[The following article was written by Tigerquoll and first published on ^CanDoBetter.net under the title ‘Brushtail Possums are a destructive pest in NZ – but is persevering with a backyard fur trade New Zealand’s ethical solution? Comments have been included.]
.
Australia’s native Brushtailed Possum (Trichosurus vulpecula)
Click image to enlarge
[Image courtesy of Ákos Lumnitzer, ^http://amatteroflight.com/]
.
Australian Possums were introduced by New Zealanders to New Zealand in 1837
.
Brushtail Possums are native to Australia but a destructive introduced pest in New Zealand.
Yet is ‘Possum Merino‘ New Zealand’s ethical solution to its pest control or really just perpetuating a backward 1837 Fur Trade?
After all, it was New Zealander colonists in 1837 who sailed to Tasmania and to the east coast of Australia to poach Australian Brushtailed Possums and export and introduce them into defenceless New Zealand so as to establish a selfish fur trade. Who else is to blame?
So thanks to colonists, Brushtail Possums have unquestioningly since become a destructive colonising pest to New Zealand, just like so many others –
Stoats
Domestic cats
Chamois
Deer
Ferrets
Goats
European hedgehogs
Horses
House mice
Rabbits
Rats
Himalayan tahrs
Wallabies (also poached from Australia by colonial New Zealanders)
Weasels
and arguably all non-Maori humans.
.
Introduced New Zealanders and their descendants professing natural New Zealand justice need to frankly pull their imposive self-righteous heads in.
.
A Maori traditional Haka
.
Probably the most relevant and credible authority on this centuries old problem of human introduced possums into New Zealand should be New Zealand’s own Department of Conservation (DOC). Yet DOC has no watchdog to vet its possum control policy, to evaluate the ethics of its indiscriminate aerial 1080 poison programmes, its budget decision making, its pest control methods.
New Zealand Department of Conservation is its own master, answerable to no-one. It dictates possum control and culling only on the basis of it deeming it administratively cost effective and efficient. Perhaps this is a leftover culture of Rogernomics applied to lean management of New Zealand’s ecology. On the New Zealand Department of Conservation website, the possum problem in New Zealand is clearly explained. An issue this author accepts as a serious ecological problem facing New Zealand.
Under the heading 3.3 Possum Damage to Native (NZ) Forests, the possum problem in NZ is explained as follows:
“Over the past 50 years, possums have emerged as one of the major threats to the health and wellbeing of forests throughout New Zealand. Many of these impacts are subtle and indirectly affect native birds and insects. Possums cause damage to native forests from the ground level to the canopy where, by concentrating on individual plants of their preferred species, they can kill trees by defoliation over several years. Possums preferentially feed on some of the tall canopy species – such as tawa, northern rata, kohekohe, southern rata, kamahi, pohutukawa and 20 Hall’s totara – while ignoring others. They also prefer some of the smaller trees, such as tree fuchsia and wineberry, along with mistletoe, forest herbs, some ferns, and a number of endangered shrubs.
It is difficult to imagine that possums, which are about the size of a large cat, can kill individual trees that have dominated forest landscapes for centuries before possums were released here. But when the number of possums is combined with the total amount each one eats, their impact on their preferred species is easier to appreciate. The amount of food consumed by an adult possum each night is about 160 gm of digestible dry matter. There are probably tens of millions of possums living in native forests. In total, possums are consuming thousands of tonnes of vegetation each night.
Possum populations have now modified many New Zealand forests. The rate and extent of these changes vary widely between different types of forests. Beech forests are the least affected, but in the vulnerable southern rata-kamahi forests of Westland many valleys have lost between 20% to 50% or more, of their canopy trees. In severe situations, possums have caused the complete collapse of the canopy within 15–20 years of their arrival. Tall forest is then replaced by shrublands.
While the impact of possums is most visible and dramatic when it involves canopy trees, their most pervasive impacts are often less visible. Possums have recently been described as “reluctant folivores”. This means that possums prefer to eat other forest foods than the leaves of trees. Flowers, fruit, leaf buds, fungi and insects are all highly favoured. The consumption of these foods has the largest impact on the healthy functioning of forests and the animals that rely on them. The consequences of possums concentrating on these foods are:
.
Loss of Flowers:
.
Preventing the formation of seeds
Removing nectar sources for birds and bats
Reducing the food supply for many invertebrates
Nectar loss reducing food supplies for chicks, e.g. kaka, tui.
.
Loss of Fruits:
.
Reducing food supplies for birds and invertebrates
Affecting bird breeding condition and nesting success, e.g. kakapo, kereru
Reducing or eliminating seed dispersal
Reducing the regenerative capacity of native plants.
.
Loss of New Shoots:
.
Reducing the ability of plants to overcome leaf loss from weather and seasonal patterns
Reducing numbers of new leaves, jeopardising plant health.>>
.
New Zealand Department of Conservation also states that “the damage to native forests can be seen all too clearly in many areas. Possums ignore old leaves and select the best new growth. In some areas they have eaten whole canopies of indigenous Rata, Totara, Titoki, Kowhai and Kohekohe.
Possums also compete with New Zealand native birds for habitat and for food such as insects and berries. They also disturb nesting birds, eat their eggs and chicks and may impact on native land snails.
New Zealand Department of Conservation cites examples of natural vegetation damaged by possums at Pirongia Forest Park, and the upper canopy of NZ native forest trees on the slopes of Mt Karioi, south of Raglan.”
So, assuming New Zealand Department of Conservation’s account is correct, the introduced Brushtail possum is a serious pest to New Zealand (NZ) native ecology.
But what to do about it?
.
What should Australia responsibly do – repatriate back its possums?
.
It’s long overdue for the New Zealand Government to get serious about its self-caused possum problem and look to resolve it once and for all for the benefit of the New Zealand ecology and the possums themselves. It needs to look at the root causes.
The possum was introduced to New Zealand by New Zealand profiteering colonists.
Many New Zealanders conveniently forget: It is not the possum’s fault it is in New Zealand.
.
However, pouring $80 million a year of New Zealand taxpayers money into cruel indiscrimate aerial baiting is not working. If it was the possum problem would be reducing and there would not be a burgeoning possum fur trade.
Instead of perpetuating a 19th Century immoral fur trade, in order to control possums and other introduced pests in New Zealand, one option is to catch and relocate them back to their native home country habitat. This may seem highly expensive and labour intensive and far fetched, but what other option is both humane and effective?
It’s not the possums’ fault. New Zealand colonists introduced them from Australia to New Zealand. The problem is an inherited inter-generational problem caused by New Zealand colonists. It shoud be solved by their descendants, not perpetuated as a fur trade.
Acknowledging the possum in NZ is an introduced pest, the question in this case is whether the possums in New Zealand are being killed humanely and whether this is being effectively monitored by a government watchdog worthy of the public trust?
By killing possums, humans have a moral obligation to do it humanely. Possums like all animals are sentient beings and so feel pain, fear and suffering.
.
New Zealand sprays 1080 poison over its native forests
.
New Zealand Department of Conservation’s official choice of death is aerial baiting with the the literally cheap and very nasty poison ‘1080’ (‘ten-eighty’, or Sodium Monofluroacetate).
New Zealand Department of Conservation’s argues it is humane and safe.
Heading out to drop 1080 poison across NZ forests
(a smiling assassin)
.
But The World League for Protection of Animals argues otherwise and offers the following explanation about ‘1080’ poison.
“1080 (sodium monofluroacetate) is a cruel and indiscriminate poison used to ‘remove’ unwanted populations of animals.
Banned in most countries, 1080 is still used liberally throughout Australia to control so-called ‘pest’ species, and reduce ‘browsing damage’ caused by native animals on private land.
1080 poison is a slow killer. When ingested (usually through baited food) the animal suffers a prolonged and horrific death. Herbivores take the longest to die – up to 44 hours, while carnivores can take up to 21 hours before finally succumbing to final effects of the poison. The speed of death is dependent on the rate of the animals metabolism.
.
1080 Poison Causes a Slow & Horrific Death
.
Witnesses to the deaths of herbivorous animals, such as macropods, have reported:
“Affected wallabies were sometimes observed sitting hunched up, with heads held shakily just above the ground. Generally they appeared non-alert and ‘sick’, with shivering or shaking forelimbs and unsteady balance. Most individuals then experience convulsions, falling to the ground and lying on their backs and sides, kicking and making running motions with their hind legs before dying. Many individuals also ejaculated shortly before death, and, with others, exuded a white froth from their nostrils and mouth.”
Carnivorous animals such as dingoes, dogs, foxes, and cats become very agitated, as they tremble, convulse and vomit.
.
Animal symptoms of eating 1080 poison:
.
“…restlessness; increased hyperexcitability; incontinence or diarrhea; excessive salivation; abrupt bouts of vocalization; and finally sudden bursts of violent activity.
All affected animals then fall to the ground in teranic seizure, with hind limbs or all four limbs and sometimes the tail extended rigidly from their arched bodies. At other times the front feet are clasped together, clenched or used to scratch frantically at the cage walls.
This tonic phase is then followed by a clonic phase in which the animals lie and kick or ‘paddle’ with the front legs and sometimes squeal, crawl around and bite at objects. During this phase the tongue and penis may be extruded, their eyes rolled back so that only the whites show and the teeth ground together. Breathing is rapid but laboured, with some animals partly choking on their saliva. Finally such individuals begin to relax, breathing more slowly and shallowly and lying quietly with the hind legs still extended but apparently semiparalysed”.
From the above descriptions, it is without question that 1080 poison inflicts great pain and suffering on affected animals. Aside from the physical pain endured over the many hours before death, the terror, fear and anxiety felt by these animals is unimaginable.”>>
The main reason why the New Zealand Department of Conservation uses 1080 is simply because it is cheap. Dropping it it indiscriminately by air is efficient and convenient.
Whereas setting caged traps for possums is expensive. Using poisons that act faster that 1080, such as cyanide is also more expensive.
So the New Zealand Department of Conservation’s key justification for its use of 1080 is one of cost.
It also justifies using 1080 because other countries use it for pest control, like Australian & the USA , so implying that 1080 must therefore be ethically acceptable. But New Zealanders should make up their own mind and should recall that both the USA and Australia used Agent Orange in The Vietnam War.
The Department of Conservation also justifies 1080 use because NZ has no natural mammals so the risk to non-target species are nil. But this claim is FACTUALLY INCORRECT!
On 30 July 2008, The Dominion Post reported that after a Department of Conservation aerial drop of 1080, seven kea had died at Fox Glacier from eating the 1080 poison, wiping out almost half a group of the endangered and protected parrot being monitored by the Conservation Department. DOC came up with excuses, but with such an endangered bird with so few kea left on the planet, DOC cannot afford to gamble with the kea’s extinction.
Anti-1080 campaigner Mike Bennett said the kea deaths were the tip of the iceberg. “These are only the monitored ones. If that percentage is extrapolated for the entire population, that doesn’t leave many for the next drop” and has called for a ban on all aerial 1080 drops in alpine areas.
.
New Zealand is not reducing possum numbers, just perpetuating its 1837 Fur Trade
.
New Zealand’s own backyard fur trade has seen a recent resergence since the 1830s when New Zealand hunters first introduced the possum to the wilds of New Zealand. the traditional method of possum slaugher is by trapping. For nearly two centuries the cruel ‘gin trap’ with serrated jaws was used. Although the trapping laws have recently banned gin traps, leg-hold traps remain the method of choice for trappers.
According to the NZ Lifestyle Block website:
“Leg-hold traps such as the ‘Lanes Ace’ or ‘Gin Trap’ have been widely used for possum and rabbit control for many years. The gin trap is more than 10.5 cm across its open jaws, which are serrated, and it is powered by a flat metal spring, so it’s a “size 1½ long spring” trap.
Traps of size 1½ or larger are more likely than the smaller traps to snap shut across the belly or chest of an animal. Although larger traps have been banned, traps of size 1½ can still be used if they are powered by double-coil springs. From January 2011 they will have to be padded, and you can’t modify them yourself to make them padded…
.
Why are these traps cruel?
.
When the gin trap snaps shut on its victim, the teeth bite into the skin and can cause a lot of trauma and no doubt agonizing pain.
All leg-hold traps are indiscriminate about what they catch. If they are set in possum tracks or runs it’s more likely than not that any catch will be a possum, but it might also be a cat… rat, bird or small dog. Large dogs can sometimes pull out of them but they may be injured in the process.
.
Possum Trappers preferred weapon of choice: the ‘Lanes Ace’ or ‘Gin Trap’
Widely used for possum trappers in New Zealand for many years.
.
Icing sugar or flour around traps is sometimes used to attract possums, but if used beneath a trap the animal is likely to be trapped by its snout or head.
.
What are the alternative leg-hold traps?
.
In New Zealand it is still legal to use size 1 leg-hold traps such as the Victor within the restrictions on location and setting described above. It is smaller than the gin trap and doesn’t have serrated jaws.
The ‘Victor No 1‘ can be bought with cushioned inserts that make it more humane. It tends to cause less frequent and less severe injuries than the gin trap and larger leg-hold traps, but it can still cause severe bruising, and trapped animals will sometimes cause themselves severe injuries in their struggle to get free.
Trappers favour the Victor No 1 because it is compact, light and relatively efficient. The changes in the legislation mean that it is likely to become even more popular.
There’s good advice for landowners on the most humane way to use leg-hold traps and their alternatives on the National Possum Control Agencies website (www.npca.org.nz), and not just for possums but for ferrets too.”>>
.
Rabbit caught and dead in Lanes Ace Trap.
The steel jaws of the trap break the rabbit’s leg and it dies of pain and suffering over days.
These are used in New Zealand in the possum fur trade
[Image Source: ^http://www.animalwritings.com/archive/2004_08_01_blog_archive.asp]
.
Typical traps used in New Zealand for possums are the flat jaw/leg hold’ type such as the ‘Bushmaster‘. While recognised as more humane that the serrated jaw ‘gin trap’, it can still cause suffering to a trapped animal, and of course is indiscriminate.
The Hamilton City Council on the North Island prohibits the use of leg-hold traps such as gin traps in residential areas and within 150 metres of dwellings or places where there are likely to be pets. It instead recommends Cage Traps and Timms Traps for possums and other feral animals.
.
New Zealand’s 1837 Possum Fur Trade now globally profitable!
.
The justification spin:
.
<<…Possums were introduced into New Zealand by the caring, sharing Aussie cousins in the 1870s, to get the fur trade going. [Ed: How do we know it was not New Zealand colonists returning to New Zealand that introduced the possum?] Unfortunately what the possums did is have a fabulous time in the New Zealand climate, and aided by the decline in the fur industry, increased their numbers to over 70 million today.
Possums are a pest in New Zealand. Not only do they manage to consume approximately 21,000 tonnes of vegetation every night, but they are also killing native birds, and generally upsetting the ecological balance. Many native trees, plants and birds, including the Kiwi, are under threat of extinction because the possum is destroying their habitat. A possum will visit the same tree night after night and eat away until the point where the tree cannot recover. It has also now been confirmed that possums will eat both the eggs and chicks of the native Kiwi and Kokako. Where Australian plants have their own defences against the possum, NZ plants do not. The possum has no predator in NZ. Regular culling has been carried out under government supervision since the 1940s and it is estimated to cost around £20 million each year.
Very interestingly, the World Wide Fund for Nature does acknowledge that possums need to be controlled.
Although the culling began in the 1940s, it has only been in the last 30 years that good use was made of the resulting resource.
Kiwis (the human ones!), known for their ability to fix anything with a piece of no. 8 fencing wire, are a bit of an ingenious lot. They’ve managed to turn the pest into an export commodity. Possum meat goes to Asia (have you eaten ‘Kiwi Bear’?!), and the pelt is used for any number of commodities as it has properties that lend itself to both warmth and protection. New Zealand is the only place in the world where possum fur can be harvested.>>
Ed: The British colonialNew Zealander’s cultural inferiority complex with nearby Australia is manifested in a hatred for Australian Possums.
Proud in denial, the fact is that colonial New Zealanders in 1837 chose to sail to Australia to capture the species and voluntarily introduce the Brushtailed Possum to New Zealand.
In 1837, Australian possums didn’t want to go to New Zealand. Colonial Australians at the time probably took no interest in a few New Zealanders taking wildlife for their own gain. Maoris atthe time probably were unaware, had no say then anyway, but would have challenged the introduction had they been duly informed.
Kiwi Kate’s reference to “caring, sharing Aussie cousins” sadly reflects bigotry out of her misinformed upbringing.
.
Use of Feratox (cyanide) Poison?
.
According to the Lifestyle Block website NZ veterinarian Dr Marjorie Orr, BVM&S, PhD, BA and lifestyle farmer on , the most humane method of possum control is to use Feratox capsules, which is an encapsulated cyanide.
The preferred baiting method is to use these in specially designed “bait stations or sachets stapled to trees, baited with peanut butter (possums like it and dogs and birds usually don’t). The pest control companies that put out the poison will usually on request remove the sachets after a few days, and this helps reduce the risk of accidental poisoning of other animals. The poison in the capsules, cyanide, is quickly destroyed on exposure to air. Death is quick and relatively stress-free and there is no risk of secondary poisoning of dogs that scavenge poisoned carcases.”
The test of humane killing must be conditional on the absence of pain and stress caused to the animal and that the killing be very quick.
But the killing of a native animal is wrong, despite it being introduced by humans. It has become a convenient excuse for New Zealanders to kill possums. Possum control by either DOC or the fur trade is not effective and in both cases the chosen methods are inhumane.
.
New Zealand’s possum problem has been allowed to escalate into an immoral industry for profiteers.
The New Zealand Government is responsible for failing to deal with the problem effectively and humanely.
It has perpetuated an immoral fur trade that begun in the 19th Century, and at the same time allowed much irreversible harm to be caused to New Zealand’s fragile ecology.
.
.
Possum Comments:
.
‘The legacy of human ignorance and delinquency is enormous’
(Vivienne 20091205) :
.
<<Research has begun recently into biocontrol of brushtail possums as the only long-term, cost-effective solution to the possum problem in New Zealand, where possums cause significant damage to native forests, threaten populations of native plants and animals, and infect cattle and deer with bovine tuberculosis.
see the abstract for the CSIRO report
Immunocontraception is a humane means of controlling possums with wide public acceptance.
Although several studies have investigated or modelled its demographic consequences, there have been few studies of the possible effects of the presence of sterile females on local males.
Implications for biological control
Cynanide kills more quickly than 1080, but no less violently. Researchers have called this death humane!
Food is provided in a feeder for a few of days to lull the animals into a false sense of security. Then their trust is betrayed with the food being replaced with encapsulated cyanide pellets. The animals die within metres of the feeding station.
Possums are endearing little animals and what they suffer is horrific! The legacy of human ignorance and delinquency is enormous! Our colonial attitudes continue to haunt us today, with species continually threatened and made extinct by human expansion and self-interests.>>
.
‘Fertility controls the only longterm option for NZ possums’
(Pat, 20091207)
.
<<Fertility controls the only longterm option for control NZ possums, anything else is only a bandaid. We have the technology to do this, it only needs some more research and it could proceed. Its crazy to allow unwanted animals to breed out of control, then cruelly kill them, 1080 or not.
40 years ago we put a man on the moon….and then bought him safely back….and yet we cant humanely solve the NZ possum problem? I dont believe it! The NZ DOC appears to be as incomptent and as useless as our own Australian wildlife bureacracies.>>
.
‘NZ possums’
(Possum lover, 20091208):
.
<<As always- the real pest is the human.
However, I can see from this article that the New Zealand environment would be better off without the Brush Tail Possum. Apart from the cruelty a possum fur industry makes little sense as it would rely on a sustainable population of the animals – and this would mean continued deleterious effects on the environment. Bringing millions of animals back to Australia seems extremely impractical as I think there would be a lack of habitat and how would one round them all up? Human population growth is continually robbing possums of habitat in Australia even though they are very good at sharing with humans.
The poisoning and trapping options are not acceptable at all- and anyway — it seems clear that whatever they are doing in NZ to reduce the population of possums — they are not being effective, anyway !
(As I write this I hear on radio National that a few hundred camels will be shot in central or northern Australia because their numbers have got out of hand and they come close to human settlements looking for water. Who brought the camels to Australia? Who put them to work in opening up the centre of the continent.? Who abandoned them to the wild when they had served their purpose?)
Back to the possums- realistically it seems to me that it’s a choice of either accepting the possums and a changed environment (just as humans changed the ecosystem by extinguishing the moa) or making a concerted effort to humanely totally eradicate the animals from NZ. There is no point in partially reducing the population as more possums will fill the available habitat.
More info on the practicalities of sterilisation would useful. If only there was a measure of the suffering that humans inflict on each other and on other animals. All other suffering on the planet would be dwarfed by this measure.>>
.
‘New Zealand complacent about its wildlife’
(Tigerquoll, 20091208):
.
Yes, I agree the real pest is the human. Yes, I agree the New Zealand environment would be better off without the Australian Brushtail Possum.
To round up and try repatriating the many Brushtail possums in New Zealand back to Australia would be extremely impractical. Do we know the numbers and their geographic concentrations? Assuming the possum are on both islands, can one island be targeted first?
Where would they be repatriate to? Possums are territorial mammals. Even in Australia native wildlife experts claim that it is not possible to relocate possums, which poses problems for both possums already in Australia and for the reintroduced possums. The cost exercise would highlight the extent of the problem and the real costs of New Zealand having neglected a serious pest invasion for nearly two centuries. This reinforces the scale and complexity of introduce pest problems when left ignored.
But what is the alternative that is both ethical and effective?
The sterilisation science sounds encouraging, yet even then ‘immunosterilization’ as it is formally labelled has questions about efficacy of fertility control, the means for delivering antigens. Then there are the potential legal and social concerns that relate to the possible future use of antigens.
But I do recommend this is where the $80 million of New Zealand taxpayers money should be diverted instead of indiscriminate 1080 drops by helicopter. Question is why has the New Zealand Government become so complacent about seeking a humane and effective permanent solution?
Australia’s feral camel problem in central Australia is comparable to New Zealand’s possum problem. I understand they will be shot, which suggests a faster clean kill (so long as the shooter is a trained marksman with appropriate knowledge of camel to effect a single round quick kill, rather than some recreational shooter), but what to do with the carcasses? Is shooting humane and ethical? Is shooting the only answer, or is it just the cheapest and nastiest quick fix coming from some staffers desk? Could these camels not be herded and shipped live back to their native country in the Middle East or North Africa or from wherever their ancestors originated?
Question again is, why has the Australian Government also ignored the feral camel problem for so long to allow it to build to becoming so numerous and widespread?
I am not in favour of New Zealand ignoring its possum problem, because such a defeatist stance would only perpetuate further destruction of New Zealand’s forest ecology and to inevitable local extinctions of native flora and fauna. It would also encourage the perpetuation of New Zealand’s immoral fur trade, which is no different to Canadians commercially clubbing fur seals.
Is the New Zealand Government just as complacent with its Biosecurity? Less than a month ago Queensland cane toad was found in an Australian tourist’s hiking boot in Queenstown on the South Island. All it needed was a mate and it would have been off and breeding. “A MAF biosecurity spokeswoman confirmed the toad arrived last Tuesday but was not spotted.”>>
It makes it hard for New Zealand’s Department of Conservation to act to properly address New Zealand’s chronic feral possum infestation, when the government sacks 140 of DOC’s staff demanding it cut $8.7 million in operational expenditure…
<<The Department of Conservation (DOC) has announced plans to cut about 140 largely regional management and administration positions. The job losses are part of a reorganisation under which DOC’s existing 11 regional conservancy boundaries will be replaced with six new regions.
DOC director-general Al Morrison says the new structure would maintain DOC’s own conservation delivery work while setting the department up to work more effectively with external partners.
“DOC must adapt if it is going to meet the conservation challenges that New Zealand faces – even if you doubled DOC’s budget tomorrow we would still be going ahead with this proposal.”
DOC would continue to operate out of the same number of offices as now with more than 1200 operational staff, Morrison said. About 118 management and administrative positions would go as a result of the new flatter organisation. A further 22 operational roles would be cut through efficiencies gained by setting up new support hubs for activities such as asset management, inspections and work planning.
The size of the proposal was aimed at ensuring DOC met its $8.7 million savings targets and continued to meet its current delivery work.
A conservation partnerships group would be set up focused on working with community groups, iwi, local authorities, private landowners and businesses to attract more resources to conservation, Morrison said. Recreational and natural heritage field work would be the responsibility of a conservation services group.
Consultation with staff about the proposals had started and no final decisions would be made until staff feedback had been considered. Any changes would not take effect for some months.
“I acknowledge this will mean a difficult period for many staff and we will be making every effort to ease the impact of these proposals,” Morrison said.
A freeze on hiring new staff had been in place and about 160 positions were filled with temporary staff. “It is simply too early to say what impact these proposals will have on individuals – we will look at all options such as redeployment and relocation to minimise redundancies.”
.
‘GAPING HOLES’
The Green Party earlier today predicted the proposal was to axe 140 jobs.
“With the department already pared to the bone these latest cuts will mean less protection of our special native plants and wildlife,” Green Party conservation spokesperson Eugenie Sage said. “DOC manages more than a third of the land in New Zealand and the argument that volunteers and a few corporate sponsors will fill in the gaping hole these cuts and continued pressure on department spending create is nonsense.
“National is trying to turn DOC into a corporate entity focused on stakeholders and corporate sponsorship at the expense of its key role to to protect and preserve native plants and animals,” Sage said. “This National Government is toxic to the environment and is polluting, digging up and selling our children’s future.”
Prime Minister John Key this morning said the department was over-staffed with middle management and bureaucracy. “What you have seen is, over the good times under a Labour government a big buildup in kind of the middle management and bureaucracy, and in the leaner, harder times where the Government doesn’t have a lot of money to throw around, we don’t have that much money,” he said.
.
King of Overseas Holidays, John Key, He flew first class with his wife to attend a foreign royal wedding on 20110429
Here he’s looking resplendent in his bespoke $6,000 suit washed with pounamu.
Total cost of Key Junket which did nothing for New Zealand, NZ$200,000?
. .
“Government agencies now needed to be leaner, and more efficient”, Key said. He compared the restructuring to a similar exercise at Telecom, which was expected to axe hundreds of jobs this year.
“If you go and look at what is happening at Telecom at the moment, on a different scale … but no-one is arguing that the chief executive isn’t doing the right thing trying to make sure that organisation is leaner and more efficient,” he said. The Government had a responsibility to taxpayers, he said.
“The management at DOC have a responsibility to ensure that their resources are directed in the right place and that is what you are going to see today,” Key said>>
.
Ms Eugenie SageGreen Party of Aotearoa representative:
.
“National is trying to turn DOC into a corporate entity focused on stakeholders and corporate sponsorship at the expense of its key role to protect and preserve native plants and animals”.
Dead fox found near Braeside Track, Blackheath, Blue Mountains in 2006
There was no sign of it being shot. Was it baited?
(Photo by Editor, 20060722, free in public domain, click image to enlarge)
.
In June 2012, Gerry from Hazelbrook in the Blue Mountains west of Sydney wrote in the local Blue Mountains Gazette newspaper:
“Our place backs on to bushland. The other morning I was looking out the kitchen window and I saw two foxes just beyond our back fence, ambling along, very relaxed, looking like they owned the place. They were large, and looking extremely well fed.
A few days earlier I had seen a very large feral cat stalking prey in the same area.
Question: whose brief is feral animal control in the Blue Mountains, and what to they actually do about the problem?”
[Source: ‘Who is responsible?’, (letter to the editor), by Gerry Binder, Hazelbrook, Blue Mountains Gazette, 20120627, p.4]
.
Well, no one from the authorities responded to Gerry in the newspaper.
So who is responsible for fox control across the Blue Mountains? One would be inclined to consider the local Blue Mountains Council, or the regional National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) if the fox is in the National Park.
A phone call to Blue Mountains Council today revealed that the Council does not get involved in feral animal control. It has no policy or strategy to deal with the fox problem, or indeed with feral predation in the Blue Mountains local government area (LGA).
This area comprises two east-west human-settled corridors through the central region of the Blue Mountains: (1) along the Great Western Highway (including Hazelbrook) and (2) along the Bells Line of Road. Both corridors are surrounded and upstream of the UNESCO-listed Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.
According to the Blue Mountains Council, feral animal control across the Blue Mountains, outside the World Heritage Area, is handled by the New South Wales Government Department, the Livestock Health and Pest Authority. So to answer Gerry’s question above, if anyone has an issue with foxes outside the World Heritage Area, don’t contact Blue Mountains Council, but instead contact the the Livestock Health and Pest Authority (LHPA).
The LHPA has geographically divided the Blue Mountains region into two serviced districts. From Bullaburra east back toward Sydney, the Cumberland Livestock Health and Pest Authority based at Camden takes an interest (Tel: 02-6331 1377). From Wentworth Falls west to Bathurst, the Bathurst Livestock Health and Pest Authority based at Bathurst takes an interest (Tel: 02-4655 9165).
The Livestock Health and Pest Authority (LHPA) is primarily tasked with safeguarding agriculture from threats – such as feral predation, insect control, livestock disease prevention and health. It has sixty offices across NSW and works with rural producers, government and industry to safeguard agriculture in NSW. The LHPA operates under the Rural Lands Protection Act 1998 (NSW) and is ultimately accountable to the NSW Minister for Primary Industries.
Strangely enough, the LHPA has NOT listed foxes as ‘declared pests’ in NSW. It does list wild rabbits, wild dogs, feral pigs and locusts as declared pests. The reason is one of jurisdiction and legal delegation. The LHPA is primarily charged with safeguarding agriculture, not safeguarding native habitat and fauna. It classes foxes and mice merely as ‘nuisance animals’ throughout New South Wales and states that there is no legal obligation for a landholder in NSW to control foxes or mice. LHPA only provides control advice and assistance to rural property owners. So in relation to fox control, the LHPA is more token and lip service. Blue Mountains Council adopts a complete cop out approach to the fox problem across the Blue Mountains.
From its brochure on foxes, the control methods LHPA adopts for fox control are:
1080 poison (sodium monofluoroacetate) – a cruel and indiscriminate poison, that kills slowly (carnivores up to 21 hours) causes pain, suffering, trembling, convulsion and vomiting. It is banned in most countries because it is considered inhumane, but still used across Australia. [Read More: ^http://www.wlpa.org/1080_poison.htm]
Rubber jawed leg hold traps
Mesh cage traps, which seem the most humane option.
A week after Gerry’s letter, on the front page of the Blue Mountains Gazette ran the story of a Burns Road resident in nearby Springwood discovering that his cat Sam had been caught in a wild dog trap. Sam’s legs had been broken by the trap and he was euthanised as a result. The article in the paper stated that the Blue Mountains Council and National Parks and Wildlife Service were jointly undertaking a trapping programme in the Blaxland to Springwood area after receiving complaints about wild dogs. Traps has been set along a fire trail to catch the wild dogs. [Source: ‘Sad end for Sam’, by Damien Madigan, Blue Mountains Gazette, 20120704, p.1]
Rubber Jaw Leg-Hold Trap
.
That the cat was roaming in the bushland down a fire trail, suggests that it may well have been preying on wildlife as well. What is the difference in wildlife impact between that of a targeted wild dog, and a companion cat that is roaming wild in bushland? That the trap broke the cat’s legs meant that the control method was not humane. It also means that trapping, like poisoning is an indiscriminate form of feral animal control. So herein lies a challenge of feral predator control.
Native Dingo caught in a rubber jaw leg-hold trapIt confirms that trapping is indiscriminate
.
In May 2011, Paul from Winmalee in the Blue Mountains, with his stated background in wildlife conservation, wrote in his letter in the Blue Mountains Gazette that shooting feral animals as a conservation measure is a largely inefficient way to control foxes. “The National Parks and Wildlife Service has done studies showing that shooting/hunting feral animals has minimal affect (sic) on their numbers”, he said. [Source: ‘Not conservation’ (letter to the editor), by Paul Bailey, Winmalee, Blue Mountains Gazette, 20110511, p.8]
.
Recreational shooting of feral animals can attract the wrong mentality
.
Back in July 2011, a local Blue Mountains resident, ‘Don’, asked in his email to The Habitat Advocate “would you like to give some coverage to the lack of ongoing fox control around Katoomba?” Don clarified in his email:
“Quite a good effort was made about 3-4 years ago (2007-08) and for about 18 months afterwards there was no sign of foxes but, as happens all too often with the bureaucratic model of pest animal control, there was no ongoing effort and foxes are now back in serious numbers, as can be detected by direct sightings, tracks and scats.
We have noticed huge losses amongst wood duck especially (the ducklings are very vulnerable to fox predation) and the swamp wallaby population is no-where near what it should be. In fact, observable wallaby numbers are down on what they were ten or fifteen years ago.
The cost of control programmes is obviously an issue. Unfortunately, due to the parasitisation of the environmental movement by animal rights folk, self-sustaining control measures such as the commercial exploitation of foxes for their skins is no longer pursued. If that remains the case, can we realistically expect the politicians ever to find the money for ongoing effective fox control, given the competing environmental considerations, not to mention budgetary issues such as mental health, which is sorely languishing?”
Feral Foxes are healthy across the Blue Mountains
.
Don’s request happened to be our very first request for onground action and so we shall stay by Don and see that his very legitimate request is pursued.
Our understanding is that across the Blue Mountains region, there are three categories of land ownership/control which would be impacted by fox predation:
The Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area
Council lands spread across 8 multiple Local Government Areas (LGAs) of:
Blue Mountains
Lithgow
Oberon
Wollondilly
Hawkesbury
Muswellbrook
Singleton
Mid-Western Regional (Mudgee)
Private land including urban, rural, farms and to a small extent, mining leasehold land
Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area
(Source: New South Wales then Department of Environment and Climate Change, 2007)
(Click image to enlarge)
.
The custodial responsibility for managing the natural values of the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area is the Australian Government. The area totals roughly 10,000 square kilometres (1.03 million hectares) of sandstone plateaux, escarpments and gorges dominated by temperate eucalypt forest. It comprises eight protected areas:
Blue Mountains National Park
Kanangra-Boyd National Park
Wollemi National Park
Gardens of Stone National Park
Yengo National Park
Nattai National Park
Thirlmere Lakes National Park
Jenolan Caves Karst Conservation Reserve
‘Blue Mountains World Heritage Area’
Listed by UNESCO in 2000 for its unique and significant natural values
(Photo by the Rural Fire Service)
.
Fauna of the Blue Mountains region classified as ‘threatened with extinction’ or ‘rare’ include the Tiger Quoll, the Koala, the Yellow-bellied Glider, the Brush-tailed Rock Wallaby and the Long-nosed Potoroo as well as rare reptiles and endangered amphibians such as the Green and Golden Bell Frog, the Blue Mountain Water Skink and the Broad-headed Snake and endangered birds like the Regent Honeyeater. The largest predator of the region is the Australian Dingo to which its natural prey in the region is the Grey Kangaroo and various subspecies of Wallaby, other macropods, small marsupials and reptiles.
Tiger Quoll (Dasyurus maculatus)
Also known as the spotted-tail quoll (which we consider a rather naff politically correct name)
An endangered carnivore, native to the Blue Mountains and competing with the Dingo and feral fox as the top order predator of the region
(Photo by OzTrek)
.
The feral fox, being carnivorous, poses two types of threats to wildlife across the Blue Mountains region. It preys on small ground dwelling animals and reptiles. It also competes for prey with the Tiger Quoll and Dingo.
.
Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area – significant natural values
.
The Australian Government has outsourced and delegated its custodial responsibility for managing the natural values of the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area to the New South Wales State Government, which has in turn delegated the responsibility to one of its departments, the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service (NSW NPWS).
At the time of writing, the NSW NPWS, is part of the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), within the NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet. One has to check every four years or so, because the department changes its name that frequently. This is the current website, but that could change too: ^http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/about
The regional office of the NSW NPWS is located in Katoomba in the Blue Mountains.
Conservation management of the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area, including feral animal control, is guided by a number of documents. Pertinent to the fox predation threat, the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area listing includes World Heritage natural values worth conserving and protecting under World Heritage Natural Criterion 44 (a)(iv):
“…contains the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation…”
Pertinent to fox predation threat, The Blue Mountains World Heritage Area meets World Heritage Natural Criterion 44 (a)(iv) by it including significant habitats for in situ conservation of biological diversity, taxa of conservation significance, exceptional diversity of habitats providing outstanding representation of the Australian fauna within a single place. These include endemic species, relict species, species with a restricted range, and rare or threatened species (40 vertebrate taxa – including 12 mammal species) and examples of species of global significance such as the Platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) and the Echidna (Tachyglossus aculeatus aculeatus).
In 1999, the Australian Government’s Department of Environment et al. published a threat abatement plan (TAP) which established a national framework to guide and coordinate Australia’s response to the impacts of European red foxes on biodiversity. It sought to comply with Australia’s Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 to promote the recovery of species and ecological communities that are endangered or vulnerable, and to prevent other species and ecological communities from becoming endangered.
In Schedule 3 of the Act, Predation by the European Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) is listed as a key threatening process. The focus of this plan is on the actions required to reduce the threat posed by foxes to endangered or vulnerable species or ecological communities.
It concluded that ‘eradication of foxes on the mainland is not possible‘ and so settled for methods to reduce fox numbers and predation on wildlife in significant areas. The fox abatement plan aimed to reduce the impact of fox predation on native wildlife over a 5-year period by:
implementing fox control programs in specific areas of high conservation priority;
encouraging the development and use of innovative and humane control methods for fox management;
educating land managers and relevant organisations to improve their knowledge of fox impacts and ensure skilled and effective participation in control activities; and
collecting and disseminating information to improve our understanding of the ecology of foxes in Australia, their impacts and methods to control them.
The Australian Government’s funding to implement the plan was to be primarily through funding programmes of the Natural Heritage Trust.
The ideal of the Fox Threat Abatement Plan was to eradicate foxes, which seems fair enough. To achieve fox eradication it proposed:
The mortality rate for foxes must be greater than the replacement rate at all population densities
There must be no immigration
Sufficient foxes must be at risk from the control technique so that mortality from all causes results in a negative rate of population increase
All foxes must be detectable even at low densities
A discounted benefit-cost analysis must favour eradication over control
There must be a suitable socio-political environment (Ed: ‘political will’)
[Source: Bomford and O’Brien, 1995]
.
However, because foxes had become so well established across a vast area, the plan pre-concluded that complete removal of foxes from Australia was well beyond the capacity of available techniques and resources. Saunders et al. (1995) reviewed current knowledge on techniques for suppressing fox populations including poison baiting, shooting, trapping, hunting with dogs and fumigating dens. The review concluded that, with the exception of broad-scale baiting, the existing control methods are expensive, labour intensive, require continuing management effort and can be effective in only limited areas.
[Ed: This reads as a self-fulfilling ‘too-hard basket’ prophecy by bureaucrats. Do nothing, and for sure, nothing will happen]
.
Baiting
The fox abatement plan considered that in most situations, poison baiting (using 1080 poison) was the most effective method of reducing fox numbers and impact. However, it acknowledged the negative impact on non-target species. “A major drawback is that it may affect native carnivores and scavengers such as dingoes, quolls, goannas and some scavenging birds, and also domestic dogs.” Whoops.
“Aerial baiting of foxes has been demonstrated to be an effective method of control for covering large areas provided the risk of non-target bait uptake is minimal.”
Sounds the kind of spiel akin to the CIA about its collateral damage in Vietnam with its Agent Orange sorties. Well Western Australia is happy to use aerial baiting of 1080 over large areas (up to three million hectares) and has been shown to dramatically reduce fox numbers. Apparently, it has had minimal impact on populations of rare species because the native fauna somehow have a higher resistance to the naturally occurring 1080 poison found in native plants. Mmm, where is the proof?
..
Biological Control
This was more conceptual a strategy, since no current pathogen yet exists that is virulent, humane and specific to foxes and not transferable to other species. The idea is that by targeting fox fertility, an effective long-term approach to reducing their numbers can be achieved. Fertility control is still at an experimental stage of development. It has not been successfully applied to a free-ranging population of wild vertebrates over a large area nor has it been attempted as a method of reducing the impacts of predation on an endangered or vulnerable species. Methods of fertility control include hormone treatment and sterility (immunocontraceptive technology). However, some scientists and wildlife managers remain sceptical about the likely success and effectiveness of this approach (Carter, 1995). The obstacles to achieving a workable method are formidable and include:
difficulty of isolating an infectious virus specific to foxes;
difficulty of developing a contraceptive vaccine;
difficulty of combining the two into a treatment that causes permanent sterility and no other significant disorders in an infected fox;
the possibility that in the field, natural selection and elements of fox ecology may overcome or compensate for any attack on the species’ reproductive capacity;
social concerns that the methods may not be controllable once released; and
the need to be cost-effective relative to other methods.
.
Barriers to Fox Invasion
Fences have been proposed as a component in conservation management programs to protect endangered species from predators such as foxes and cats. A large range of fence designs has been used to exclude foxes from particular areas but there is little information on the effectiveness of particular designs.
A recent review of predator-proof fencing in Australia (Coman and McCutchan, 1994) found that although fences can be a significant barrier to foxes, even the most elaborate can be breached. Frequent monitoring for the presence of foxes inside the fence is an essential precaution as considerable damage can be caused by a single fox breaching the fence.
Shortcomings of fences include posing a hazard to non-target wildlife, restricting the natural ability of native animals to disperse, the high cost of predator-proof fencing and the necessary maintenance costs for it to be effective. However, recent studies at Shark Bay, Western Australia have found that a combination strategy of fencing, baiting, trapping along with a combination of natural water barriers, can be effective fencing on peninsulas (Department of Conservation and Land Management, 1994).
[Ed: Question is did it adversely affect non-target native species? One could incinerate the entire landscape, defoliate it, concrete it so there may be not foxes left, but then no wildlife as well. This seems consistent with West Australia’s simplistic blanket one-size-fits-all approach to environmental control].
.
Habitat Management
In environments with dense vegetation, steep topography, rocky crevices or extensive wetlands, prey are less likely to be caught by foxes (Saunders et al.et. al. 1995). [Ed: This would seem to describe the Blue Mountains landscape with its many impassable escarpments]
The foraging efficiency of foxes seems to be maximal in open habitats where they are able to range widely and freely. They readily use roads, tracks and other cleared access ways through denser vegetation or complex topography. [Ed: This has been encouraged by the frequent fire regime of the Rural Fires Service and NPWS to remove thick vegetation labelled as ‘fuel’].
Arboreal marsupials become vulnerable when they descend to the ground to move between trees. A continuous canopy and a thick understorey of shrubs enable them to move about in the trees where they are not at risk from fox predation. An important conservation strategy for some situations will be to minimise habitat fragmentation and to investigate options for fire, grazing or other management practices which do not destroy ground habitat.
.
Fox Bounties
Reviews of the history of fox management in particular (Braysher, 1993; Saunders et al.et. al. 1995), concluded that fox bounties have rarely been effective. There is little evidence, except occasionally and in small areas, that hunting of foxes has a significant or lasting impact on fox numbers or the damage they cause. Where private land adjoins or contains important wildlife habitat, assistance or encouragement to landholders and the development of incentives to promote fox control on private land may be appropriate, especially if the property forms part of a buffer zone to protect threatened species populations.
[Ed: This is a scientific lesson for the current NSW OFarrell Government in light of its recent decision to counter legislate for hunting in 79 National Parks across the State for supposed feral animals like foxes]
Then in 2003, the NPWS along with the Blue Mountains Council and other government agencies commissioned a public survey using a questionnaire method to gauge public perception about the impact of foxes across the Blue Mountains. An external consultant as engaged and a committee formed, the Blue Mountains Urban Fox Steering Committee‘.
The survey found that foxes were indeed considered a problem in the Blue Mountains. In January 2004, published in the survey results included was that 64% of those surveyed considered foxes to be a major problem. The impact of foxes was 30% domestic animal impacts, 12% wildlife impacts, and 6% property damage impacts. 53% of respondents felt that not enough was being done to manage foxes in the Blue Mountains townships and surrounding natural areas.
And so the assembled committee prepared a strategy document on the management of ‘urban foxes’ and some education material. But it wasn’t to control foxes…
“The top two priorities of this strategy are for:
community education
local research on foxes and their impacts.
.
It was a bureaucratic waste of time so that Blue Mountains NPWS could be politically seen to be thinking about doing something about foxes. The gain was corp0rate-political for NPWS Blue Mountains Senior Ranger, Chris Banffy, to be seen to be doing something on paper, but nothing on the ground, financial gain for the engaged Pest Management Consultant, Nicola Mason.
True to consultant form there was the big survey, survey advertising, data collation, published results in January 2004 and a follow up community workshop on 26th March 2004.
Yes, there was community education published in May 2004. It took the form of another two page A4 brochure. Here it is, as two scanned pages.
.
Community Education Page 1:
Click image to enlarge and read
.
Community Education Page 2:
Click image to enlarge and read
.
And of course, NPWS did nothing about the Blue Mountains confirmed fox problem. It just built a bigger library of reports.
Was it due to lack of funding or lack of direction from Environment ministers. Or perhaps it always just a token public servant ‘look busy’ project to be seen to be thinking about doing something to justify one’s cosy job perpetuation? Certainly to the foxes of the Blue Mountains, it was business-as-usual and they saw nothing from the entire exercise.
And still the fox threat continues unabated
.
The whole project was a steaming scat, perhaps one of the better construed abuses of taxpayer and ratepayer funds of the Blue Mountains in living memory.
In 2006, the NPWS then umbrella department called the ‘Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) in its ‘State of the Environment Report 2006′, Chapter 6 on Biodiversity, reported on ‘ Terrestrial Invasive Species (Section 6.4). It acknowledged the feral predation problem, combining it with the weed problem:
“Invasive species remain one of the greatest threats to biodiversity in New South Wales. Over half of all the key threatening processes listed relate to invasive species. Once invasive species become widely established, few can ever be eradicated, and controlling them must focus on strategically limiting their impacts on biodiversity. The main vertebrate pests in NSW have been present for the last century, with many widespread across the State.
Predation by foxes and cats is implicated in the decline or extinction of numerous small- to medium-sized animals. Herbivores, particularly rabbits and feral goats, are responsible for overgrazing of native vegetation and land degradation. Some 1350 exotic plant species have become established in NSW, more than 300 of which are significant environmental weeds. New pest species continue to become established in the environment. Combining prevention, early detection and eradication is the most cost-effective way to minimise the impacts of new pests.”
.
DECC listed ‘Introduced Terrestrial Species’ (Ed: a fancy name for feral foxes and cats, etc) as a key bio-indicator of National Park health, with pest animals having a devastating impact on biodiversity. Predation by feral cats and red foxes had contributed to regional declines and the extinction of a range of native species, particularly among small-to medium-sized ground-dwelling and semi-arboreal mammals, ground-nesting birds, and freshwater turtles (Dickman 1996).
DECC recommended better coordination efforts across jurisdictions to target control efforts for species listed as key threatening processes, and research into more effective and target-specific control methods, such as biological control. It prepared a NSW Threat Abatement Plan (TAP). It prioritised feral cat control based on a review of the evidence of cat impacts, and little mention of foxes. The threat abatement strategy was “Research…Develop and trial a cat-specific bait that will ensure non-target species are not impacted.”
Then three years hence in 2007, the NPWS fox survey report was getting a tad stale, so NPWS did another survey and another report. The Katoomba NPWS regional office this time was aggregation feral animals with weeds, and calling the lot ‘pests’. It was drafting its ‘regional pest strategy’ and foxes were now grouped with weeds. It asked for community input, but like most government strategies, they stopped short of funded action to do anything except generate another report confirming a problem that needed to be addressed. This is the report:
Ed: Another year another plan, nothing done, ongoing fox predation, less wildlife.
.
We end here as we began, with a last word from a concerned reader, which succinctly tells it as it is:
.
‘Act now to save native wildlife or it’ll be too late‘
.
“This letter is an appeal on behalf of all our endangered native creatures being destroyed by the ever-increasing numbers of feral animals.
The Federal Government estimates there are 18 million feral cats roaming our countryside killing our unique marsupials and birds in numbers that equate to a massacre. There are also countless numbers of foxes doing their best to wipe out our wildlife. And those are only two of the dreadful “invasive” animals, as the Government calls them. There are also cane toads, carp, pigs and goats.
Unfortunately for our native creatures there is not a politician in Australia who seems to be interested in this matter. They will jump up and down about whales, but ask them to show some interest in our native wildlife and they are struck dumb. If you ask the political parties they will say they have policies to solve these problems but that is empty rhetoric. No one is doing anything constructive to address this problem.
In the case of feral cats, I am advised that governments have access to a number of viruses that could be used with some success but I can only surmise these brave politicians are afraid of a backlash from the “domestic cat lobby”, even though there are vaccines available to protect pet cats.
The only party that I thought might show an interest in this problem, the Greens, hides behinds a screen of policy statements that means absolutely nothing unless implemented with some positive action.
Perhaps someone with some interest in this terrible problem and who has the clout to do something about it might start the ball rolling to protect our native wildlife. Otherwise future generations of Australians may see our brilliant birds and fascinating marsupials only in zoos.
[Source: ‘Act now to save native wildlife or it’ll be too late‘, (letter to the editor) by Neville Ridge, Bowral, Sydney Morning Herald, 20090110, p.24]
.
…well perhaps not the last word…
Fox Predation – unequivocal results
Roland Van Zelst, left, Rene Mooejkind and Darren Bain with their night’s haul.
(Photo by Lee Griffith)
.
Hundreds of foxes and other feral animals have been culled in agricultural regions across WA to protect livestock and native animals from the destructive pests.
At the weekend, hundreds of farmers and scores of volunteers took part in the annual Red Card for Red Fox drive which encourages rural communities to bait and shoot foxes.
The cull will resume on the March 20-21 weekend.
Now in its eighth year, the Red Fox Drive aims to reduce Australia’s seven million-strong fox population. During the cull weekends, agricultural communities also target feral pigs, cats and rabbits. In the community of Wandering, 120km south-east of Perth, locals culled 140 foxes, nine feral pigs, 12 feral cats and 43 rabbits.
Co-ordinator Lisa Turton said the aim was to keep the fox population at a manageable level.
“We will never be able to eradicate the foxes,” Ms Turton said. “But we need to ensure that their populations are low because they do get to the young lambs and they target the native birds and marsupials.” Foxes eat an average of 136kg of food a year, including lambs, mice, rabbits and many species of native animals.
Ms Turton said those participating in the drive were not “cowboys” with guns but instead followed strict guidelines. “Everybody who takes part must do so on their own land,” she said. “We don’t just go out on the road and start shooting. We do this to protect the native species.”
Last year, 5000 foxes, 230 feral cats and 2500 rabbits were shot over the four weekends throughout WA.
Response from the Livestock Health and Pest Authority 20120914:
Livestock Health and Pest Authorities (LHPAs) are responsible for administering and enforcing the Rural Lands Protection Act 1998 (RLP Act), which governs the control of declared pest animals in New South Wales (NSW). Animals declared as pests include; feral pigs, wild dogs and European wild rabbits. The declaration of the species as pests requires landholders to control them. Other animals such as foxes, goats and deer are feral and considered pests by many people but the legislation doesn’t require landholders to continually control them.
There are many reasons why these other species of feral animals are not declared pests such as, restricted control options (in the case of fox control), public perception, potential financial value and even recreational value. Therefore the control of these species essentially lies with the landholder to determine whether they need to control them based on impacts caused by the species not because the landholder is legally required to. For example, foxes preying on lambs on an agricultural property, or foxes preying on an endangered species in a National Park.
LHPAs are a statutory authority funded via a rating system whereby landholders with 10 hectares or more pay compulsory rates to the LHPA. LHPAs provide assistance to these landholders in relation to livestock health and pest animal control. LHPAs also provide much greater benefit to the general community through livestock disease surveillance and disease control, and the coordination of pest and feral animal control programs on LHPA rateable and non rateable land.
LHPAs cannot simply declare animal species as pests under the RLP Act. This decision is made by government and LHPAs enforce the legislation set by government. Despite this, LHPAs are involved in coordinating numerous fox control programs around NSW for both agricultural and environmental benefits.
Legal restrictions on pesticide use and restrictions on other control techniques present challenges for landholders in implementing effective fox control. There are restrictions on the distance baits must be laid from houses, a requirement to notify all people who are within 1km of bait sites, and those laying the bait require a training qualification to use and store the pesticide known as 1080. This presents a problem with implementing fox control along the urban and peri-urban corridor along the Great Western Highway in the Blue Mountains.
LHPAs do not set these restrictions. These are set in Pesticide legislation and regulated by the Environment Protection Authority (EPA), and are in place for valid reasons such as reducing the likely impact to animals like domestic dogs which are very susceptible to 1080. LHPAs must however ensure that the restrictions can be observed and applied by the person laying baits to ensure that it is used safely and effectively whilst minimising risks.
1080 is a very effective poison to control carnivores and is very target specific contrary to what many people are led to believe. It is a naturally occurring chemical in Australia and as a result of this many of our native species, particularly birds and reptiles have high natural tolerances to 1080.
Rubber jaw leg hold traps for foxes and wild dogs is effective but generally very labour intensive and require specialised skills. Cage trapping is considered ineffective and only occasionally results in success. Baiting is generally used to reduce populations significantly and trapping is utilised as a secondary technique which aims at maintaining populations at a low level.
The Blue Mountains World Heritage Area (BMWHA) is an enormous area much of which is completely inaccessible. Despite a history of control programs, pest and feral animals are still present, even if in low densities due to the success of control programs. On mainland Australia, despite developments in control techniques, research and understanding of feral and pest animal biology, we are yet to eradicate an introduced vertebrate pest species.
Due to budgetary constraints pest and feral animal control has become much more strategic over the last decade. Pest control is being prioritised based on impacts caused by a particular species whether it is a feral or a declared pest and programs have become highly coordinated to get the most effective results with the available resources. Coordination has involved the establishment of working groups, one such example is the Oberon feral pig and wild dog working group which largely covers most of the BMWHA and includes representatives from various government departments and private landholders who work together to coordinate and implement programs which provide joint benefit to agriculture and the environment.
Pest control can be a sensitive issue and although it may seem little is being achieved, there are a number of programs being implemented particularly in the BMWHA which is a significant conservation area with unique values. The urban corridor through the middle of it adds to its uniqueness but also presents many challenges one of which is pest management. Urban fringe areas generally support higher densities of some pest animals, namely foxes, as we provide them with ideal opportunities to prosper such as food and harbour which are the fundamentals for their survival. We do this without even realising for example, leaving food out for dogs or keeping poultry in our backyards. These are simple examples that are highly attractive to foxes and they can’t resist and won’t refuse them.
Community education and responsible domestic animal keeping is the key to eliminating most of the problem. Pest and feral animal control is a landscape issue and therefore everyone’s problem, not just government. LHPAs will continue to assist landholders and coordinate control programs working within the legislation to ensure that pest control is target specific and effective in providing benefits to agriculture and the environment.’
Steve ParkerRangerCumberland Livestock Health and Pest Authority
Queenstown Moonscape Tours – once was temperate rainforest
.
A wee ‘tea and scones’ tourism boom could be encouraged in Tasmania, treating visitors to Tasmanian reality art exhibitions – with themes such as:
‘Convict Tourism’ – Cannibal Alexander Pearce at it, days in the life at Maria Island, Cascades, Port Arthur, Martin Bryant’s gun collection, Risdon’s worst.
.
‘Ecoterrorism Tourism’ – See Forestry Tasmania at it in the Florentine Valley, See Stihl at work felling old growth, take Clearfell Tours, watch the wildlife scurry, see a ‘Scorched Earthing‘ photographic exhibition.
Watch loggers Rodney Howells, Jeremy Eizell and Terrence Pearce ecoterrorism videos: Sample video below on 21st October 2008, shows these Tasmanian loggers attacking two young forest defenders in a car, using sledge hammers. [^Read More]
WARNING ! THIS FOOTAGE CONTAINS STRONG LANGUAGE AND MAY BE DISTRESSING
(Turn sound up)
.
‘Grenade Fishing’ – see it demonstrated on Tasmania’s Penstock Lagoon, now that petrol outboards are banned.
‘Wildlife Bagging’ – see the live action on Tasmania’s Moulting Lagoon – Black Swans and Pied Oystercatchers – shot plucked and gutted. Fun for all the family!
‘Mutton birding’ Tourism – Visit Flinders Island. Watch them rip the native Short-tailed Shearwater chicks out from their burrows and throttle their necks – give it a go yourself – it’s easy!
[Source: Gourmet Farmer 6th October, Flinders Island, Series 2, Episode 7, SBS Television].
“Hi Everyone, Just a quick reminder that mutton bird season is open from the 2nd April 2011 until 17th April 2011 on Flinders Island…
Just remember if you don’t have a mutton birding licence then please visit your nearest Service Tasmania Shop or their website to obtain one. A mutton birding licence will set you back $27.20 for a full fee or $21.75 of a concession fee.”
Or try Flinders Island Wallaby…”Bennetts Wallaby and Pademelon Wallaby are found in large numbers on the Island. The gathering of wallabies are restricted on a quota basis that is reviewed annually and is independent of market demand.” [Source: ^http://www.flindersislandmeat.com.au/]
Bennetts Wallaby
Native to Tasmania and surrounding islands such as Flinders Island
[Source: ^http://www.davidcook.com.au/images/images_mammals/bennetts_wallaby.jpg]
.
“Native animals are considered pests by the Tasmanian rural community and their control a wasteful cost. Lenah Game Meats of Tasmania..”is attempting to turn this situation around so that with time and market development it is hoped the rural community will come to see the animals adapted to the Australian landscape as ‘friends’ rather than foe….Lenah were the first people to harvest and process wallaby and market it to the restaurant trade.” [^Read More]
.
‘1080’ PoisonTours – how it works, watch it in action, proof exhibits, discount taxidermy home delivered
‘Queenstown Memories’ – Mount Lyell moonscape tours, Queen River cruises, spot the three eyed fish games, sample Macquarie Harbour cuisine
See the copper flows in the once pristine Queen and King RiversIf the copper doesn’t kill you, then the cadmium, lead, cobalt, silver or chromium will.
.
‘Self-drive Tourism’ – play ‘I spy with my little eye’, or ‘count the roadkill’, or dodge the log trucks
.
Photo taken by Editor while driving along the Tasman Highway, Tasmania 20110927, free in public domain
.
Cape Grim Heritage Tourism – discover its namesake (massacre of Tasmanian Aborigines on 10th February 1828) – learn about early colonial hunting. [^Read More]
‘Burn offs by Air’ – see the smoke by air
‘Tassie Holes’ – see the mines by air
‘Scarefaces by Air’ – see the native forest clearfells by air
.
All such Tasmanian Reality Tourism can be delivered direct from the window, and what better than with home made piping hot Tassie tea and scones!
.
.
.
.
“The Styx State Forest will continue to be sustainably managed, providing the public with Australia’s finest timbers, protection for Tasmania’s unique biodiversity, and a popular recreation resource. Tours of the surrounding forests are available from the Maydena Adventure Hub.”
~ Forestry Tasmania
.
Wilfred Batty of Mawbanna, Tasmania, with the last Tasmanian Tiger known to have been shot in the wild.
He shot the tiger in May, 1930 after it was discovered in his hen house.
Source: State Library of Tasmania eHeritage
From its satellite image, Tasmania is a green ‘apple’ isle
(except the bright ‘apple’ colour dominating Tasmania’s east is grass, long clear-felled forest for farming.
Any wonder why Eastern Tasmania lives in a rain-shadow getting just 600 mm of rainfall a year.)
.
.
.
Any State that uses 1080 is backward and internationally sends a message of being so.
It’s tourism marketing should have its brand tarnished so. Tasmania’s ecological image deserves to be as bad as New Zealand’s. NZ’s Department of Conservation drops 1080 indiscriminately out of helicopters in spades.
‘Pure’ New Zealand has a reputation for aerial poison of its native forests using ‘1080 poison’
.
The natural forest vista harbours a sterile faunal ecosystem. Tourism doesn’t care. It’s promotional photos still convey its target ‘pristine’ image, irrespective of the faunal carnage below the tree canopy.
‘Satellite Pristine’ – a ecologically contestable concept, eh?
I am sure that Guantanamo adopted a military ‘spit -and-polish’ image from the front gates too.’
.
The entrance to Camp Justice, the site of the U.S. war crimes tribunal compound, at Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base in Cuba (Reuters)
.
by Tigerquoll
Suggan Buggan
Victoria 3885
Australia
The following article was initially posted by Tigerquoll as a comment on the Tasmanian Times 20100202:
.
1080 ‘blue carrots’
.
Six years ago, the Tasmanian Greens tabled their Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Amendment (Ban 1080) Bill 2004 to ban the use of 1080 poison (sodium monofluoroacetate) against native wildlife. But it excluded “persons directly employed with the Fox Task Force, up until the period ending 1 October 2006.”
‘Fox Task Force‘ …what a scam! Talk about dodgy jobs for mates at DPI. All they come up with is shit. It could be Drop Bear shit! They may as well be called it the Drop Bear Task Force and dress ’em up in black special forces attire and give ’em paint guns.
1080 must be banned in Tasmania outright including this fraudulent drop bear mob. I’d like to see an FOI on how much the taxpayer has funded them since they were set up. $10 million? We could have found a cure for the Devil’s face tumor or housed hundreds of homeless youth in Tasmania by now.
Tasmania’s “Department of Primary Industries and Water is the only importer of 1080 into Tasmania and only authorised officers of the Department handle the poison.” So the 1080 buck stps with DPI. DPI’s head needs to show cause, whoever the latest ‘acting’ secretary is! DPI has had so many name changes, ministers and bosses, DPI staff must be running the show. GM Environment was Warren Jones in October, so he can take the can, unless he’s been sacked as well.
According to DPI’s latest annual report, its Environment branch has a mission “to ensure best practice in environmental management and pollution control”…blah blah blah.
Well best practice in environmental management is exercising the precautionary principle, which in lay terms means if you’re not sure don’t intervene. Well ban 1080 until you can deliver a fox to the Hobart Town Hall!
.
.
Tasmanian native Pademelons killed by 1080 poison
Source: http://www.redbubble.com/people/cradlemountain/art/3160948-why-is-1080-poison-not-good-for-tasmania-and-the-world
.
‘By the year 2000, the Tasmanian Government poisoned 30 million native animals by allowing forest and farming industries to kill all marsupials (other species were sacrificed along with the slaughter).
Here I was collecting bodies and found nine different species affected, dead. This little female wallaby was clasping onto grass and had made a circle in the ground while dying in pain. I could not get the grass out of her little paws.’
A live and healthy native Tasmanian Pademelon
.
.
1080 is immoral
.
1080 (sodium monofluroacetate) is a cruel and indiscriminate poison used to ‘remove’ unwanted populations of animals.
Banned in most countries, 1080 is still used liberally throughout Australia and New Zealand to control so-called ‘pest’ species, and reduce ‘browsing damage’ caused by native animals on private land. Its use is indiscriminate, which means that it kills not just the target feral animals but every animal in the area that eats off the forest floor.
1080 poison is a slow killer. When ingested (usually through baited food) the animal suffers a prolonged and horrific death. Herbivores take the longest to die – up to 44hrs, while carnivores can take up to 21hrs before finally succumbing to final effects of the poison. The speed of death is dependent on the rate of the animals metabolism.
.
A Slow & Horrific Death
.
Witnesses to the deaths of herbivorous animals, such as macropods, have reported:
“Affected wallabies were sometimes observed sitting hunched up, with heads held shakily just above the ground. Generally they appeared non-alert and ‘sick’, with shivering or shaking forelimbs and unsteady balance. Most individuals then experience convulsions, falling to the ground and lying on their backs and sides, kicking and making running motions with their hind legs before dying. Many individuals also ejaculated shortly before death, and, with others, exuded a white froth from their nostrils and mouth.”
Carnivorous animals such as dingoes, dogs, foxes, and cats become very agitated, as they tremble, convulse and vomit.”
Also, 1080 is indiscriminate, it kills all carnivores including Devils, and endangered quolls and dogs.
“Under state poisons legislation, 1080 is a Schedule 7 poison and is available only to specialised or authorised users who have the skills necessary to handle it safely. Under the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Regulations 1995, products containing 1080 are also declared to be ‘Restricted Chemical Products’. As such, the products can only be supplied to or used by ‘authorised person(s)’. Individual states set the authorisation criteria taking the APVMA’s and state regulatory requirements into account.
Despite these regulations, poisoning of non-target wildlife and domestic pets is common and farm animal species can also be at risk. In NSW, an estimated 14,000 baits are laid per Rural Land Protection Board per annum, and 2002-2003 figures on 1080 use released by the Tasmanian Government indicated Forestry Tasmania used 23 per cent, farmers 47 per cent, and private forestry 30 per cent. In the same year, the Tasmanian Government also released statistics stating that 97,000 wallabies and brushtail possums had been poisoned by 1080, primarily through baiting programs aimed at targeting browsing and grazing native animals as part of forestry management. Phasing out of 1080 in Tasmanian forests has since commenced.
Canines are particularly susceptible to 1080 and the lethal dose for dogs has been calculated at 0.05mg/kg. Once consumed, it is rapidly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract, impairing cellular respiration through disruption of the citric acid cycle with resultant CNS anoxia and cardiovascular disturbance. 1080 can also be absorbed from the respiratory tract and through cuts and abrasions.
1080 has no specific antidote and even in animals treated symptomatically, is usually fatal.”
1080 poison is as vicious as laying 19th Century steel jaw traps around Hobart parks, or giving kids air rifles to play with at school.
It is incumbent on the public’s trust in the ethics and responsibility of the Tasmanian Government’s Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (etc) to show proof of foxes or else ban 1080 poison outright across Tasmania.
Else it will be some perturbed fox myth that ends up killing Tasmania’s devils, quolls, wallabies, the forester kangaroo, just like the 19th Century myth that Thylacene’s killed farmers’ sheep so deserving their redneck extinction.
The DPI always claims recent physical evidence of foxes. If so, then show recent proof to the public, not old specimen carcasses from a zoo. Show the Tasmanian public also independent zoological proof that using 1080 cannot harm non-target species!
.
Victoria following Tasmania’s backward example
.
‘Authorised persons in Victoria can now purchase 1080 pest animal bait products from accredited retailers or licensed perishable bait manufacturers.
Two categories of 1080 pest animal bait products are now available in Victoria:
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) registered 1080 pest animal bait products (‘shelf-stable bait’) such as dry oats and dried meat baits. Retailers of these baits must have Agsafe Guardian 1080 accreditation.
Perishable 1080 pest animal bait products (‘fresh’ bait) such as carrot and liver, manufactured using 1080 aqueous solution registered with the APVMA for that purpose. These bait products are not registered with the APVMA but are supplied under an APVMA permit. The manufacturer of these bait products is also the retailer. These persons must meet specific training and accreditation requirements and be licensed by the Department of Human Services (DHS).
In order to purchase 1080 pest animal bait products you need to complete a Course in Minimising the Risks in the Use of 1080 Pest Animal Bait Products for Vertebrate Pest Control and obtain a 1080 endorsement to your Agricultural Chemical User Permit (ACUP).
These changes are designed to make it easier for you to purchase 1080 pest animal bait products. They enable users to purchase 1080 pest animal bait products from local accredited retailers during normal business hours, enable a greater range of 1080 pest animal bait products to become available to users, and make the manufacture, supply and use of 1080 pest animal bait products safer.’
South Australia following Tasmania’s backward example
.
‘The Controlled Substances (Poisons) Regulations,1996 allows land owners access to 1080 baits (sodium fluoroacetate) for the control of rabbits, foxes and dingoes/ wild dogs on their own property.
The current Label, Directions for Use and Material Safety Data Sheet are reproduced here for each bait product.
The Directions for Use include the following documents:
Record of notification of neighbours before commencement of baiting programs
Checklist to be used when a person first receives baits
Poison laid sign design
Authorisation to use the baits requires the land owner (or their agent nominated in writing) to sign an Approval to Possess 1080 Bait form supplied by a Natural Resources Management officer. Non-compliance with the Directions for Use is an offence under the Controlled Substances Act, 1984 and the Agricultural and Veterinary Products (Control of Use) Act, 2002.
For information on the supply and possession of 1080 bait, contact the Environmental Health Branch, Department of Health on (08) 8226 7117 or (08) 8226 7137.
For information or advice on suspected cases of misuse of 1080 bait products or to report that non-target animals may have been poisoned by 1080, contact PIRSA Biosecurity – Rural Chemicals on (08) 8226 0528.
The following article was published on CanDoBetter.net today (20110915) by wildlife ecologist and biologist, Hans Brunner, under the title: ‘A planned slaughter of endangered wildlife’
.
The Victorian Government plans to drop 1080 poison bait from an aircraft into forests could result in the extinction of the already critically endangered Spotted-tailed Quoll.
The purpose of this antiquated and vandalistic method is to poison wild dogs. Why is the Victorian Government using old, dangerous methods? This is like re-introducing the use of DDT. It is now a double disaster; all Ted Baillieu has to do now is to aerial bait to kill wild dogs in order to protect the cattle he allowed to go back into the mountains! Spot-tailed quolls and other dasyurids are meat eaters as well as some species of possums, reptiles, bandicoots and birds. They would be all at a serious risk of being poisoned. Further more, most of this bait would be wasted because of the dogs not being able to find them and this is where non-target animals will rather find and eat them. Baits have therefore to be placed only in places which dogs frequently use, along forest tracks.
.
More effective methods
There is a well researched and efficient method for the poisoning of wild dogs and foxes. It is a target specific bait station system which is successfully used throughout Victoria. Bait stations are placed along forest tracks where activities of dogs are observed.
A bait station consists of a mound of soil about 20 cm high and one meter in diameter. An un poisoned bait (free feed) is buried in the center of the mound about 10cm deep with some SFE lure placed on top. When the bait has been dug up and eaten, a check is made, with some experience, to assess whether a dog or fox took the bait. If satisfied that a target species took the bait it can be replaced with a poison bait. If it appears that a quoll or an other non-target animal may have taken the free feed bait, continue free feeding that station to keep the quoll and others away from a poison station (about 2 km away) or eliminate that station.
.
This is the only responsible way to poison dogs and foxes. Even better, it will be of great benefit to not only the quolls by removing the competition by dogs and foxes of their natural prey species, but also for the survival of Kangaroos, wallabies, bandicoots, possums, echidnas etc.
.
Biologist’s experience of alternatives
I have researched and tested this system in 700 square km of forest between Gembrook and Neerim and found it most effective and efficient. I have also introduced it in NSW National Parks where it was recognized as “The dog baiting stations proposed by Hans are the best practical suggestion to date. With the implementation of the bait stations, properly maintained and serviced at the appropriate times, there would appear to be NO reason to allow the continued use of aerial baiting” and, “Poisoning using the buried bait technique is still proving extremely target specific, with dogs and foxes being the only species killed”.
.
Do it the right way and wildlife return
Barbara Triggs, an eminent naturalist stated after poisoning wild dogs and foxes and using the bait station system on her property in Croajingolong National Park, East Gippsland:
.
“At no time has there been any evidence that a bait has been taken by a non-target animal. In the past year the numbers of native animals seen on the property have increased startlingly. The Red-necked Wallabies, who’s group was here in low numbers, have increased markedly from five individuals to now at least fourteen. The most surprising increase has been in the population of Long-nosed Bandicoots. The Dusky Antechinus, Swamp Rats, Water Rats, Sugar Gliders and several species of ground-nesting birds and also species of owls are much more in evidence than ever before.”
.
With all this evidence, this non specific and irresponsible aerial baiting must be immediately stopped.’
‘Cynical dismissal of substantial material evidence‘
‘An acceptance of unreferenced anecdotes as proof (of eastern quolls being introduced to Bruny in the 1970s) alongside cynical dismissal of substantial material evidence that has passed several reviews (of foxes in Tasmania) sits very poorly with your call to just deal with facts Mr Clarke (letters, Mercury 15th).
I presume your anecdotal proof is nobody you know remembering eastern quolls to be on Bruny before 1970.
Maybe they were rare then and simply overlooked or just never officially recorded just like much wildlife there.
DNA comparisons suggests Bruny Island quolls have been separated from mainland Tasmanian populations for a lot longer than 40 years.
I remain to be convinced eastern quolls were introduced to Bruny in the 1970s. Radical boom-bust cycles are a natural feature of eastern quoll ecology and the current boom will bust.
There are no species on Bruny that do not cope with eastern quolls and or spotted-tailed quolls and devils elsewhere in Tasmania so who’s mounting the scare campaign Mr Clarke?
Eastern quolls are not top predators on Bruny. Masked owls prey on them as can cats and diurnal birds of prey are one reason they are nocturnal. Eastern quolls are extinct on mainland Australia mainly because of foxes and will be amongst the first to go if foxes get fully established here.
If you look beyond your backyard Mr Clarke you might find you actually have an asset.
Finally, I have never been head of wildlife management and my views sometimes conflict with those of the department.
I prefer to put devils on Bruny because its a restoration and not a range extension such as Maria Island, the department’s preference, and something being assessed for years before the Tasmanian Conservation Trust showed interest.’
‘Another native Tasmanian species is under threat, with the population of eastern quolls falling around the state.
The decline has alarmed experts as the eastern quoll was expected to thrive to fill the void left by falling numbers of disease-ravaged Tasmanian devils.
The University of Tasmania and the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment will investigate the extent of the falling population.
DPIPWE threatened species zoologist Clare Hawkins said the study would provide scientific data on the status of the species.
She said annual spotlighting information suggested the population of the eastern quoll had declined.
“It does appear quite complicated as at the same time there are areas of the state, such as Bruny Island, where landowners are reporting they have never seen so many eastern quolls,” she said.
“It may be that in some areas of the state they remain in high numbers, whereas other parts of Tasmania have had declines, or it may be that in some areas they are coming into closer contact with the urban environment making them more observed, which could be masking an overall decline.”
University of Tasmania zoology honours student Bronwyn Fancourt said a systematic survey would provide scientific information on the wild population, building on information about population changes and showing whether there were areas where increases or decreases had occurred.
“Tasmania is the last stronghold for the eastern quoll as it is now presumed extinct on mainland Australia, which highlights the importance of having scientific data on what the population is doing,” Ms Fancourt said.
She said the survey was taking place through a trap-and-release program at various sites.
Information from this program and any other data collected could help an understanding of possible contributory factors if the quolls were in decline.
When assessing the risks of 1080 fox baiting to individuals or populations of any particular species a number of things should be taken into account, including:
• The physiological sensitivity of the species to 1080 poison (depends on many things principal amongst them the historic exposure of the species to 1080 as it occurs in Australian plants), something that can be experimentally measured.
• How many baits the species might find (depends on the sensory abilities of the animal, how, where and the number of baits placed in a given area — the landscape density).
• How many baits the species might eat within a certain period. To cause death, a lethal dose has to be ingested in a certain time — usually within 2 days because sub lethal doses of 1080 are metabolised. Dried meat baits are too hard for many species to do more than mouth and nibble but many species can eat other baits such as Foxoff (eg non toxic bait trials — Belcher 1998 and DPIW data). There is evidence some species can detect 1080 in baits and avoid eating them (eg the spotted-tailed quoll in Foxoff baits, Kortner et al 2003).
• How much 1080 is left in baits when they are eaten (if they are decomposing, 1080 will have also degraded to a comparable degree).
• The likelihood of the species digesting baits (many carnivores and omnivores regurgitate food containing significant amounts of 1080. There are past records of devils regurgitating 1080-laced food in captive trials).
• The age and health of the individual eating the bait or carcasses of poisoned animals (smaller individuals of a species likely have higher metabolisms and consequent usual higher sensitivity to 1080 and healthy individuals likely have more resistance to 1080)
• The size of individuals in the population at baiting (size effects metabolism and consequent susceptibility to 1080. Individuals of the same species might be different in size in different populations, eg devils on the east coast of Tasmania are much larger than west coast individuals, and there may be many small juveniles just after breeding).
• How the species’ range and abundance overlaps with 1080 baiting (the proportion of the species that might be exposed to baiting).
Physiological sensitivity
The level of physiological sensitivity of a species to 1080 is usually described as the species’ LD50 – that is the mg of 1080 ingested per kg of animal during a very short period that will kill 50% of the individuals exposed (LD = Lethal Dose). Most of the research on LD50s for Australian animals and the potential impacts of 1080 was done on captive animals decades ago by Dr John McIlroy, then at CSIRO, and published in various issues of Australian Wildlife Research (eg McIlroy, 1981a, 1981b and 1981c) and he still gives occasional advice on the matter to DPIW. It is doubtful if this work could ever be substantially expanded or repeated because it involves lethal testing.
LD50s for some Tasmanian animals of obvious interest as potential non-target consumers of fox baits (mainly dried kangaroo meat but also some Foxoff meat compound) are
We see that kg-for-kg, red foxes are over 13 times as sensitive to 1080 as are spotted-tailed quolls and 30 times as sensitive as devils. The LD50 for spotted-tailed quolls is lower than might be expected considering those for its relatives, the eastern quoll and Tasmanian devil. McIlroy has expressed the opinion the small sample size and temperatures the results were obtained under may have given a too low result. This is born up by most mainland research that shows little effect of fox and wild dog baiting on spotted-tailed quolls (eg Kortner et al 2003).
Persistence of 1080 in baits
In the field, 1080 breaks down by microbe and fungal activity. Meat baits as used in Tasmania are about 120g of fresh kangaroo meat, each dosed with 3mg of 1080 dried hard to about 40g for storage then use (eg Saunders et al 1995). By the time they are set (buried) some 1080 is already broken down and on average they then only contain 2.7mg – a 10% loss. Once buried, degradation of 1080 accelerates, the rate depending on soil conditions (particularly moisture and temperature) and consequent baits degradation. Such degradation of 1080 is well known (eg Saunders et al 2000).
Tasmanian 1080 fox dried meat baits have been tested after different times in the ground in field conditions and on average after 2 days in the ground only 43.3% of 1080 remained, after 5 days there was 28.2% left, after 10 days 19.7% and after 15 days 11.6%. However, there was considerable variation even between neighbouring baits; some in wet places have much less 1080 residue and some in dry places much more than the average.
Number of baits needed to put individuals at risk
Considering the sensitivity of spotted-tailed quolls, devils and foxes to 1080 and degradation of 1080 in buried baits we can calculate how many baits buried for various times need to be eaten by different sized spotted-tailed quolls, devils and foxes within 2 days to have a 50% chance of being killed.
We see below that a very small spotted-tailed quoll will consume an LD50 if it eats most of one freshly layed bait but that same animal would have to eat at least 5 baits within 2 days once they had been in the ground for two weeks to be at similar risk. Similarly a very large spotted-tailed quoll would have to eat more than 4 freshly layed baits to be at risk but more than 30 after two weeks in the ground.
We see below that even a very small devil (probably not even weaned) needs to eat more than 3 freshly layed baits within 2 days to reach an LD50 and large devils need to eat very many baits in a short period to reach an LD50.
We see that foxes are extremely susceptible to 1080 baiting and in many circumstances need less than 1 bait to reach an LD50.
The chances of individuals finding enough baits in a short enough period to be at risk
Extensive testing with foxes on mainland Australia clearly shows they can find baits immediately they are buried; initial take is often high and usually continues until baits and/or foxes are greatly reduced (eg Saunders et al 1995). Limited testing with Foxoff and fresh meat baits with captive and wild spotted-tailed quolls in NSW showed they could detect buried baits but trials only identified this species as taking 2 of 7 baits taken after 3-4 weeks buried adjacent to a spotted-tailed latrine in the wild (Belcher 1998); results consistent with Tasmanian observations considering time buried and that baits were replaced exactly where taken (see below).
Research on take of fox baits without 1080 was undertaken with an isolated, island population of devils (no quolls or foxes present). Initial take was very low (a few % per night) but escalated once baits began to rot, to the point where most baits were taken after 3 weeks. These results were mirrored in places with devils and spotted-tailed quolls, devils and eastern quolls and eastern quolls alone; there are no places exclusively with spotted-tailed quolls in Tasmania. If baits were replaced in a hole where a previous bait had rotted then re-take could be immediate but if placed in a new hole take was very low. Devils in particular would sometimes deeply excavate holes in which baits had rotted.
It seems devils and quolls are not well equipped to find buried baits until they rot or are otherwise smelly (or replaced); probably there has been no need in their evolution. On the other hand, foxes and dogs evolved under conditions of extremely harsh winters where caching and recovering food (or raiding others’ caches) was fundamental to survival. Therefore, these canids are ‘professionals’ at finding buried food (eg Saunders et al 1995, Twigg et al 2000). This does not mean that other species cannot find any buried baits or might even be exposed accidentally (eg during echidna excavations) but it is a clear trend.
There has been considerable questioning of what animals have taken the thousands of baits of the nearly 80,000 sofar set in Tasmania. Checking baits daily allows a reasonable judgment of what might have taken them and in the early days of baiting (2002/3) when daily checks were undertaken about 20 baits were recorded as taken in typical fox style (as seen else where in Australia). Once baiting expanded and baits were only checked at recovery such judgments of take could rarely be made; hence the experiments reported here. If baits were recovered 2-3 weeks after burial few were missing but if it was 3 weeks or more most might be – it seemed a simple fact of rotting and then being found.
In operational fox baiting in Tasmania, baits are buried at a landscape density of 5-10/km2. The number of baits in an animal’s home range can also be considered and how much competition there might be for baits. A large devil might have 100 baits in its home range but that home range would likely be shared by 10-30 other devils plus quolls (and possibly foxes). Thus, the baits available per individual are comparatively few.
The chances of individuals eating enough baits in a short enough period to be at risk
Although they can easily eat soft baits, test have shown that small or even medium sized spotted-tailed quolls and very small devils do not (probably can not) eat very dry and hard baits and it is not until they are independent that they are likely to be under enough nutritional pressure and are strong enough to eat such. Tests on captive mainland Australian spotted-tailed quolls support these results (Belcher 2000).
What actually happens in the field?
Considerable research has been done on effects of 1080 fox baiting on spotted-tailed quolls on mainland Australia (eg Kortner ET al 2003). In Tasmania, experimental 1080 baiting was not carried out but rather, research waited until an operational baiting occurred in an area with enough spotted-tailed quolls to usefully study (near Wynyard).
Although there were too few quolls in the study sites area (and a comparative control site with no baiting) to have statistically robust comparisons of numbers before and after baiting we found individual spotted-tailed quolls similarly persisted in both areas through and after baiting. Importantly, there were breeding females (with pouch young) and free ranging juveniles present in both sites after baiting; there was no identifiable difference between baited and non-baited sites. This work will be repeated as opportunity presents.
In the northern midlands where the effects of 1080 fox baiting on devils was being studied, there was also a ‘background’ population of spotted-tailed quolls. Trapping after a prolonged baiting period showed all elements of a normal devil population in place – breeders and juveniles with no apparent drop in density. Perhaps most interestingly, in the months after this research a substantial drop in numbers of devils due to Devil Facial Tumour Disease occurred and in another 6 months numbers of spotted-tailed quoll seemed to have measurably increased (probably due to decreased competition and predation from the fewer devils) and has stayed high with an apparently normal mix of breeders and juveniles. DFTD it seems has absolutely overwhelming effects (even if indirect) compared to fox baiting.
In an area in which Foxoff meat compound baits were operationally used extensive capture-mark-recapture studies were done of large local populations of Tasmanian bettongs Bettongia giamardi and brushtail possums Truchosaurus vulpecula, two species likely to eat these baits. Very few Foxoff baits were taken and there was no difference in population change between the baited site and a control site.
These Tasmanian ‘pilot’ studies suggest there is little if any damage to local populations of spotted-tailed quoll, Tasmanian devils, Tasmanian bettongs or brushtail possum from 1080 fox baiting in Tasmania as is known to have severe effects on fox populations on mainland Australia (eg Saunders et al 1995).
State-wide Effects
A final check can be made by looking at what proportion of Tasmania’s spotted-tailed quoll and devil population might be exposed to 1080 fox baiting. Sofar, 1080 fox baiting has only touched the fringe of Tasmania’s core spotted-tailed quoll habitat and perhaps less than 2-3% of Tasmania’s spotted-tailed quolls have been in baited areas. Similarly perhaps 5% of Tasmania’s devils have been in baited areas. These areas and percentages may increase by half with planned fox baiting but, even then the reality is little or no effect on a small proportion of the State’s populations of these important species.
References
Belcher, C. (1998). Susceptibility of the tiger quoll, Dasyurus maculatus, and the eastern quoll D. viverrinus, to 1080-poisoned baits in control programmes for vertebrate pests in eastern Australia. Wildlife Research 25, 33-40.
Belcher, C. (2000). The ecology of the Tiger Quoll Dasyurus maculatus, in south-eastern Australia. Unpublished PhD thesis, Deakin Uni.
Kortner, G., Gresser, S. and B. Harden (2003). Does fox baiting threaten the spotted-tailed quoll, Dasyurus maculatus? Wildlife Research 30, 111-118.
McIlroy, J. C. (1981a). The sensitivity of Australian mammals to 1080 poison. 1. Intraspecific variation and factors effecting acute toxicity. Australian Wildlife Research 8, 369-383.
McIlroy, J. C. (1981b). The sensitivity of Australian mammals to 1080 poison. 11. Marsupial and eutherian carnivores. Australian Wildlife Research 8, 385-399.
McIlroy, J.C. (1981). The sensitivity of Australian animals to 1080 poison.1X. Comparisons between the major groups of animals, and the potential danger non-target species face from 1080 poisoning campaigns. Australian wildlife Research 13, 39-48.
Saunders, G., McLeod, S. and B. Kay (2000). Degradation of sodium monoflouroacetate (1080) in buried fox baits. Wildlife Research 27, 129-135.
Twigg, L., Eldridge, S., Edwards, G., Shakeshaft, B., dePeru, N. and N. Adams (2000). The longevity and efficacy of 1080 meat baits used for dingo control in central Australia). Wildlife Research 27, 473-481.
Other Useful Reading
Kinnear, J.E. (2003). Eradicating the fox in Tasmania: A review of the Fox Free Tasmania Program. Unpublished report to DPIWE, Hobart.
Saunders, G., Coman, B., Kinnear, J. and M. Braysher (1995). Managing vertebrate pests: Foxes. Australian Government Printing Service, Canberra
Saunders, G., Lane, C., Harris, S. and C. Dickman (2006). Foxes in Tasmania: A Report on the Incursion of an Invasive Species. IACRC, Canberra.
Nick Mooney is a wildlife biologist with DPIW and has been working with Tasmanian wildlife for more than 30 years. Amongst other hats, he pioneered Tasmanian rehabilitation and conservation of raptors including eagles in forestry, has monitored reports of Thylacines and foxes, helped with responses to newly discovered diseases, whale strandings and oil spills and developed practical conservation of devils and innovative wildlife tourism. Most recently he kicked off the response to Devil facial Tumour Disease and has been giving advice for the response to recent evidence of foxes in Tasmania. Nick is assessing the potential ecological effects of DFTD, foxes and cats; he sees the biggest ecological threat as establishment of foxes because of DFTD, a process that could cause the ultimate long term threat to devils (his favourite animal).
Nick Mooney
There has been a recent spate of public concern over the effect that 1080 baiting targeting the red fox Vulpes vulpes in Tasmania might have on the spotted-tailed quoll Dasyurus maculatus and the Tasmanian devil Sarcophilus harrisii.
Considerable research has been done on that quoll species on mainland Australia, studies augmented by work in Tasmania on both it and devils.
AS NICK MOONEY states: ‘Most of the research on lethal dose to 50% (LD50) for Australian animals and the potential impacts of 1080 was done on captive animals decades ago by John McIlroy, then at CSIRO, and published in various issues of Australian Wildlife Research. It is doubtful if this work could ever be substantially expanded or repeated because it involves lethal testing.’ (Foxes, quolls, devils and 1080)
With DPIW poised to embark on a decade-long $56 million dollar fox eradication campaign using 1080 meat baits as the principle eradication tool, I believe there are several very good reasons why 1080 testing of non-target Tasmanian species exposed to these baits must now be repeated. For Tasmanian wildlife authorities to rely solely on this unrepeated toxicological data would be reckless.
John McIlroy commenced his work on the sensitivity of Australian animals to the poison 1080 (Sodium Fluoroacetate) a quarter of a century ago. John was a research scientist working at the CSIRO Division of Wildlife Research at Gunghalin near Canberra. During the period from 1980-86 he conducted a series of dose-response experiments to assess the sensitivity of 1080 on a representative range of Australian animals, covering species in all the main vertebrate taxa. He published 9 scientific papers in this series; 7 as the sole author and 2 in collaboration with others.
In documenting his research findings, John was careful to firstly prepare the theoretical and statistical ground work on which this series of experimentally-based toxicity would be based (McIlroy 1981a).
“In toxicological work the sensitivity of different [species of] animals to a poison is usually expressed as the LD50 or median lethal dose, a statistical estimate of the dose — in milligrams of poison per kilogram body weight, that will kill 50% of a large population.
The LD50 of a poison and its 95% confidence limits are only an indication of the values that might be expected from repeated trials on the same strain of animals under the same experimental conditions.”
In applying the LD50 values to a test poison, McIlroy states:
“The necessity for such a standardised procedure has been questioned … [as] statistically significant differences in LD50 values (up to 3.2 fold) within and between laboratories, related to differences in experimental procedure, … [but] these were not great enough to change the interpretation of the relative hazards of the test chemical involved. However, because I was concerned with a controversial poison [1080] and its toxicity to a variety of wild animals, I felt it was important to assess the effects that differences in experimental procedure might have on LD50 values of 1080 and, if necessary, design a procedure to minimize such sources of variation.” (McIlroy 1981a)
In his second paper detailing the results of his experimental studies on marsupials and placental mammals, John began on a cautionary note:
“The effect that these [1080] poisoning campaigns are having on non-target or native animal populations is not known, despite occasional reports of individuals of these species being found dead or ‘vanishing’ from areas in which 1080 has been used.” (McIlroy 1981b).
Targeting dingoes
McIlroy was very considered in any reliance of these experimentally derived LD50 values:
“In reality many factors are involved in determining whether an individual or what proportion of a population may be killed by a [1080] poisoning campaign. The preceding theoretical analysis involved mean body weights of only small samples of animals, LD50s obtained under specific experimental conditions, and a particular concentration of 1080 in each bait plus the assumptions about bait intake by free-living species. All are likely to vary in different field situations, altering the risk each individual carnivore faces.”
Based on 1080 baiting campaigns targeting dingoes (& wild dogs), John McIlroy made some thoughtful recommendations when deciding on the most effective bait size and quantity of 1080 per bait for maximal kill of target species and minimal impact to non-target (native) species.
“The data on [1080] sensitivities do provide fundamental information for the planning of dingo-poisoning operations. For example, if the aim is to obtain maximal control with minimum dose it would be best to plan the baiting on the basis of a LD100 based on twice the upper confidence limit of the LD50 and the weight of the heaviest specimen reported. In contrast, to assess the hazard to a non-target species, calculations might be best based on the lower confidence limit of the LD50, or some other lower figure, and either the mean weight or much lower body weights of, for instance, immature animals.”
McIlroy went on to do a theoretical calculation to show this point for dingoes (the target carnivore) and spotted-tail quolls (a non-target carnivore).
“The heaviest individual [dingo] caught in the Eastern Highlands was 25 kg. Thus if the LD100 is assumed to be approximately twice the upper confidence limit of the LD50 (i.e. 0.3mg/kg BW), it would be necessary to get 7.5 mg of 1080 into a dog of this size to kill it. Similar calculations for tiger cats [spotted-tail quolls], using twice the lower confidence limit of the LD50 (i.e. 2.56 mg/kg BW) and taking the mean body weight of 2.8 kg, indicate that 7.17 mg of 1080 is a lethal dose for [this species].
Applying McIlroy’s precautionary recommendation to the mean body weight for immature spotted-tail quolls of 1.1 kg, only 2.8 mg of 1080 is a lethal dose.
Obtain a lethal dose
The same theoretical calculation and logic can be applied can be applied to 1080 poisoning campaigns targeting foxes.
For an extreme body weight fox of 6 kg and applying an LD100 that is approximately twice the upper confidence limit of the LD50 (i.e. 0.26mg/kg BW), it would be necessary to get a fox to consume 1.56 mg of 1080 to kill it (not 3 mg of 1080 per bait). If each dried kangaroo meat (DKM) baits contained this amount of 1080, one bait would kill all foxes less than 6 kg. When applying McIlroy’s precautionary calculation to a mean body weight for immature quolls, such animals would need to ingest at least two baits to obtain a lethal dose.
“From the viewpoint of trying to safeguard tiger cats [spotted-tail quolls]; therefore, it is obviously necessary to keep 1080 concentration in baits as low as possible.” (McIlroy 1981b)
One variable that McIlroy particularly commented on was the effect of ambient temperature on the sensitivity of 1080 poison. He was concerned that his experimental trials to set the LD50 for many native marsupials were carried out at about 22°C (in controlled environment rooms). He noted that in relation toxicity studies on the spotted-tail quolls, trials were conducted at 13°C where the LD50 was calculated at 1.85 mg/kg BW.
“… different ambient temperatures cause two to five fold differences in the susceptibility of mice and guinea pigs to 1080. Both species are susceptible at both low and high ambient temperatures than they are at medium temperatures. If similar responses occur amongst other, larger homeotherms, this might explain the relatively low LD50 for the tiger cat [spotted-tail quoll] compared to those for the other native cats [quolls]. The possibility exists, therefore, that if these trials had been carried out at 22°C [instead of 13°C], the LD50 would have been slightly higher than 1.85 mg/kg BW.
Ambient temperatures obviously vary considerably between field poisoning situations, both geographically and diurnally, so a LD50 obtained at 22°C, or a dose that will kill 50% of a population experiencing this ambient temperature, must be regarded as only a general value. Greater population mortality may be expected at much lower or higher environmental temperatures.” (McIlroy 1981b)
In relation to the most susceptible non-target marsupial carnivore, the spotted-tail quoll, 1080 baiting programs targeting foxes and wild dogs are still reliant on McIlroy’s highly qualified toxicology studies and LD50 calculations.
In obtaining his LD50 levels for each species, McIlroy orally dosed between 3 and 5 individuals at dose intervals of 1.26 in 4 distinct dose groupings. For spotted-tailed quoll he used 12 animals. The LD50 was calculated at 1.85 mg/kgm with 95% confidence intervals of 1.28 to 2.68 mg/kgm BW.
Other animals begin to vomit
Clinical observations were made on the experimentally poisoned animals.
“Most commonly, affected animals suddenly became hyper-excited, with rapid breathing, bouts of trembling and sometimes periodic circling within their cages. Again, some animals may then recover while other begin to vomit, convulse, or both. With some animals, particularly the eastern native and tiger cats [quolls] and Tasmanian devils, the first symptom is the sudden onset of vomiting.
Convulsions were triggered by disturbance, such as the opening of a door, sudden movement by an observer, or convulsion by a neighbouring animal. In rough order, these symptoms include: restlessness; increased hyperexcitability or response to stimuli; bouts of trembling; rapid, shallow breathing; incontinence[involuntary passing of urine and/or faeces] or diarrhoea; excessive salivation; twitching of the facial muscles; nystagmus (involuntary eyeball movement exposing the whites of the eyes)or bulging eyes with large (dilated) pupils and rapid blinking plus, in domestic cats, discharge of mucus from the eyes); slight lack of coordination or balance; abrupt bouts of vocalisation; and finally, sudden burst of violent activity such as racing around the cage, or biting the cage mesh or other objects. All affected animals then fall to the ground in a tetanic seizure, with hind limbs or all four limbs and sometimes the tail extended rigidly from their arched bodies. At other times the front feet are clasped together, clenched or used to scratch frantically at the cage walls. This tonic phase is then followed by a clonic phase in which the animals lie and kick and ‘paddle’ with the front legs and sometimes squeal, crawl around or bite at objects. During this phase the tongue and penis may be extruded, the eyes rolled back so that only the whites show and the teeth are ground together. Breathing is rapid but laboured, with some animals partly choking on their saliva. Finally such animals begin to relax, breathing more slowly and shallowly and lying quietly with the hind legs still extended but apparently semiparalysed (paresis).
From then on individual animals either: (1) gradually recover; (2) die shortly afterwards; (3) after a short or long delay (e.g. 5 min or 3-4 h) experience another one or two series of convulsions and then die shortly afterwards or eventually recover; (4) remain lying quietly, scarcely breathing or moving, until death up to 6 days later.
It is noteworthy that in McIlroy’s observations on carnivorous marsupials exposed to sub-lethal doses of 1080, he noted that animals that did not die but ‘remained weak for 2 or more days’. From this we can infer that the sub-lethal consequences of 1080 poisoning may therefore affect an animal’s ability to evade predation by other animals and affect their ability to find safe refuge.
McIlroy also makes the following observations:
“The pouch young of tammar wallabies are significantly more susceptible to 1080 than adults (P>0.01. The pouch young of brush-tailed possums and northern native cats, Dasyurus hallicatus, similarly appear to be more sensitive than adults. More pouch young pouch young possums than adults died at each dose level, although only their mothers were dosed with 1080; presumably the young ingested lethal amounts of 1080 in the milk. The eight pouch young of one northern native cat also died within 24 h after their mother received a non-lethal dose (84% of a LD50 )but the five pouch young of a tiger cat, Dasyurus maculatus, survived in similar circumstances (74% of a LD50 ). [There are] similar reports of young rats killed by milk from their poisoned mothers.” (McIlroy 1981).
Fox entry into Tasmania
Fox entry into Tasmania has ALWAYS been a biosecurity/biodiversity risk for Tasmania, yet it is remains unclear whether foxes have established breeding populations in Tasmania.
Despite the unsubstantiated stories of intentional introductions of foxes the most likely source of single-fox introductions into Tasmania has been slack and inadequate quarantine measures. In the decades of inadequate quarantine measures at our ports, any foxes that have arrived and escaped into Tasmania, the questions remains which locations have the highest frequency of receiving fox-risk materials? Might these be the places where foxes might just get lucky and breed?
Over fifty years of 1080 use in Tasmania to control native herbivores like Bennett’s wallaby, Tasmanian pademelon and brush-tail possum coupled with the high sensitivity of red foxes to secondary 1080 poisoning (i.e. through eating a poisoned carcass) is rarely acknowledged.
Where will they ‘get lucky’ in the landscape? Closest to the farms & feedlots that have historically received container-loads of stock feed grain; agri-businesses that transport or deal with used farm equipment; freight forwarding depots. The highly reliable sighting reports of foxes in remote areas (where 1080 poisons have not been used) like the western Central Plateau or our National Parks must be the basis for intensive investigation. Maybe the remote camera used by the DFT team can be now deployed for fox studies.
It ALWAYS comes down to validating the risk assessment.
References:
McIlroy, JC (1981) The Sensitivity of Australian Animals to 1080 Poison I. Intraspecific variation and Factors affecting Acute Toxicity. Australian Wildlife Research 8, 369-383.
McIlroy, JC (1981) The Sensitivity of Australian Animals to 1080 Poison II. Marsupial and Eutherian Carnivores. Australian Wildlife Research 8, 385-399.
David Obendorf
With DPIW poised to embark on a decade-long $56 million dollar fox eradication campaign using 1080 meat baits as the principle eradication tool, I believe there are several very good reasons why 1080 testing of non-target Tasmanian species exposed to these baits must now be repeated. For Tasmanian wildlife authorities to rely solely on this unrepeated toxicological data would be reckless.
"We're coming to you from the custodial lands of the Hairygowogulator and Tarantulawollygong, and pay respects to uncle and grandaddy elders past, present and emerging from their burrows. So wise to keep a distance out bush."
Australia’s native Brushtailed Possum (Trichosurus vulpecula)
Click image to enlarge
A Maori traditional Haka
Many New Zealanders conveniently forget:
It is not the possum’s fault it is in New Zealand.
Heading out to drop 1080 poison across NZ forests
(a smiling assassin)
Possum Trappers preferred weapon of choice: the ‘Lanes Ace’ or ‘Gin Trap’
Widely used for possum trappers in New Zealand for many years.
Rabbit caught and dead in Lanes Ace Trap.
The steel jaws of the trap break the rabbit’s leg and it dies of pain and suffering over days.
These are used in New Zealand in the possum fur trade
[Image Source: ^http://www.animalwritings.com/archive/2004_08_01_blog_archive.asp]
.
King of Overseas Holidays, John Key,
He flew first class with his wife to attend a foreign royal wedding on 20110429
Here he’s looking resplendent in his bespoke $6,000 suit washed with pounamu.
Total cost of Key Junket which did nothing for New Zealand, NZ$200,000?
Ms Eugenie Sage
Green Party of Aotearoa representative:
