Bushwalk Australia

Recreational hunting in the NSW State Forests is it a success or not? a report.

One of the main justifications by the hunting lobby for pushing for recreational hunting to be allowed in NSW National Parks, is the removal of feral animals and the great success the recreational hunting has been in removing feral animals from NSW State Forests.

Recreational Hunting in NSW State Forests has been allowed for over 6 years and is regulated by the Game Council of NSW. The Game Council is the Statutory Authority, which is responsible for implementing the functions of the Game and Feral Animal Control 2002, the Game Council operates the hunting licence administration system in declared State forests of NSW.

In the Game Council 2010/2011 annual report it is reported as an ‘exceptional year’ as 14,161 animals where harvested by recreational hunting from NSW State Forests, in that period, with, Rabbits-6621, Foxes-1325, Goats-2648, Pigs-2296, Deer-512, Hares-520, Cats-167 and Dogs-72 removed, it was also reported that and a total of 55,440 feral and Game animals removed in the last six years.

Unfortunately the Game council does not report the actual numbers of feral and game animals in NSW State Forests which would put their exceptional recreational hunting harvesting numbers in some perspective.

Estimates of feral and game animal numbers in Australia and NSW.

Other than the NSW forest goat population estimate, I am unable to find any specific numbers on invasive animal numbers specific to NSW. To work out the feral animal numbers in NSW, I used species specific distribution maps by West, P. (2008). Assessing Invasive Animals in Australia 2008. National Land and Water Resources Audit and Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, Canberra, from these maps, it is possible to roughly estimate invasive animal numbers in NSW and then in turn State Forests.

Rabbits, Australia, 200 Million, estimate, NSW, 40 million.

Pigs, Australia, 13-23 million, NSW 4-5 million. (The Game Council estimates there are 23 million pigs in Australia, if I use the Game Council number of 23 million and as the feral pig populations are concentrated in Queensland and NSW my estimate of 4-5 million could be low, it is possible that the numbers in NSW could be as high as 8-9 million).

Goats, Australia, Unknown, NSW up to 7 million, (The Game Council claims there are 2.6 million goats in Australia, recent research estimates that there is now 2.5 million goats in western NSW alone, NSW Forests estimated the number of goats in NSW could be as high as 7 million.)

Foxes, Australia, 7.2 million, NSW, estimate, 2 million.

Deer, Australia unknown, NSW, unknown, I will estimate, 200,000+. (This guess is based on Victoria having an estimated up to 1 million deer and the NSW deer using distribution Map in the West, P. (2008) paper)

Cats, Australia, 19 million, NSW estimate, 4 million

Wild Dogs, Australia, 2 million, NSW, estimate, 200,000.

Note, If you are critical of my data please inform me better sources as I would welcome more accurate data.

Now, how many Feral and Game animals in NSW State Forests, NSW has an area of 809,444 square kilometers, the area of State Forests is 20,000 square kilometers, which is very close to 2.5% or 1/40 th of the area of NSW, so as a rough estimate of invasive animals in NSW State Parks I will take a 1/40 th of the estimates for NSW.
Note. According to the maps in West, P. (2008) paper, some feral animals like the rabbit are spread fairly evenly across the state and some feral animals are more concentrated on the eastern side of the state, my estimates are based on these animals being evenly spread throughout the state, as the NSW State Forests are mostly in the east of the state if anything my estimates might be low for some species.

Estimates of Feral and Game animals in NSW State Forests.

Rabbits, NSW, 40 million, State Forests, estimate, 1 million.

Pigs NSW, 4-5 million, State Forests, estimate, 100,000-125,000.

Goats, NSW, 7 million, State Forests, estimate, 175,000

Foxes, NSW, 2 million, State Forests, estimate, 50,000

Deer, NSW, 200,000, State Forests, estimate, 5,000

Cats, NSW, 4 million, State Forests, estimate, 100,000

Dogs, NSW, 200,000, State Forests, estimate, 5000

Total estimate, NSW State Forests around 1,435,000-1,460,000+.

So what is the percentage Feral and Game animals have been removed from State Forests and is it significant, some simple maths shows that 14,161 is around 1% of the estimated 1,435,000-1,460,000 feral and Game animal numbers in NSW State Forests, (BTW my estimate of around 1% is similar to the estimate by the Invasive Species Council), if you take into account that the Game Council has claimed that 55,440 feral and Game animals have been removed over the last 6 years, that gives an average of 9240 animals a year removed form State Forests, this works out at an average of around 0.63% reduction per year.

Research into Invasive species shows that to reduce population’s in feral species, you need a reduction of at least 50% per year.

Conclusion:

Recreational hunting has absolutely no impact on the feral and game animal numbers in NSW State Forests and therefore has no conservation benefit for the environment or native animals or native flora, and I can see no justification to allow recreational hunting in NSW National Parks.

The Game Councils results from 15,000 registered recreational hunters in the 20,000 square kilometers of NSW States Forests is a complete failure, how can the hunting lobby claim the same 15,000 hunters can reduce feral and game animal numbers in the States 50,000 square kilometers of National Parks?

The Game Council claims that the removal of 14,161 (less than 1%) of feral animals from NSW State Forests in 2010/2011 is exceptional and benefits conservation, this is totally unsubstantiated rubbish and shows that the Game Council has complete lack of understanding of the feral animal problem in Australia.

It could be claimed that even the removal of 1% of feral animals would have some difference, but research has shown that to make any impact in feral animal numbers a reduction of at least 50% per year is needed, so this makes the 1% figure completely insignificant, I would say a complete joke.

The Game Councils Charter is to “To provide an effective management of introduced species of Game animals.” The Game Council was setup by the SSAA and hunting groups to manage feral animals for hunting purposes, not to reduce feral and game animal numbers for conservation.

Rather than reducing feral animals populations, the numbers of feral pigs and deer have actually been increasing at an alarming rate, this is attributed to illegal relocation of pigs and deer.

The Game Councils State Forest recreational hunting program should be abandon in favour of the money being spent on professional pest eradication programs which are proven to be much more effective in reducing feral animals numbers and also much more cost effective.

With the obvious lack of success of recreational hunting in NSW State Forests, it is beyond me how the Game Council can fool NSW Politicians into thinking they are doing exceptional work in reducing the feral animal problems, it has me worried how stupid some of our politicians and their minders are.

Declaration: I am all for the reduction of feral animals in Australia and I am not against recreational hunting of feral or game animals, for safety reasons I am against recreational hunting in National Parks. I am not a member of any political organisation or environmental organisation, I am a member of a Bushwalking Club.

References

Game Council NSW

Invasive Species CRC, www.feral.org.au

Assessing invasive animals in Australia 2008, West, P. (2008)

Australian Deer Association

Invasive Species Council

Wikipedia, Invasive species in Australia

NSW State Forests

Some interesting reading

Gun Control Australia, NSW Game Council Critically Reviewed

SSAA

Tony

I will bite. Sorry, your clarification at the end contradicts the entire posts tone and should have gone at the beginning. And the use of the word 'report' is wanting.

The word 'safety' and your issue should have been mentioned again at the beginning, of which you don't claim any figures relating to hunting injuries suffered by the general public, which only again contradicts your ideas, unless you are referring to potential injury.

If the state goverments were doing such a good job on feral eradication, why are there still ferals? Please do your research on this and how much money is actually spent on real control versus what is required.

If state governments had spent as much time locking up land and turning it into national parks as they did with ferals, you may not be wasting time with your post. Unfortunately, you don't understand an iota of what is required to remove an invasive species and until you do, along with the state support (e.g. your taxes of which you don't want to pay more), i suggest you do more 'research', along with the failure of state governments to properly manage their state assets and its impact upon their neighbours.

Have you ever lived in the country? lived next door to a national park? Almost been burnt out (Neighbours almost were) due to the professionalism and dedication (on a less than adequate budget; this is being very polite)? If not, i suggest you reread your post, get a true perspective for the task at hand, and ask yourself, "What have i done to make things better?"

Your 'report' is not one of those things.

Regards

Troy

A person who did his best to remove nearly every rabiit from the pproperty where he lived next to a national park, which few visited but demanded its creation, and mismanaged.

Perhaps I read it wrong, but I don't thing Tony's post mentioned that any other program's currently running are doing better at managing feral animal populations. He is merely stating that all the evidence suggests that recreational hunting is ineffective as a means of feral population control it large wild areas (note that intensive hunting is known to be effective on smaller maintained properties, but that is very different).

Hi Troy,

Thanks you for your post,

While you have been very critical of my report, you have not offered one bit of information that is useful to this debate, if you are so knowledgeable on this issue and my information is so wrong then why don't you post the correct information, Until you do I will take no notice of your post.

Tony

Tony,
Thanks for taking the time to crunch those numbers. It is a great read and very informative.
One sobering point for me that this debate has raised is just how serious the feral animal issue is in Australia (something your numbers really highlight). I completely agree that from all the evidence based stuff I have read recreational hunting will have no impact (in fact, there are plenty of references to recreational hunters making the problem worse by illegally releasing ferals to 'seed' a new hunting area). I do hope that the one benefit of this legislation will be to highlight the need for more resources to be put in, in a regulated, science based manner, to manage and eradicate these introduced pests. Stage one of our efforts must be to have recreational hunting in national parks stopped, but perhaps stage two can be to increase the pressure on governments to better manage our land and to deal with the devastating environmental damage introduced pests have had.
Tim

Troy wrote:
Have you ever lived in the country? lived next door to a national park? Almost been burnt out (Neighbours almost were) due to the professionalism and dedication (on a less than adequate budget; this is being very polite)? If not, i suggest you reread your post, get a true perspective for the task at hand, and ask yourself, "What have i done to make things better?"

Hi Troy, welcome to the forum... I can relate to that, my brother likened it to living next door to centrelink lol... Anyhow.. yes, 'fringe' farm management, 'illegal' hunting, current regulations and actions. All big topics on their own. A few steps forward from here (but well worth considering). At least you'll be able to shoot the bunnies on the other side of the fence where they are currently protected and accounted for i guess

Not knowing it at the time, but this topic http://bushwalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10020 has been raised. Many views presented but a quote i really appreciated was Re: Hunting in some NSW National Parks by jackhinde » Thu 31 May, 2012 6:58 pm

Two bushwalk.com forum members wander into the so called wilderness for a few days.
Both take lots of great light weight gear.
This allows one member to take their camera, the other takes a rifle.
Whilst in the middle of nowhere they both get to shoot a fox, a pair of goats, a cat and three pigs.
Which member has made the greatest contribution to protecting ecosystems?

In regards to large area invasive species management, http://www.ssaa.org.au/shooter/shooter.html (current issue-July) An environmental bounceback - SSAA SA H&C (sorry, no online link to story, worth a read though if you can get access)

The above story refers to South Australia where groups hunting in the Flinders Range National Park (a large vast wild area) starting some 20 years ago, have helped with other groups bring back a wallaby species from the brink by significantly reducing feral numbers.

Postby Son of a Beach » Sat 23 Jun, 2012 4:07 pm
Perhaps I read it wrong, but I don't thing Tony's post mentioned that any other program's currently running are doing better at managing feral animal populations. He is merely stating that all the evidence suggests that recreational hunting is ineffective as a means of feral population control it large wild areas (note that intensive hunting is known to be effective on smaller maintained properties, but that is very different).

Professional versus recreational hunting. Which do you suppose accounts for the largest number of ferals and why?

Even more ineffective is the failure to act. Access to 79 out of 799 national parks, that is only about 10%. And they will not have access to each and every part. Each person hunting in that area would make a contribution, and over time, that contributions effect increases - less ferals or at least controlled-less spread/build up. Though limiting access, ineffective state management practices, does have a negative effect on the impact hunters can make, skewing any research. Therefore, how accurate is the evidence, and in light of the above mentioned story. What effort was put in place? Did ferals from surrounding areas where access was restricted skew the results by migration-i have seen my own handywork on 800 acres-add more people and increase the area and the effect multiplies. In regards to safety, clearly there will not be hordes of hunters endangering safety, plus the number of people in each area is restricted and bookings are necessary-this being the major crux of the 'report'. And this was the word which i object to, as we don't know the authors credentials, and report identifies authority, in depth knowledge-not an internet trawl like i have done-in fact just some collated information of which to me, not much much was new-or the conclusions it claimed to purport, satisfactory.

There is also another problem here, which i disagree with because of the lack of coordination, funds and what i call effort/willingness-over time. Accepted belief is that these species cannot be eradicated, and can only be managed. Where does that leave us when management is undertaken on this basis? Both sides have a problem here, one says it can't be done, the other wants it managed to maintain its activity, therefore the main idea here is to manage as both sides in reality, demand.

http://www.mudgeeguardian.com.au/news/local/news/general/shooting-in-parks-madness-says-hunting-club/2591568.aspx
Recent amendments to the Game and Feral Animal Control Act 2002 mean the State Government’s feral animal eradication program will be extended to 79 of the State’s 799 national parks, nature reserves and state conservation areas, including Coolah Tops National Park

Hi Troy,

In regards to large area invasive species management, http://www.ssaa.org.au/shooter/shooter.html (current issue-July) An environmental bounceback - SSAA SA H&C (sorry, no online link to story, worth a read though if you can get access)

The above story refers to South Australia where groups hunting in the Flinders Range National Park (a large vast wild area) starting some 20 years ago, have helped with other groups bring back a wallaby species from the brink by significantly reducing feral numbers.

The hunting lobby brings this one up all of the time, when you actually read the report it is only successful as it is an integrated approach, the recreational hunters are working with rangers and professional hunters, this will not be the case in NSW, and the model that the Game Council will be using for NSW National Parks will be the same as the failed model they use in NSW State Forests.

Maybe you could let me know if have read this in SSAA magazines. In one SA park 65 recreational hunters spent four days culling goats, then a professional hunter went in with a helicopter and in four hours culled four times the goats than the 65 hunters did in four days.

Or this one http://redcard.net.au/doc/Fox_Bounty_Re ... c_2003.pdf and take note of the results of the intensive fox hunting on Phillip Island, and Troy I would be very interested in reading your comments on this report.

Or the story about in the Namadgi NP the baiting program remove 80% of feral pigs, the hunters claimed they could get the rest, after a lot of trying the hunters claimed zero pigs, eventually the rangers helped them find some with radio collars, apparently it was all to hard for the hunters.

Access to 79 out of 799 national parks, that is only about 10%.

This shows you are not taking much notice of what is actually happening, the 79 National Parks that are currently proposed are actually 40% of the total are of NSW National Parks and there are only 39 national Parks are exempt from future hunting, so in the near future over 90% of NSW National Parks will be open to recreational hunters.

Until you come up with some relevant information I will still take no notice of your post.

Tony

Tony wrote:Until you come up with some relevant information I will still take no notice of your post.

A nice mature way to handle someone elses point of view...

frenchy_84 wrote:

Tony wrote:Until you come up with some relevant information I will still take no notice of your post.

A nice mature way to handle someone elses point of view...

Hi frenchy_84,

Thanks for you very informative input.

Tony

Tony wrote:Hi frenchy_84,

Thanks for you very informative input.

Tony

Tony wrote:Until you come up with some relevant information I will still take no notice of your post.

Tony

Good work Tony for turning a very good thread to trash. Anyone that doesn't quote a statistic just doesn't count eh.

I'll say it, I haven't added anything either, But I don't appreciate your scorne of others. That's a little unfair and probably not needed. Everyone has an opinion and should be able to voice it.

Tony wrote:Maybe you could let me know if have read this in SSAA magazines. In one SA park 65 recreational hunters spent four days culling goats, then a professional hunter went in with a helicopter and in four hours culled four times the goats than the 65 hunters did in four days.

I recall reading that but I think it was the otherway around. Choppa then foot hunters, that makes perfect sense. The SA goat culling program has been one of the most sucessful I've heard of in the country for a NP. But you are not happy with that ??

forest wrote:

Tony wrote:Hi frenchy_84,

Thanks for you very informative input.

Tony

Tony wrote:Until you come up with some relevant information I will still take no notice of your post.

Tony

Good work Tony for turning a very good thread to trash. Anyone that doesn't quote a statistic just doesn't count eh.

I'll say it, I haven't added anything either, But I don't appreciate your scorne of others. That's a little unfair and probably not needed. Everyone has an opinion and should be able to voice it.

Tony wrote:Maybe you could let me know if have read this in SSAA magazines. In one SA park 65 recreational hunters spent four days culling goats, then a professional hunter went in with a helicopter and in four hours culled four times the goats than the 65 hunters did in four days.

Hi Forest,

Maybe you should go back and read Troy's first post in this thread, Troy was the one who quite rudely tried to attack my first post, and as usual for the pro-hunters his first post did not have any factual input.

I am actually sick and tired of reading the BS you pro-hunters are pushing, so far none of it has any basis if facts, they are all just unsubstantiated opinions, surely you pro-hunters can do better than just attack me, which by the way does not worry me one bit.

I recall reading that but I think it was the otherway around. Choppa then foot hunters, that makes perfect sense. The SA goat culling program has been one of the most sucessful I've heard of in the country for a NP. But you are not happy with that ??

Yes I was wrong it was deer not goats, this is actually what happened.

The comparative ineffectiveness of recreational hunting
for population control is demonstrated in the contrasting
results of two efforts to reduce deer numbers at
the 9000 ha Gum Lagoon Conservation Park in South
Australia. A 2002 trial using 65 recreational hunters in a
directed hunt over four days resulted in 44 deer (18 female)
shot. The numbers shot were estimated to have
been about the annual population increase for fallow
deer and one-third of the annual increase for Red Deer.
In contrast, a four-hour helicopter cull in the same area
in 2007 using one shooter resulted in 182 deer shot, es-
estimated to be more than 90 per cent of the population.

Tony

forest wrote: Everyone has an opinion and should be able to voice it.

Yes but an opinion based on ones 'feelings' or make believe (as troys seem to be and it seems most of the pro hunters) and not on fact is basically just trolling. I think Tony has a done a good job of trying to expose the truth with his posts, although pointless as it may seem. Trying to enlighten some with facts is like throwing super balls at a wall, boing... boing... they just bounce off indifferently and the same frothy mouth, glazed over look remains and the same regurgitated unsubstantiated crap keeps spewing forth.

We KNOW that these ridiculous laws are purely the result of a dodgy deal done by the NSW libs with the shooters to sell-off electricity and NOT based on science, facts or ANY sound reasons. It appears that O'farrell is even regretting it now (couldn't find the link to the story but its out there) which says something.

From all the credible sources (already listed above) we KNOW that it is not an effective means of feral animal control and in some cases may make the problem WORSE not to mention the dangers of unleashing gun-toting folks into our National Parks no matter how responsible some of them may be.

Tony wrote:I am actually sick and tired of reading the BS you pro-hunters are pushing, so far none of it has any basis if facts, they are all just unsubstantiated opinions, surely you pro-hunters can do better than just attack me, which by the way does not worry me one bit

I'm with you Tony & I learned a long time ago not to argue with idiots because they'll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience (or bystanders won't be able to tell the difference ) and you will never chage the mind of the righteous/those with vested interests, there minds are as closed as can be. No doubt pro-hunters will find their way here from their forums too, as seems to be the case if you check the number of posts made here by some and where they mostly appear, I say beware the trolls!

Troy wrote:Two bushwalk.com forum members wander into the so called wilderness for a few days.
Both take lots of great light weight gear.
This allows one member to take their camera, the other takes a rifle.
Whilst in the middle of nowhere they both get to shoot a fox, a pair of goats, a cat and three pigs.
Which member has made the greatest contribution to protecting ecosystems?

Depends on how many are left. You have to remove enough of the population to effect their breeding potential, which was the point of the original post - it's no good quoting the number removed (one fox, two goats, a cat and three pigs!) without mentioning how many are left.

I'm in victoria and I'm not sure what exactly is planned for NSW. Generally recreational hunting has bugger all impact on numbers (except, perhaps, with the Dodo!). Every second person I know seems to be a keen Sambar hunter and the government has organised sporting shooters into areas to cull yet there are still heaps of them. Even planned culls (whether shooting, trapping or baiting) only have an effect for a while - when the culling stops the numbers breed up again. An isolated population might be reduced or even eliminated, but that would be the best you could expect.

phan_TOM wrote:

forest wrote: Everyone has an opinion and should be able to voice it.

Yes but an opinion based on ones 'feelings' or make believe (as troys seem to be and it seems most of the pro hunters) and not on fact is basically just trolling. I think Tony has a done a good job of trying to expose the truth with his posts, although pointless as it may seem. Trying to enlighten some with facts is like throwing super balls at a wall, boing... boing... they just bounce off indifferently and the same frothy mouth, glazed over look remains and the same regurgitated unsubstantiated crap keeps spewing forth.

We KNOW that these ridiculous laws are purely the result of a dodgy deal done by the NSW libs with the shooters to sell-off electricity and NOT based on science, facts or ANY sound reasons. It appears that O'farrell is even regretting it now (couldn't find the link to the story but its out there) which says something.

From all the credible sources (already listed above) we KNOW that it is not an effective means of feral animal control and in some cases may make the problem WORSE not to mention the dangers of unleashing gun-toting folks into our National Parks no matter how responsible some of them may be.

Tony wrote:I am actually sick and tired of reading the BS you pro-hunters are pushing, so far none of it has any basis if facts, they are all just unsubstantiated opinions, surely you pro-hunters can do better than just attack me, which by the way does not worry me one bit

I'm with you Tony & I learned a long time ago not to argue with idiots because they'll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience (or bystanders won't be able to tell the difference ) and you will never chage the mind of the righteous/those with vested interests, there minds are as closed as can be. No doubt pro-hunters will find their way here from their forums too, as seems to be the case if you check the number of posts made here by some and where they mostly appear, I say beware the trolls!

This is all a bit harsh Tom, bordering on breaking forum rules?

Tony has said that he doesn't care what hunters write (its all BS without figures right? ), Troy only disagreed with the strength of Tony's report. Personal experience (however emotive) was part of his contribution. This being a bushwalking forum, not a scientific journal, means that there are all sorts and levels of input but like it or not it is very much the experiences/actions and outcomes that matter, not historic, vaguely relevant figures.

Anyhow.. this discussion is getting a little silly and will make no difference in the short term.
A review of states rights in altering 'National' parks regulations would be good to see.

Nuts wrote:This is all a bit harsh Tom, bordering on breaking forum rules?

Probably. If the mods delete or edit my post thats fine. My own fault for biting in such a pointless discussion... Lesson learned, avoid all the touchy subjects politics, religion, sex etc & keep it to bushwalking

I love how these clowns always say ' oh I'm from the country, oh I'm from a farm, have you you lived in the bush, have you lived next to a park ? ' , ' as if that makes them qualified to assess conservation issues.
Keep at 'em tony.

Any advances on clown or idiot, I guess the moderators agree lol..
Anyhow.. a Troll perhaps, must be fairly motivated to join a forum just to have a say. Seems intelligent enough.
Does living next to a park mean that he is disqualified from also having a education?

Don't pick on tony because he wants facts and figures. That is exactly what this debate needs. *&%$#! hell, how much land do hunters need access to. There is loads of it. I'm a *&%$#! hunter too. National parks are for conservation first and recreation second. How is recreational hunting a good thing for all users. You can chuck away the conservation argument right now. Recreational hunting has no impact.

Joel wrote: Recreational hunting has no impact.

I agree (or very little as 'no' also excludes negatives. It is the wrong word as it was in Tony's conclusion). For mine (as far as the 'debate' goes), I just think that it doesn't matter (but then you weren't addressing me I assume).

Ok, I know I am from the other side of the globe but since many of the mentioned species come from Europe, perhaps I can offer some useful information.

First, hunting in general could reduce a population, but like Tony wrote only when it is enough. Up here boars and deer got seriously reduced during the 19th century due to hunting and habitat destruction (today they are one of the species that benefit from intensive agriculture) but that was mostly due to the fact that not just professional hunters but also parts of the general population hunted them either for food or to get rid of them and make room for their livestock. Either way the numbers of people doing the killing was much higher than the one in NSW State Forests right now.

That the number of deer and pigs are rising does not have to be due to relocation but actually due to the hunting itself. Until a certain threshold is overcome hunting can actually increase a population and keep it at a productive high. Up here in Germany numbers of deer and boar have been on the steady rise for decades due to hunting. Until the mentioned number of 50% is reached hunting only creates vacant space that can easily be recolonized because among the animals that survive more offspring survives and due to continued hunting no population regulation mechanisms can form.
To give some examples:
When you kill the oldest sow in a boar group the younger sows will get their first young a year earlier and if this keeps on there will be no oldest sow that prevents the younger ones from breeding.
It is similar with dogs:
When you destroy any pack or family structure more dogs will breed and you only contribute to the problem you want to create. In that case it doesn't matter whether these dogs are wolves, dingoes or your common feral pet. In most cases the "unrestricted" breeding is rather a myth and there is clear evidence of partner preferences and selective breeding on the dogs/wolves' own part from Italy, India, Russia, North America and Australia. And usually only some dogs breed, not all of them, and this is regulated due to partner preferences, choice and competition, but if these mechanisms and structures get disrupted due to hunting, more dogs get the chance to breed.

These intensified breeding is a common survival mechanism; producing more young so there is a higher chance that some find conditions that are suitable for further breeding. The same could be observed up here with rabbits and foxes. The opposite mechanism is that some females no longer give birth after some time if the environment can no longer support the number, meaning not enough food or simply social repressive mechanisms.

All these "ferals" that are mentioned have a long history with humans, albeit I admit that in case of deer I can only speak of roe deer, sika deer and red deer. The wild ones had a lot of time to adapt to human hunting over the centuries, one reason why exterminating foxes and wolves via hunting didn't work up here (it was done via baits), and so it is unlikely that recreational hunting down in NSW will have any significant and positive results in that regard.

Now with pigs, cats and goats I cannot be sure. However since, like dogs (dingoes included), they have a history of domestication and living with humans it is very likely that they are in general good breeders since such a feature is one of the key elements for a species to become domesticated in the past, the other is adaptability.

Now cats, I have no reference data or experience to say anything for sure. However a lack of shyness could in theory help them exploit food sources a shy wild cat may not be able to use.

Rabbits, I would say forget it. Hunting didn't eradicate them up here and it certainly won't in NSW. Habitat destruction and/or intense poisoning would be necessary to achieve that, the same with hares.

In the case of pigs there would be the information on wild boars I already mentioned. And boars are even up here only now and then in the diet of wolves due to them being so strong, so unless you have some very specific poison or huge number of people going into the parks I doubt that there is much you can do.

Now goats; that is another thing. A potential answer could be wild dogs. Up her mouflon was introduced in the lower parts of Germany. However once wolves started to settle again and were allowed to hunt in peace the mouflon were exterminated pretty quickly because they had no suitable adaptations against predators in non-mountain areas. As mountain dwellers their anti-predator behavior was reduced to fighting the wolves and that never went well. Now since goats are descended from mountain dwellers I doubt that have sufficient defense mechanisms to actually manage to stay were wild dogs are, unless they have the possibility to survive by climbing out of reach (e.g. in mountains) of the dogs.

And why exactly do you want to exterminate dogs? They have been in Australia for millennia so what basis is there to want them gone so suddenly? Did human activity bring so many species to the threshold of extinction that they could no longer survive under the predation pressure of dogs?

Now the next part is pure speculation on my part and I know it sounds like heresy/nuts to many but based on the situation up here this might have merit:
The only long term solution I can think of would be accepting that these species don't go and let the environment restructure itself to a sustainable level, however for that you would need to let go of any notion of harmony and balance in nature.
A main component would be to let the wild dogs/dingoes get bigger. If they actually make the transition to hypercarnivores they will need bigger prey and since they had lived with kangaroos for centuries and didn't get bigger prior to European arrival I think they will most likely switch their diet to the introduced animals, especially deer and horses.
Hunting could be used in aiding natives species adapt to the newcomers by buying them some time, but only if it is species specific and I doubt the fruits of labor can be seen in less than twenty years.
Another factor would be to stop blaming everything on the animals and do some research on how human activity affect the landscapes, yes even in National parks, these are not some sort of alternate realities or something that is not affected by the surrounding countryside. There is growing evidence that introduced species are not these harbingers of doom many environmentalists portray them to be (except in ecosystems on islands and lakes). The main body of evidence points to the extinction of the main part of Australian megafauna being caused by humans and so it is likely that the European invasion had massive impacts as well and this possibility seems to be downplayed quite massively in Australian environmental discourses.
In addition by keeping native animals constrained to national parks you only fracture the population of those that have a wide distribution (as well as keeping others from reaching new and possibly more suitable habitats) and therefore making them more vulnerable to extinction, so these protected areas need some sort of connection to make gene flow and repopulation of areas possible. Also since humans won't leave the continent either, give the species you treasure time to adapt to your presence. Some already did and so it's possible that others do the same. Up here the black bird was a shy forest bird only two hundred years ago and now it's one of the most common birds in urban environments, foxes started to adapt to cities in the last century, so did bats, magpies, crows, several birds of prey, gray heron and several bat species, similar to wolves and ungulates, who show increased agaptation. But for that to even have a chance of success you need to let go of any picture of pristine wilderness. Not only does it artificially separate humans from everything not under its control but it has not been a reality in Australia for millennia. The first human settlers altered the landscape heavily and so what Europeans saw when they first arrived was rather a giant cultural landscape, probably as heavily altered as Europe was at the time, simply in a way Europeans weren't used to.

Hi curwalker,

Many thanks for your great post, it contains a lot of very interesting and useful information.

Invasive animal control is a very complicated problem not just in Australia but all over the world.

I have been doing some reading on South Australia's Operation Bounce Back in the Flinders Ranges, where recreational hunting has had some impact on helping to control feral goats, but as with all thing it is not as simple as a few recreational hunters going out for a few weekend hunts.

Thanks again of you post.

Tony

No problem.

However I do often ask myself whether all this intense focus on "invasive animals" isn't keeping attention away from the bigger problem. After all it cannot be denied that the vast majority of those species that actually become pests after being introduced did so in habitats already altered heavily by humans, no matter how you look at it. I mean take the rabbit for example. If my info is correct it only became widespread in Europe after it was introduced by humans (they are originally from the Iberian peninsula) and the plague episodes killed enough humans to give the rabbits free reign, in addition they had been in Australia for quite some time before any sort of grey carpet appeared. Actually how often did their numbers actually explode since then?

And since we are speaking about that. Do you know of actual numbers on the effects of these "ferals"? I usually read that they destroy this and that or cause this and that but never any exact data or even comparison to the effects of native species. This is the same up here and in that case in at least a few cases it turned out that the acclaimed damage was without any evidence.

A brief reply re rabbits:

A brief history of the European wild rabbit
“….. the rabbit menace in Australia today is so great that it would be almost impossible to exaggerate its possibilities.” (1935).

•1859: 24 wild rabbits released at Barwon Park by Thomas Austin
•rabbits spread across Australia at about 130 km per year
•some farms were abandoned because of rabbits as early as 1881
•1926: 10 billion rabbits in Australia
•1944: 104,000,000 million rabbit skins/carcases exported from Australia
•1952-1954: Myxomatosis killed 99.8% of rabbits
•Myxo virus attenuates/rabbit show resistance to the virus, rabbits breed up again, spreading into new areas and re-colonising old warren sites
•1990: Australia’s rabbit population about 600 million
•rabbits cost agriculture and the environment millions of dollars each year
•1996-1998: Rabbit Calicivirus Disease (RCD) rabbits reduced by >50% in arid areas
•1996 –2003: Rabbit Buster, (a coordinated Landcare/NRE group integrated rabbit control program) rabbits reduced by 30% in Victoria (1999)
•RCD and integrated rabbit control used together in large-scale group campaigns has seen some areas aiming to become rabbit free.

from
Rabbits and Their Impact
Note Number: LC0298
Published: June 1999
Updated: October 2010

http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/agriculture/p ... eir-impact

And from the Environmental damage section of the above:

Environmental damage
The impact of rabbits on the Australian environment has been disastrous. Rabbits have significantly altered the botanical composition of extensive areas of natural habitat.

“What is the difference between chainsaws, bulldozers, sheep and rabbits? Not much really. Though chainsaws and bulldozers are the preferred tools for clearing land, sheep and rabbits are just as effective. They eat tree seedlings so that when the adult trees die there are no young ones to replace them. The net effect is identical, only the time scale differs.” *9

The effects of selective feeding
Rabbits selectively feed on certain species of plants at critical stages of development such as seeding and seedling establishment. This may result in the local extinction of particular native plant species as; “rabbit populations of less than three per hectare can maintain the dominance of introduced herbage.”*10 and with the spaces created often being filled with noxious and/or unpalatable weed species.

Lots of rabbits, lots of damage?
Research in semi-arid sites has shown that “even low(er) rabbit densities of 0.5 per hectare or 1 rabbit per 2 hectares can still severely damage some shrub species”*11. Other research workers have found what is not always evident to land managers on rabbit infested sites that is -“there may be no safe rabbit density for some tree and shrub seedlings.”*12

No native plants, no native animals?
Reduction in native vegetation can seriously disadvantage native fauna. In certain areas, rabbits are in direct competition with native wildlife for food and habitat requirements. Because of ecological changes associated with high rabbit numbers, rabbits have been blamed for a major role in the disappearance of the greater bilby Macrotis lagotis, and the pig-footed bandicoot, Chaeropus ecaudatus, and for putting many other species under stress. *13

Rabbits and ‘roos
The effect of uncontrolled rabbits populations in combination with kangaroos “in rangeland national parks have resulted in native flora and fauna being in little better condition with no more regeneration than surrounding propertie.s” *14

Rabbits, feral cats, and foxes
Rabbit populations may sustain numbers of predators like cats and foxes subsequently increasing pressure on native animals particularly those in the up to 5kg bracket.

“The settlement of Australia and the introduction of new pest species both prey species, rabbits, and predators species; foxes/ cats has changed the predator prey balance in Australian in two main ways. Firstly, new prey species can compete with native species for food and other resources, and they can alter the environment to the detriment of the native species. The introduction of rabbits, for example, has had a profound effect on the habitats used by similar sized bettongs and bandicoots in Australia. Secondly, the introduction of abundant new prey species can sustain predators (especially introduced predators that have had a significant period of coevolution) at higher density than that which the natural prey could support. Thus predators such as cats and foxes, supported by an abundant prey like rabbits, can exert a strong influence on native prey species that are at low levels. This pressure coupled with clearing, fragmentation, and eradication of habitat can lead to local extinctions of native animals.”*15

So some investigation and evidence gathering appears to have been undertaken - and yes this brief extract doesn't provide the actual number data or method of collection/analysis but somewhere in the depths I'm sure it is available. And this report is primarily in relation to Victoria rather than Aus wide....


I have been following this discussion with interest and the recent ABC report on "pig dogging"is bound to raise the issue of recreational hunting further in the public ire....

Some interesting comments Curwalker.....we seem to have varying degrees of ferals down here and often it depends who's doing the looking as to how they see the animal and the so-called problem. One of the NSW New England properties that I hunt deer on borders a NP which is full of feral goats and the owner of the property is quite OK with having some of these goats spill-out onto his place as they stay high up in the rough country and eat mostly pest weed species and don't compete with the cattle for the good feed down on the flats. Certainly high goat numbers will impact on the vegitation and probably cause some degree of erosion issues with their game trails but most of these areas also contain plenty of 'roos and wallabies that eat much the same things and use the game trails as well. Apparently this is a view shared by plenty of property owners in goat country....keep the numbers managed for sure...but they see them as being of some value in weed reduction in the absence of other more expensive and time-consuming methods that they'd need to employ. So a different perspective on feral goats by some anyway but obviously high numbers of anything...native or feral will impact on the environment to some degree.....as certainly do high numbers of humans !

From my travels in SE NSW and the Victorian high country the animal that makes the most significant impact on the landscape is the brumby or feral horse as being a large-hoofed animal living generally in alpine environments prone to being eroded by their travel-trails yet the brumby seems to attract a high level of public support and sympathy and any efforts to cull their numbers tends to meet very emotive resistance from sectors of the public and little or no reduction efforts on feral horses gets done. Where I live we have good numbers of sambar deer and I'll argue all day that they have minimal impact on the environment and in-fact have adapted very well to our forests and for the large part essentially go unseen and un-noticed by the large majority of the population. Yet some who are anti-exotic villify the sambar with a passion and virtually blame them for every environmental disaster known to man ! Do they need to be controlled.....certainly. Are they destroying the native bush by their presence.....not in my view....but others may see it differently of course. We all have our own agendas on these things.

Depends where you sit and how you look at the big picture.....but for me anyway the bottom line is that these animals are here to stay and they will be part of the Australian landscape for better or for worse.....forever. We have gone well beyond "eradication" and likely left "control" far behind too but certainly some effort is needed to manage their numbers and reduce any real impacts that they may be having in areas of significance. The magnitude of the country that these so-called ferals inhabit is huge and it is unrealistic to expect that any level of feral animal control can be achieved with a few paid government shooters or the occasional helicopter gunship shoot-up in a selected valley or two. These are really just feel-good excercises that while well-intended have little or no impact.....shooting a few 100 goats, pigs or deer is but a drop in the ocean as Tony's figures clearly show.....feral animal management is an ongoing thing that if done effectively and with sufficient effort will have an impact over time....often quite a long time at that. While it might feel good to stick the boots into recreational hunting as an alternative management tool for the purpose of keeping hunters out of NSW Parks the question needs to be asked by those who are keen to address the feral animal issue (rather than just have no hunters in Parsk) : "What is the alternative solution to feral animal management in NSW Parks ?"

Finally : a few figures from me : real figures actually that demonstrate that recreational hunters are having a go and doing something in the absence of any government agency action. Last year 4 NT hunters spent some time culling feral donkeys on several remote outback properties in the Territory. They did this not for payment or because it was their job....but becasue the property owners had an issue with high donkey numbers and they needed to be reduced signficantly and they weren't getting any assistance from anyone in government. In a week these 4 hunters on quad bikes travelling in pairs in very remote country shot 2,700 feral donkeys and some 100's of feral camels ! This made a significant dent in the numbers of these animals but being highly mobile critters one-hit efforts need some follow-ups over time to be effective....a similar effort this year tallied almost 700 feral donkeys and a few 100 more camels....just on several properties but properties likely as big as some counties on Curwalkers patch....LOL !! So feral animal problems are Australia-wide and if you think a few goats, pigs or deer pugging-up a bit of country in your favourite patch is an issue then things are far worse elsewhere....but like here no government agency is adequately resourced or suitably motivated to address these issues.....so what is to be done ? Food for thought maybe ! Cheers

sambar358

gayet wrote:
I have been following this discussion with interest and the recent ABC report on "pig dogging"is bound to raise the issue of recreational hunting further in the public ire....

I saw that and have been on a hunt (once). I agree, 'pig dogging' is pretty rough. Nearly as bad as hunting Wallabies with dogs (as happens here). Neither have much to do with plans for recreational hunting in parks.

Nuts wrote:I agree, 'pig dogging' is pretty rough. Nearly as bad as hunting Wallabies with dogs (as happens here). Neither have much to do with plans for recreational hunting in parks.

Unless they do the same as the game council allows in state forests....... don't trust the game council one bit.

http://www.gamecouncil.nsw.gov.au/porta ... ingatNight

Pig dogging is definately not my cup of tea, I find it very cruel.
Unfortunately it's the pig doggers that are the main cause of poaching/theft in the area's I hunt on private land. They seem to have little respect and little to loose if caught.

I very much doubt it, politics though.. you never can tell. Yes, didn't leave a good impression on me either. Nevertheless, (my) case in point,
I doubt they were licenced and I can almost guarantee they wouldn't bother hunting under any permit system. Ironically, for feral management, they may be the type needed- Shoot everything in sight rather than selected trophy (or larder) targets

Neither have much to do with plans for recreational hunting in parks.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply there was a relationship between pig dogging and plans for recreational hunting in parks, just that it may bring the whole hunting activity debate to a slightly wider audience than currently.

The worst of the activities illustrated in the program are a minority, I hope. Those hunting pigs for damage control appear more likely to use guns or rapid despatch methods as they don't have time or interest to watch a mauling. Less sport and more productive purpose should be the aim perhaps.

Nuts, you've hit the nail on the head with your comment : "For feral management, they may be the type needed- Shoot everything in sight rather than selected trophy (or larder) targets"

While dogging in NSW Parks (or any Parks for that matter) is not on the agenda the corner-stone of feral animal control is as you've said "shoot everything (ferals) on sight" and there is no place for selective, trophy or meat shooting if you are culling feral animals effectively. This however does not necessarily remove the recreational hunter from the equation though as recreational hunters certainly can conduct themselves in this fashion when instructed to & a distinction needs to be made between true "culling" and "recreational hunting" of course. In Victoria I hunt sambar deer and in the ANP I am considered by Parks Vic as a "recreationalist" as sambar deer hunting is an approved recreational activity in the ANP just like fishing, walking, camping, 4WD'ing etc. So I am not compelled to shoot every deer encountered...it is my choice if I take an animal or not. If I decided to become involved in hunting in a NSW Park that for instance had a feral goat issue and my participation in hunting there was for the purpose of "feral animal culling" then of course my approach would be quite different and I would be tally-hunting and trying to shoot every feral goat encountered. I would expect that this would be the line that the NSW Game Council would push with their hunters....culling rather than selective hunting. Thats' my view on it anyway.

On the pig-dog issue.....some people will find this program quite confronting I think as while dogging feral pigs is a very effective method in country where normal ground hunting or aerial shooting is difficult it does have it's critics in respect to the dogs mauling the pigs and dispatch methods used on the pigs by some hunters. However we need to look at the bigger picture here.....if feral pigs are a major environmental issue (and they certainly are) then they need to be controlled via effective methods and if that means that the pigs are treated in a way that some may find offensive then should this be a major consideration in their demise ? Some would say YES or course and others NO. But if we use "animal welfare" issues as the primary criteria to control the actions of people engaged in feral animal control then it has the potential to lessen the effectiveness of any control activity.

If animal welfare was a major consideration would be have 1080 poison being used or trappers setting traps and snares for wild dogs & foxes. ? I would hazard a guess that plenty of animals are shot & wounded from helicopters and these would not be followed-up and shot by ground hunters specifically looking for these wounded animals...so do we ban aerial shooting ? The same applies to dogging pigs....for sure the pigs are often mauled by the dogs, yes sometimes the pigs are killed in way that some would see as cruel.....but is it an effective way of hunting wild pigs and reducing their numbers...certainly yes. Do the means justify the end....well that's for every one to make up their own mind on I guess. Cheers

sambar358