the Key Threatening Process (KTP) and related Threat Abatement Plan (TAP) processes under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act):
The key threatening processes under the EPBC Act are just not working. We have a key threatening processes listing process and then a threat abatement planning process and, while we have some of those mechanisms for some of these species, particularly pigs and goats, they're just not working.
5.89
Mr Cox noted that deer were listed as part of the novel biota KTP nearly a decade ago, but no action has occurred since then. When asked about the lack of action, Mr Cox stated:
Probably the main reason why the lack of action is occurring is because there simply is not enough resources even to run the whole process of developing plans and abating the threats. It is hard to find evidence of this, but we do speculate…that the lack of resources of the federal environmental department is playing a very large role in the lack of progress. I think there is a willingness to address this threat within the scientific committee, but there is no appetite for systematically working through those threats and for addressing them.
5.90
Mr Cox noted the development of the national pest strategy and suggested it could have been linked to the threat abatement planning process which could then have driven 'more concerted action on pests in general and at a cooperative level between the states and the federal government'. He emphasised that it is important that 'there be a driver to develop a meaningful pest animal strategy at the national level linking in with those federal processes around listing key threats and threat abatement plans'.
5.91
Ms Claire Dunn, Environment and Regulatory Services Manager, Municipal Association of Victoria, spoke about, in her view, the action required at the Commonwealth level:
Federal and state government leadership is urgently needed to tackle the feral deer problem. At the federal government level, we need all feral deer listed on their own as a threatening process under the EPBC Act. We need a nationally integrated pest animal management strategy, including national best-practice management guidelines for the control of feral deer, particularly in urban and peri-urban areas. We need the development of national threat abatement plans for feral deer, pigs and goats, with intergovernmental agreements to achieve long-term abatement goals for the recovery of threatened species and ecological communities. We need significant funding for professional culling programs and research into additional control methods, such as baiting, biological and genetic controls, trapping options, feeding stations and deterrence. We should also be learning from deer management experiences overseas, including in New Zealand, the US and Canada.
We need accountable government leadership and resources for long term, cross-tenure deer control programs and the provision of experienced and authorised catchment management officers to facilitate on-ground pest animal control efforts… In conclusion, it is essential for policy and legislation to be consistent at the national, state and territory level to assist landholders, agencies and the community to deal with these pest animals. It is important that we protect the decades of investment in invasive species management and provide further investment into research that assists in future management programs.
5.93
Mr Stead suggested that a review needs to be undertaken of the barriers to effective legislative and policy enforcement in each jurisdiction and consideration should be given to the development of a national policy to prevent the further spread of pests. Mr Stead argued further that there should be a harmonisation of state-based legislation and the elimination of game species legislation.
Role of local government
5.94
The Australian Local Government Association noted that local councils 'do not have as broad [a] regulatory role for feral animals as they do for pest plants or companion animal management'. It noted the need for greater coordination by government, community and industry in managing feral animals.
5.95
When asked about the role of local government, Mr Hordern from Nillumbik Shire Council responded that he saw it as a support role:
One of the things we are very much hearing from our communities is that they appreciate that we cannot take the leadership because the issue is complex. They are very much looking for us to be an advocate in terms of action and just to really be able to express this. We can provide a support role as that local, on-ground knowledge and in being able to liaise and assist. There is probably a role we can help in by providing information and distributing information out to the community, but it really is that support role.
5.96
The Australian Local Government Association suggested sharing resources across regions as well as data and information could improve efficiency and efficacy. The association also noted that:
State and Territory Local Government Associations provide a key pathway for communication information to each of their member local governments, as well as providing guidance for policy and plan development. As such, national approaches should ensure adequate consultation and partnership with the various State and Territory Local Government Associations.
Research priorities
5.97
The committee heard a range of views from submitters and witnesses about what should be the future research priorities in relation to the management of feral deer, pigs and goats in Australia.
Focus on deer
5.98
As indicated in Chapter 4, submitters were of the view that research should focus on expanding and improving control methods to provide a suite of tools, particularly for deer. For example, Mr Stead suggested that at this time deer should be the focus of research:
Of the research gaps that are present for the three pest species that are the subject of this inquiry, arguably more research is required in relation to deer, particularly in relation to their diet, impact on biodiversity and options for humane and effective control.
5.99
East Gippsland Rainforest Conservation Management Network representative Mr Crook agreed on the need to develop other control mechanisms for deer besides shooting, saying:
Shooting is disproportionately or in fact the only current control mechanism for deer in Victoria if not nationwide. We desperately need to develop other control mechanisms, and that means research into them, whether they be biological controls, baits or gene drives. We know from invasive species management more generally that any single management action is unlikely to bring about population level control and landscape level control, and it's typically a range of different management tools and an integrated management system that's able to achieve those outcomes.
5.100
The Local Government Association of Queensland was supportive of developing new control methods for feral deer, particularly in urban and peri‑urban areas. The Tasmanian Government reported that, in peri-urban environments, it is investigating the efficacy of using sedatives such as diazepam and nets to capture deer to either remove them from the area or humanely destroy them.
5.101
Mr Philip Ingamells from the Victorian National Parks Association advocated for long-term research into biological and/or genetic controls.
5.102
A 2016 research paper by Davis et al identified the following six areas for further research in relation to deer: long-term changes in plant populations and communities; interactions with native fauna; impacts on water quality; economic impacts on agriculture; cost-effective management of deer impacts; and changes in the distribution and abundance of deer.
5.103
Mr Stead supported the work of the CISS which has several relevant research projects underway on feral deer. As the impacts on the ecology from feral pigs and goats in Australia is well understood, he suggested the development of further controls, tools and techniques for those species should be a research priority.
5.104
CISS spoke about its work in relation to deer:
Following the National wild deer workshop in 2016, CISS facilitated the development of a national deer management research program comprising four collaborative projects with partner organisations based on the agreed research priorities to enhance best practice management techniques and to increase knowledge of deer impacts and the effectiveness of the currently available tools. These projects include research into innovative techniques to aggregate feral deer to increase the efficiency and cost effectiveness of control measures and to critically assess current techniques and community acceptance of deer management in peri-urban areas.
5.105
Livestock SA welcomed the CISS project that has 'brought together five state and territory governments (including South Australia), three local councils, three universities, and three private environmental groups, to form Australia's largest deer management research collaboration'.
Focus on impacts
5.106
While some witnesses wanted to see more work on understanding how many deer there are and where, particularly across eastern Australia, other witnesses questioned the usefulness of counting deer, instead suggesting that research work needs to focus on impacts. Ms Bradley reported that Cornell University in the US which has undertaken a lot of work in these areas told them 'it is pointless trying to measure numbers of deer. They said to focus on impacts'. Mr Ingamells agreed that they are impossible to count and the focus of research should be on impacts.
5.107
Dr Gunn agreed that focusing on impacts is important so it can be clearly articulated to the broader community. She also advocated for more investment in alternative and more humane baits as well as reproductive technologies.
5.108
Mr Crook advised that, in relation to deer, '[d]emographic information on deer populations, their distribution, their abundance, their habitat utilisation and their effects on these different ecosystems is grossly under-researched, and it's critical that we undertake that research as a matter of urgency'. He added that there is the need for more research effort into control mechanisms.
5.109
Mr Stead agreed that, following gaining a better understanding of the populations, there can then be prioritisation of control actions and investment. He suggested that research gaps need to be targeted. He also mentioned dietary composition and their impact on biodiversity.
Measurement
5.110
A key element of improving the success of control programs is having appropriate evidence and data to assist with developing effective programs and also measuring effectiveness.
5.111
The Game and Pest Management Advisory Board advised that the '[m]easurement of the efficacy of containment methods for these species, where they exist, is not currently occurring'. Research has also found that there appears to be little information available on whether, and if so how, success is measured in most programs to manage deer.
5.112
The successful programs described earlier in the report had clear evidence of their effectiveness. The previous chapter described how measurement is starting being put in place by some areas.
5.113
A broad source of information on the effectiveness of pest management activities is the Pest animal and Weed management Survey: national landholder survey results discussed below.
5.114
Speaking of being able to make a contribution to capturing useful data, Mr Brett Conibear, Business Development Manager, Wild Game Resources Australia, spoke about the data they gather about how many animals were harvested and where they were harvested which is recorded by a property identification code. For example, they are able to tell that '188 have been harvested off that one farm and what exactly the weight of these animals are'.
Need for humane control methods
5.115
Evidence was clear that new control techniques need to be humane. In general terms, the RSPCA indicated that:
[C]ontinued reliance on lethal methods is unlikely to be sustainable, humane or cost-effective. There is an urgent need to investigate more effective, humane and sustainable non-lethal methods.
5.116
The RSPCA emphasised:
Acknowledgement is made regarding efforts to replace 1080 for wild dogs and fox control with the development of [para-aminopropiophenone], as well as sodium nitrate for pigs. However, work is needed to improve uptake of the most humane methods as described in the humaneness model.
5.117
Mr Cox mentioned a growing level of community concern about lethal methods of control and advocated for humane methods:
We need research on effective and humane methods. Any method should be humane: a quick death, if there's going to be the need for lethal control.
Other areas
5.118
Submitters saw value in research on socioeconomic issues:
There's also a need for research into the socioeconomic issues because there's a lot of misunderstanding about the problem. A lot of people like some of these feral animals, particularly deer, and that prevents their control. There's also a growing community concern about lethal control in general. I think, without understanding all the issues, leaving deer, pigs and goats in the landscape has major impacts on the animal welfare of native animals and even livestock. So, I think there's a broader issue that needs to be looked at.
5.119
Submitters also saw value in collaborations. Ms Gaye Gadsden suggested there is much to learn from engaging with professional and sporting shooters who understand animal behaviour on the ground:
I think there's a lot to learn, too, from both the professional shooters and the sporting shooters, who understand animals and animal behaviour very well. Some sort of collaboration between scientists and those people, who aren't necessarily scientists but have an enormous amount of knowledge and experience, would progress things much more quickly than if that doesn't happen.
5.120
CSIRO suggested the following research areas: better monitoring of species impacts and efficacy of control programs; socio-economic research – human geography; underlying drivers of wild populations; and spatial and temporal mapping of resources.
5.121
Mr Cox stressed that action does not need to be postponed while this research work is undertaken:
First of all, we need to understand the extent of the problem. It does not mean we should not act, because I think there is enough evidence in Australia that there is a serious emerging problem. With pigs and goats, that problem has been manifest for a long time; but the problem is getting worse. I think that is part of the solution. Not only does there need to be some energy around implementing the solutions—and we proposed a task force around implementing some of these threat abatement plans—but there needs to be research on understanding the nature of the impacts, the extent and also those population dynamics. With the ebb and flow with droughts and rains, pigs can expand and shrink with those. We need to better understand the whole problem we're facing and coordinate that at the national level.
Pigs
5.122
The committee notes research being conducted as part of a PhD study for the University of New England in NSW and Penn State University in the US which uses satellite tracking collars attached to pigs in New South Wales (Moree and Glen Innes) and Queensland (Arcadia valley) to investigate how far they travel. The data on 120 pigs collected over two years showed they don't travel far for food and water. The findings are being used to encourage landholders to increase control measures as part of a community pig control program.
Research framework
5.123
The National Biosecurity Committee (NBC) was formally established under the Intergovernmental Agreement on Biosecurity. The NBC is supported by four sectoral committees. The Invasive Plants and Animals Committee is one of these committees which established the Invasive Plants and Animals Research and Development Expert Group. The Expert Group developed The National RD&E Priorities for Invasive Plants and Animals 2016-2020. The plan contains national priority areas for invasive plants and animal research development and extension 2016-2020 and includes humane vertebrate pest control.
5.124
DAWR advised that it manages pest animals and weeds by: providing leadership and coordination; investing in pest animal and weed management, where it is in the national interest; conducting research and development; and sharing responsibility for emergency responses to exotic incursions.
5.125
In relation to research, DAWR advised that:
The Australian Government supports and invests in national research and development of improved pest animal control or management when there is a strong public interest to do so, and through matching industry contributions to rural research and development. Research is targeted and focused in areas that can strengthen the risk-based approaches adopted to humanely, cost effectively and feasibly respond to pest animal challenges. Some of these research projects are targeted on developing alternative safer and more targeted baits for pest animal species.
5.126
DAWR added that research priorities are in the areas of:
…biological, social and economic research for prioritising, focussing and improving current pest management methods; community, industry and institutional arrangements and regulations to improve national consistency of feral pest management; and novel approaches, like gene drive or fertility control, to more efficiently achieve the desired control of these pests.
5.127
In March 2020 the department clarified that the research priorities referred to in its submission are those identified in the department's publication The National RD&E Priorities for Invasive Plants and Animals 2016-2020.
5.128
The Department of the Environment and Energy advised that the Australian Government through DAWR is a member of CISS which is managing projects in relation to feral deer and pigs. It also pointed out that the EPBC Act TAPs include priority research questions necessary to provide threat abatement for native species. As already noted, there are TAPs for pigs and goats but not deer.
Funding
5.129
DAWR advised that '[a]s part of the Agricultural Competitiveness White Paper, released in July 2015, $50 million over four years to 2018-19 was allocated to invest in improving the tools, strategies, information and skills for farmers and their communities to tackle pest animals and weeds'. This involves:
16 projects over $8 million that will contribute to feral deer, pig and/or goat management. This includes developing new baits and control technology for feral pig management, enhancing coordinated pest management control across rural properties and adjacent tenures for feral deer management, and fostering strong partnerships between community and industry groups and government to manage pest animals including feral deer, pigs and goats.
5.130
In responding to written questions on notice in March 2020, the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment provided a breakdown of how the $50 million in funding was allocated. It also noted that although the original submission advised of 16 projects, one project has subsequently proceeded with a different target species. A list of projects was provided.
5.131
In updating the funding information contained in its original submission the department advised:
In May 2019, the Australian Government committed an additional $10 million for a second round of funding under the Communities Combating Pests and Weed Impacts During Drought Program – Biosecurity Management of Pests and Weeds Program, with $3 million in 2019-20 and $7 million in 2020-21.
This program aims to assist drought-affected communities and farmers to manage pest animals and weeds, at a time when they are least able to do so. The program opened on 19 December 2019.
5.132
In its original submission the Department of Agriculture reported that as part of the $50 million measures, more than $2.34 million has been made available for research and development projects that accelerate the development of new and improved tools and technologies for controlling established pest animals and weeds. The funding was supporting accelerated development of chemical, biological or physical control tools for pest animals including feral pigs, wild dogs and foxes. Of relevance is $200 000 to the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre for the next generation feral pig bait, Hoggone.
5.133
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the $50 million investment and to establish baseline data, a national survey (The Pest Animal and Weed Management survey) of agricultural land managers was undertaken in 2016 to collect data on pest animal and weed status, impacts and management actions at the property and local area levels.
5.134
DAWR also reported that 'through the Australian Government's $20 million commitment to the Centre for Invasive Species Solutions, a further $3.2 million is being invested into feral deer research. Projects for feral pig and goat management are still being finalised'. In March 2020 the department advised the current funding to CISS for projects involving feral deer and pigs is $4.6 million. A table providing the status of each was also provided.
5.135
Some submitters suggested that rather than the current ad hoc approach, the Productivity Commission should assess the long term funding needed to effectively address major invasive animal threats to the environment, including feral deer, pigs and goats.