Download View our Predator Control Strategy

Predator Control Strategy for the
Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
Project: 14-010
Prepared for:
Western Port Biosphere Reserve Foundation
©2014 Ecology Australia Pty Ltd
This publication is copyright. It may only be used in accordance with the agreed terms of the commission. Except as
provided for by the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, without prior written permission from Ecology Australia Pty Ltd.
Document information
This is a controlled document. Details of the document ownership, location, distribution, status
and revision history are listed below.
All comments or requests for changes to content should be addressed to the document owner.
Bioregion: Gippsland Plain, Strzelecki Ranges, Highlands-Southern Fall
Owner
Ecology Australia Pty Ltd
Author
Bernadette Schmidt, Darren Quin, Jamie McMahon
Location
J:\CURRENT PROJECTS\Western Port Biosphere Reserve Predator
Control 14-010\Report\WPBR Predator Control Strategy FINAL.docx
Distribution
Chris Chambers
Western Port
Biosphere Reserve
Document History
Status
Changes
By
Date
Draft 1
First Draft
B. Schmidt, D. Quin, J. McMahon
08/09/2014
Draft 2
Updated mapping and
review comments
B. Schmidt, J. McMahon
19/05/2015
B. Schmidt
17/06/2015
Final
Ecology Australia Pty Ltd
www.ecologyaustralia.com.au [email protected]
88B Station Street, Fairfield, Victoria 3078, Australia
Tel: (03) 9489 4191 Fax: (03) 9481 7679
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
Contents
Acknowledgments
v
Summary
1
1
2
Introduction
1.1
The Growing Connections Project
2
1.2
Objectives
3
1.3
Project Scope
4
1.4
Development of the Strategy
5
2
Western Port Biosphere Reserve
6
3
Pest Control in the Western Port Biosphere Reserve
9
3.1
3.2
Current Control Programs
Effective Pest Control Programs
3.2.1
3.3
4
Management Considerations and Approach
15
15
16
3.3.1
Foxes
17
3.3.2
Rabbits
18
3.3.3
Cats
19
Control Areas
20
4.1
Current Areas of Control
20
4.2
Target Control Areas
21
5
5.1
5.2
5.3
Control Techniques
6
6.1
6.2
26
Foxes 26
5.1.1
Poison Baiting
26
5.1.2
Den Fumigation
33
5.1.3
Trapping
35
Rabbits
36
5.2.1
Poison Baiting
36
5.2.2
Warren Destruction and Fumigation
38
Cats 41
5.3.1
Final
Integrated Pest Control
9
Trapping
Monitoring
Pest Monitoring
41
43
43
6.1.1
Foxes
43
6.1.2
Rabbits
44
6.1.3
Cats
47
Biodiversity Monitoring
48
6.2.1
Occupancy Modelling
48
6.2.2
Ground-nesting Birds
49
iii
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
7
Implementation
52
7.1
Program Co-ordination
52
7.2
Public Engagement and Capacity Building
54
7.3
Geographic Information Systems
56
7.4
Data Management
56
8
References
57
9
Glossary
62
Tables
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Pest control activities currently undertaken within the Western Port
Biosphere Reserve
12
Site prioritisation criteria for fox control in the Western Port Biosphere
Reserve
22
Fauna species selected for the prioritisation of control areas
68
Figures
Figure 1
The Western Port Biosphere Reserve
Figure 2
Pest control activities currently undertaken within the Western Port
Biosphere Reserve
14
Site prioritisation analysis for future control works, showing areas of varying
priority within the Western Port Biosphere Reserve (combined with
significance mapping from the WPBR Foundation)
25
Bait station design for buried 1080 poison baits (redrawn from Murray et al.
2006)
30
Diagrammatic representation of an M-44 ejector (taken from Ecology
Australia 2013)
32
Diagrammatic representation of rabbit warren ripping (taken from Ecology
Australia 2013)
40
Figure 7
Organisational Structure for the Western Port Pest Animal Group
53
Figure 8
Site prioritisation analysis for future control works, showing areas of current
control and their potential area of influence within the Western Port
Biosphere Reserve
69
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
8
Appendices
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Final
Assessment of control techniques for the Western Port Biosphere
Reserve (adapted from Ecology Australia 2013)
63
Sample of data recording template for fox baiting developed by the Port
Phillip and Western Port Catchment Management Authority
65
Multi-criteria Decision Analysis scoring system for site prioritisation within
the Western Port Biosphere Reserve
66
iv
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the following people for their assistance in providing their
time and input into the development of this project, including provision of information, data,
feedback and expert opinion:
Final

Chris Chambers, David Nicholls – Western Port Biosphere Reserve Foundation;

John Hick – Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning;

Andrew Morrison – Port Phillip and Western Port Catchment Management Authority;

Peter Kemp, Libby Jude, Dale Appleton, Thierry Roland – Parks Victoria;

Will Steele, Gavin Brock, Paul Rees – Melbourne Water;

Terry Coates, Bronwyn Merritt, David Hunt – Royal Botanic Gardens Cranbourne;

Sam Hand, Garrique Pergl – Mornington Peninsula Shire Council;

Simon King – Casey City Council;

Rob Jones – Cardinia Shire Council;

Dave Martin – Bass Coast Shire Council;

Stuart Murphy – Phillip Island Nature Parks;

Nadia Arkoudis – Vic Roads;

Lyndal Gibbs – VicTrack;

Robbie Gray – Bass Coast Landcare Network;

Julie Trezise – French Island Landcare;

Kristen Skewes – Bluescope Steel;

Narelle Liepa – Department of Defence; and

Alan Robley – Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning.
v
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
Summary
This predator control strategy has been developed to support the implementation of the
Growing Connections Project across the Western Port Biosphere Reserve (WPBR). The
Project, which is being delivered by the WPBR Foundation, with support from the Australian
Government over a five-year period, aims to protect and enhance biodiversity across the
WPBR. The development of a broad-scale, co-ordinated vertebrate pest control program is
seen as an essential part of achieving these aims.
A number of organisations currently undertake pest control works within the WPBR.
However, most of this work is limited in scope, is dependent on funding, and is generally not
undertaken in a systematic or consistent manner, reducing its efficacy. The WPBR Foundation
aims to establish a broad-scale vertebrate pest control program which will help integrate and
co-ordinate pest control efforts across the region, to produce more efficient and effective
results.
This document provides the strategic framework for the establishment and implementation of a
broad-scale predator control program, and guidance for agencies undertaking on-ground work,
to facilitate integration and co-ordination with the Program. It applies the principles of
strategic and integrated control to achieve a sustained reduction in pest populations and their
impacts to biodiversity. This strategy:

Focuses primarily on fox control, with a secondary focus on the management of
rabbits and cats, as part of integrated pest management;

Identifies control techniques that will achieve the most effective and economic control
on a broad scale, based on consideration of the most appropriate and efficient
techniques for each species and for the region;

Provides a preliminary prioritisation of areas to target for future control works;

Provides technical recommendations and protocols for on-ground works, incorporating
best-practice control guidelines, to facilitate integration across the WPBR; and

Specifies monitoring requirements, with recommendations for biodiversity monitoring,
to align with the Growing Connections Biodiversity Monitoring program, and
protocols to undertake operational monitoring to assess the efficiency of control
works.
The development of this strategy was informed by consultation with stakeholders currently
involved with the control of invasive mammals in the WPBR, and a review of current pest
control programs and conservation priorities.
Collaboration and co-ordination of control efforts by various agencies, including government
and non-government organisations, across the WPBR will be vital for the success of pest
control efforts. As such, this strategy also provides guidelines on the implementation and
management of the program into the future. It is anticipated that the recommendations in this
strategy will first be adopted by the WPBR Foundation, who will drive the implement of the
program, with other organisations participating and/or co-ordinating efforts in future years.
Final
1
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
1 Introduction
The Western Port Biosphere Reserve (WPBR) Foundation, with support from the Australian
Government, is delivering the “Growing Connections Project” across the WPBR, over a fiveyear period to 2017. This project will see the development of key strategic documents, to guide
management towards a single vision, for the protection and enhancement of biodiversity across
the WPBR. As part of this project, Ecology Australia has been engaged to develop the
framework for a broad-scale vertebrate pest control strategy, aimed at integrating and coordinating pest control efforts across the region, to produce more efficient and effective results.
This strategy is intended to provide the basis for a large-scale, collaborative, cross-tenure
program, which seeks participation from government, land management agencies,
conservation and community groups, research institutions and private landholders.
1.1
The Growing Connections Project
The Growing Connections Project aims to protect and enhance biodiversity, and create a more
resilient environment within the WPBR. To achieve these aims, the WPBR Foundation has
committed to undertaking a number of co-ordinated actions, which include:

Development of the Growing Connections Biodiversity Plan (WPBRF 2015),
integrating scientific information with community participation, to create a more
resilient environment;

Re-vegetation activities to improve the quality and extent of native vegetation;

Development of a broad-scale predator control program for the WPBR, with a robust
monitoring program;

Establishment of ‘enabling systems’ to enhance and improve management;

Development and implementation of a broad-scale biodiversity monitoring program,
to be integrated with the monitoring for the pest control program; and

Creation of an integrated Geographic Information Systems (GIS) environment for the
WPBR.
Western Port Biosphere Reserve Pest Control Program
The development of a broad-scale, co-ordinated vertebrate pest control program is seen as an
essential part of helping to achieve the aims of the Growing Connections Project. The
detrimental impacts of introduced species, particularly introduced mammals, on Australia’s
biodiversity have been well documented (e.g. see Saunders et al. 1995, Williams et al. 1995,
Dickman 1996) and are recognised as Key Threatening Processes under both Federal and State
Environmental Legislation. These include the following listings under the Federal
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act):
Final

Predation by the European red fox;

Predation by feral cats; and

Competition and land degradation by rabbits.
2
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
Predation by the European Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) and Feral Cat (Felis catus) has been
implicated in the extinction and widespread decline of numerous native wildlife species,
including many small to medium-size mammals, birds and reptiles, as well as the failure of
threatened species recovery and re-introduction programs (Dickman 1996, Short et al. 1992,
DEWHA 2008a, b, Saunders et al. 2010). Foxes are also an important predator of livestock,
and a significant agricultural pest (McLeod 2004).
Predation impacts on wildlife are generally greatest in fragmented landscapes, where native
species are largely restricted to vegetation remnants and in modified environments where an
abundance of resources support large predator populations (Mahon 2001, Saunders and
McLeod 2007). Densities of foxes can be particularly high in urban and agricultural areas
which provide a plentiful supply of food and natal den-sites, while large populations of cats are
typically found around areas of high human habitation, where domestic cats continually
supplement the stray and feral cat populations (Denny and Dickman 2010).
The direct impacts of European Rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) on soils and vegetation, due
to grazing and burrowing activity, are also well recognised. They include soil erosion,
alteration of vegetation structure, prevention of regeneration, and facilitation of weed invasion,
which can impact on wildlife habitats. However, rabbits also threaten wildlife through their
potential interaction with predator populations; large rabbit populations can support and
facilitate the recovery of introduced predator populations, such as foxes and feral cats, for
which rabbits constitute a major source of prey (Catling 1988, Smith and Quin 1996).
A number of government agencies and non-government organisations in the Western Port
Region are currently undertaking activities to control foxes, cats and rabbits on public and
private land. These programs have been implemented as part of a major effort by land
managers, over the past five years in particular, to control vertebrate pests to improve
biodiversity values and agricultural productivity in the region. However, they are generally
restricted in scale and scope, due to funding and resources, and there is currently limited coordination between programs, in terms of control methods and protocols, timing and spatial
coverage, which limits their potential efficacy and benefits. Successful control programs
require a collaborative and co-ordinated approach (Saunders and McLeod 2007).
1.2
Objectives
The WPBR Foundation aims to establish the framework for a landscape-scale, co-ordinated
predator control program, which will guide the integration of current and future pest animal
control activities, undertaken by local agencies across areas of both public and private land
around Western Port Bay.
This approach is modelled on the principles of the ‘Ark’ programs operating across Victoria,
which include: ‘Southern Ark’, ‘Grampians Ark’, ‘Glenelg Ark’ and ‘Central Highlands Ark’.
These programs are major initiatives by the Victorian Department of Environment, Land,
Water and Planning (DELWP), which aim to facilitate the recovery of native wildlife through
broad-scale fox control. The programs have joint management and research components,
undertaken through collaboration between government agencies, research institutions and the
Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre (CRC). Some of these programs, such as the
Southern Ark, operate across vast areas of public land, predominantly State Forest and
Final
3
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
National Park, while others, such as the Grampians Ark extension program, in the Victoria
Valley, Halls Gap, extend into areas of private land.
The predator control strategy for the WPBR aims to achieve two major outcomes as part of the
Growing Connections Project:

Establishment of a Western Port Pest Animal Group, to facilitate the co-ordination,
implementation and operation of the program, by various agencies, across the
landscape, and to drive innovation and improvement in best practice pest control; and

A target of 9,086 ha of land, managed for invasive mammal species, with
approximately 125 ha directly funded by the WPBR Foundation.
This predator control strategy facilitates a co-ordinated response to pest animal control by
providing guidance on the most appropriate pest control techniques and on-ground protocols,
for agencies that participate in the Western Port Pest Animal Group. The strategy also provides
guidance on the areas for predator control, broadly highlighting areas where predator control
activities may be most feasible and effective, and where other conservation works are being
undertaken as part of the Growing Connections Project.
The strategic approach recommends an initial focus on foxes and rabbits, with monitoring to
determine the potential impacts of predation by feral cats, and the need for control of cat
populations. A monitoring program will be implemented as part of this program, specifically to
monitor predator populations and the effectiveness of predator control, but also the responses
of prey populations. The program will be designed to complement, and run in parallel to the
Biodiversity Monitoring Program, using an array of motion-sensing cameras to help determine
the relationship between predators and prey.
1.3
Project Scope
This project is aimed at developing a broad-scale approach to predator control, through
collaboration, and improving the integration of pest control programs throughout the WPBR,
to produce more effective results. Specifically, the objectives of this project are to:
Final

Develop a strategic, integrated approach to predator control, which identifies the most
effective control techniques and the most appropriate techniques for the landscape;

Develop best-practice protocols for the delivery of on-ground pest control, to be
followed by contractors when undertaking control works, to integrate pest control
practices across the WPBR, and facilitate co-ordination;

Identify areas where predator control activities are likely to be most effective and of
most benefit to biodiversity, to provide priority areas for management agencies to
investigate for future works;

Align this project with the Integrated Predator Control Strategy for the Southern
Brown Bandicoot in the south-east sub-region developed for DEPI as part of
Melbourne’s Strategic Assessment of the growth areas (Ecology Australia 2013); and

Facilitate the first convention of agencies and groups undertaking pest control in the
region, which will provide the basis for the formation of the Western Port Pest Animal
Group.
4
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
1.4
Development of the Strategy
The development of this strategy was informed by consultation with stakeholders currently
involved with the control of invasive mammals in the WPBR, and a review of current pest
control programs and conservation priorities. A workshop was held on 17 February 2014, at
the Royal Botanic Gardens Cranbourne, to elucidate current patterns of control and techniques
used across the WPBR, the objectives of various pest control programs, the limitations and
opportunities for integration into a broader program. The workshop gathered together key
stakeholders (see Acknowledgements) to share information, and also served as the first
meeting of agencies which may be involved in the future integration and implementation of
pest control works in the WPBR.
Information provided during consultation with stakeholders, and GIS, was used to identify
areas currently managed for pest animals, and to identify and prioritise areas in which to
undertake pest control works in future, under the Growing Connections Program. GIS was
used to analyse the spatial coverage of control works and potential areas for control, with the
aim of maximising the effectiveness of control across the landscape. Control techniques
selected include those which are currently employed by some agencies, and on the basis of an
assessment of the most effective, efficient and appropriate techniques for the region.
Where possible, the strategy has been developed to co-ordinate with other major pest control
programs currently being undertaken or planned for the region, including the Ramsar
Protection Program (see Section 3.3) and the Integrated Predator Control Strategy for the
Southern Brown Bandicoot.
The Strategy has been reviewed by the WPBR Foundation and key stakeholders, at two
subsequent workshops held by the WPBR Foundation.
Final
5
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
2 Western Port Biosphere Reserve
The Mornington Peninsula and Western Port region was declared a Biosphere Reserve by the
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) in 2002, in
recognition of the region’s significant biodiversity values, which include the Western Port
Ramsar site (a wetland of international importance). Biosphere Reserves are internationally
recognised under UNESCO’s Program on Man and the Biosphere, aimed at promoting a
balanced relationship between humans and the biosphere. They typically include urban,
industrial and agricultural areas as well as conservation reserves.
The WPBR is located on Melbourne’s urban fringe, approximately 50 km south-east of
Melbourne. It covers c. 2100 km2 over five Local Government Areas around Western Port
Bay, in south-central Victoria, including the Cities of Frankston and Casey and Shires of
Cardinia, Bass Coast and Mornington Peninsula, which have agreed to operate as though the
Reserve extends to the limit of their boundaries (Figure 1). It includes areas of urban
development, light and heavy industry (e.g. oil refinery and steel works), agricultural areas
(primarily horticulture, grazing and dairying), and areas of terrestrial and marine conservation
significance. The Western Port region also supports a number of other uses, including
shipping, recreational boating, fishing, tourism and aquaculture.
Development in the region has resulted in extensive modification of the natural environment
since European settlement, which has included land clearance, the drainage of swamps and
wetlands, and the introduction of weeds and vertebrate pests. Much of the region supports
productive agricultural land, and the vast majority has been cleared of native vegetation:
Today, only small remnants remain in relatively isolated conservation reserves. Despite its
modified nature, the WPBR supports significant natural values, including important
conservation areas and threatened species, particularly within the rural landscape. These
include:
Final

The Western Port Ramsar site (listed under the Convention on Wetlands of
International Importance, Ramsar 1971), recognised for its significant flora, fauna,
cultural and scenic values, including the wide range of terrestrial and wetland habitats,
and number and diversity of waterfowl and migratory shorebirds (KBR 2010);

National Parks, including Yaringa, French Island and Churchill Island Marine
National Parks and French Island and Point Nepean National Parks;

State Parks, including Arthur’s Seat State Park and Bunyip State Park;

Sites of zoological significance, including breeding colonies of the Little Penguin
(Eudyptula minor), Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus), Australian Fur Seal
(Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus), Hooded Plover (Thinornis rubricollis) and Shorttailed Shearwater (Puffinus tenuirostris);

Threatened flora and fauna species and vegetation communities, including one of the
five Victorian sub-populations of the nationally-listed Southern Brown Bandicoot
(Isoodon obesulus obesulus); and

Numerous sites of geomorphological significance and scenic landscape values.
6
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
The majority of WPBR falls within the western portion of the Gippsland Plain Bioregion, with
small sections extending into the Strzelecki Ranges Bioregion in the north-west, and the
Highlands-Southern Fall Bioregion in the north. The region is characterised by a temperate
climate of cool, wet winters and warm, dry summers.
UNESCO Biosphere Reserves remain under the jurisdiction of the State in which they are
located. The WPBR Foundation was established in 2003, as a non-profit organisation, to
implement the UNESCO program. The Foundation works with the Victorian Government,
Local Government Authorities, the community and UNESCO, to create a sustainable future for
the Western Port region, environmentally, socially and economically. It does this through
research, education, community engagement, partnerships and on-ground conservation efforts.
Final
7
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve, Victoria
Figure 1
Final
The Western Port Biosphere Reserve
8
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
3 Pest Control in the Western Port Biosphere Reserve
3.1
Current Control Programs
A number of land managers currently undertake pest control works within the WPBR,
including government agencies, conservation and community groups, state-owned
corporations and private industry (see Table 1). These works reflect a growing recognition of
the threats of invasive species to both biodiversity and agriculture in the region, and an
increasing investment in reducing these threats. However, much of this work is not undertaken
in a systematic or consistent manner, and relies on limited, short-term funding, which
undermines its efficacy. This means that control programs are not necessarily undertaken
across multiple years or at the same sites each year.
Information on control activities undertaken between 2013 and 2014 was provided by
stakeholders at the workshop and during individual consultations. A summary of those works,
undertaken is provided below, with further details provided in Table 1. Table 1 includes only
those activities for which detailed information was readily available; their spatial configuration
shown in Figure 2. Figure 2 presents a static representation of works being undertaken in the
region, and represents the best information available at the time. However, due to the typically
limited nature of funding and resources, it is likely that some of these programs may continue
in subsequent years, while others may not.
Patterns of Control
Most control activities in the WPBR are undertaken independently and over a relatively small
scale, with limited co-ordination or consistency between and/or within organisations, in terms
of control methods, protocols, timing or frequency of control (see Table 1). While some land
managers have made notable efforts to adopt a more co-ordinated approach, through
partnerships and participation in State- or Federally-funded biodiversity programs (see below),
many undertake control on a reactive or ad-hoc basis, particularly those organisations for
which pest control, for biodiversity protection or agriculture, is not a primary responsibility.
Additionally, limited and short-term funding places constraints on the level of resources which
can be allocated to pest control, and the intensity and frequency with which control programs
can be undertaken; the ability to overcome these restrictions in future is likely to be limited.
Integrated Pest Control
Despite the occurrence of multiple pest species within the WPBR, few organisations undertake
control for more than one species. Most control works are targeted towards foxes, and to a
lesser extent, rabbits; although resources for rabbit control are usually directed towards
providing support to landowners, rather than on-ground works (see Table 1). This work is
mostly undertaken by Landcare groups, which co-ordinate initiatives such as the ‘Rabbitbusters’ program, targeted to agricultural landholders. Annual rabbit control has only been
undertaken at one site, managed by the Department of Defence. Regular cat control is
undertaken only on French Island and Phillip Island, and at a small number of sites on the
Mornington Peninsula. Very little is known about cat populations and the need for cat control
on the mainland, although a number of organisations reported frequently seeing feral cats on
Final
9
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
their land. Some government agencies have also undertaken localised control of deer, hares,
rats and cats, and initiatives on responsible pet ownership have been developed by Councils
and Landcare Groups.
Control Techniques
Various methods have been used to control foxes across the WPBR, including poison baiting,
soft-jaw trapping, den fumigation and shooting. Of these, poison baiting is the most commonly
used technique, followed by soft-jaw trapping; trapping is typically employed in areas where
baiting is not permitted or there is public opposition. Despite the prevalence of poison baiting
as a control technique in the WPBR, the standards and protocols adopted, in terms of the
materials used (e.g. bait type, attractants), frequency, duration and timing varies between
organisations/ programs (see Table 1). On-ground works are undertaken by various different
contractors, with differing methods of deploying and replacing baits. In addition, most baiting
is undertaken too infrequently or over a too short of a time period to provide effective or longterm control. Only those organisations that participate in a co-ordinated program undertake
baiting four or more times per year (see Table 1).
Co-ordinated Programs and Partnerships
The Ramsar Protection Program, co-ordinated by the Port Phillip and Westernport Catchment
Management Authority (PPWCMA), is one of the few programs in the region in which
participants have attempted co-ordinated and strategic control of pests, for the protection and
enhancement of Ramsar values (and other biodiversity values) around Western Port. This
program, which includes participation by the WPBR Foundation, Parks Victoria, Mornington
Peninsula Shire, Cardinia and Bass Coast Shire Councils, City of Casey Council, Phillip Island
Nature Parks and Landcare networks, involves poison baiting, usually under a continuous
deployment regime, on numerous parcels of public land managed by participating agencies, as
well as soft-jaw trapping, where baiting is not considered feasible. As part of this program, the
WPBR Foundation has invested significant effort in engaging individual landowners to
undertake baiting on private agricultural land. Funding for this program is on a five-year basis
and has recently been renewed.
Parks Victoria also maintains various partnerships with other land management organisations
in the region, including Melbourne Water, Phillip Island Nature Parks and French Island
Landcare Group, in addition to independently undertaking control works in various parks and
reserves (Figure 2). Parks Victoria are guided by a strategic framework developed for the
prioritisation of pest control across their parks and reserves system (Robley and Choquenot
2002), along with a series of threat monitoring protocols. However, they also undertake works
outside of this framework as part of collaborative or ‘good neighbour’ programs and the extent
to which the protocols are implemented varies.
A small number of areas within the WPBR with conservation significance, including the Royal
Botanic Gardens Cranbourne, Phillip Island, French Island and Bandicoot Corner, are also
subject to individual management protocols. These areas are managed independently, in
accordance with specifically development management plans.
Final
10
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
The largest, most comprehensive and long-term control program in the WPBR is undertaken at
Phillip Island. Phillip Island Nature Parks has undertaken fox control at Phillip Island for the
past 30 years, using localised baiting, trapping and spotlight shooting, but since 2007 have
shifted their focus to the eradication of foxes from Phillip Island, using broad-scale baiting
(McPhee and Bloomfield 2012). It is now estimated that there are less than 10 foxes on Phillip
Island; remaining animals will be targeted with the aid of detection dogs (S Murphy, Phillip
Island Nature Parks, pers. comm.). Genetic material collected over the past 15 years shows that
there is likely to be very little immigration of foxes from the mainland to Phillip Island, and
Phillip Island Nature Parks, in partnership with Parks Victoria, are now working on fox control
in a buffer zone around San Remo and Anderson Inlet to assist with eradication. Cat trapping
is also undertaken across much of the island, together with opportunistic shooting of feral cats
in conservation areas, while rabbit control is mostly implemented by local landowners with the
aid of the Landcare Group, but not in a systematic way.
Monitoring
Most of organisations undertake little or no monitoring of the success of control activities, in
terms of ecological outcomes. Most monitoring is operational, involving only the collection of
data on bait-take or ‘catch-per-unit-effort’, although, many programs lack standard reporting
mechanisms, and reporting of results is often inconsistent between contractors. In some cases,
there appears to be no formal documentation of the work undertaken. The most comprehensive
monitoring programs are implemented by the Royal Botanic Gardens Cranbourne, WPBR
Foundation and Phillip Island Nature Parks.
The WPBR Foundation has recently commenced monitoring of Southern Brown Bandicoot
responses with motion-sensing cameras and a sampling design which will allow occupancy
modelling to be undertaken (see Section 6.2). Melbourne Water and VicRoads have also
recently begun to use motion-sensing cameras to monitor the presence or absence of predator
and prey species in their management and works areas.
Limitations to Effective Control
For many organisations, especially where land management does not form part of their core
business, the major impediments to undertaking effective pest control appear to be due to
limited in-house expertise, a lack of resources and limited capacity to undertake control works
outside of their daily operations, or beyond the boundaries of their land.
Co-ordination of pest control efforts across the region aims to assist with maximising the
benefits of pest control by pooling resources and standardising techniques to achieve a
sustained reduction of pest species and their impacts and ensuring that ecological outcomes
can be better evaluated. For many land managers, however; limited funding and resources to
undertake continuous and broad-scale control is a major limitation. While the coordination of
pest control efforts will assist to some extent, lack of funding will continue to be a limitation
which may influence the extent and scale at which some of the recommendations can be
implemented.
Final
11
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve, Victoria
Table 1
Pest control activities currently undertaken within the Western Port Biosphere Reserve
Management Agency
Control Program Collaborations
Control Method
Frequency
Duration
Timing
Locations
Monitoring
Royal Botanic Gardens,
Cranbourne
Independent
Poison baiting
Continuous
n/a
n/a
Royal Botanic Gardens Cranbourne
Bait-take, sand-pads, motion-sensing
cameras
Western Port Biosphere Reserve
Natural Resource Investment Program:
Recovery Actions for the Southern Brown
Bandicoot
Poison baiting
Continuous
n/a
n/a
Private property; various locations (former Koo
Wee Rup Swamp area)
Motion-sensing cameras – predator and
prey occupancy modelling
Parks Victoria
Ramsar Protection Program
Poison baiting
?
?
?
Quail Island and Warneet, Yaringa, northern
Western Port inlets, Bass River/Reef Island
Bait-take
Independent
Soft-jaw trapping
?
?
?
Langwarrin Flora and Fauna Reserve, The Pines
Flora and Fauna Reserve
Catch-per-unit-effort
Independent
?
?
?
?
Bunyip State Park, Point Nepean National Park,
Wonthaggi Heathlands
X
Phillip Island Nature Parks
Poison baiting
3-4 X per year
6 weeks
Variable
San Remo, Anderson Inlet
?
Bunyip Main Drain bank stabilisation works
Poison baiting
2 X per year
2 weeks
Variable
Bunyip Main Drain
Bait-take, motion-sensing cameras
The Inlets at Koo Wee Rup
Fauna trapping, motion-sensing cameras
at bait stations
Fox Control
Melbourne Water
Independent
Independent
Mornington Peninsula Shire
Council
Soft-jaw trapping
Once (2009,
2010, 2013)
20 days
Autumn
Edithvale Wetland
Catch-per-unit-effort
Once (2014)
11 days
Autumn
Seaford Wetland
Catch-per-unit-effort
Ramsar Protection Program
Poison baiting
2 X per year
2-9 weeks
Late-summer, late-winter
Briars Park, Peninsula Gardens, Woods
Reserve
?
Independent
Soft-jaw trapping
2 X per year
1-2 weeks
Late-summer, late-winter
Various, Mornington Peninsula
Catch-per-unit-effot
VicRoads
Koo Wee Rup Bypass – Southern Brown
Bandicoot protection
Poison baiting
2 X per year
6-8 weeks
May-July; August-September
Private property: Koo Wee Rup Rd and Rossiter
Rd, Koo Wee Rup
Bait-take, motion-sensing cameras
VicTrack
Independent
Soft-jaw trapping
Ad-hoc
-
-
South Gippsland Railway
-
Bluescope Steel
Independent
Poison baiting
Annual
6 weeks
Various – contractor discretion
Bluescope Steel, Hastings
Bait-take
Cardinia Environment Coalition
Independent
Poison baiting
?
?
?
Bandicoot Corner, Bayles
?
Bass Coast Landcare
Independent
Shooting
On request
2-3 days
Spring autumn
Private land: various
-
Department of Defence
Independent
Poison baiting
As needed
Variable
Variable
HMAS Cerberus, Crib Point
-
Phillip Island Nature Parks
Parks Victoria, Bass Coast Landcare
Poison baiting
4 X per year
4 weeks
August, November, March, May
Phillip Island
Motion-sensing cameras, spotlighting,
public sightings
Linking Melbourne Authority
Peninsula Link – SBB offset
?
?
?
?
Adams Creek Nature Conservation Reserve,
Wonthaggi Heathlands
?
Parks Victoria
Ramsar Protection Program
Cage trapping
Annual
10 weeks
June- August
French Island, northern Western Port inlets,
Quail Island and Warneet
Catch-per-unit-effort
French Island Landcare
Parks Victoria
Cage trapping
Annual
10 weeks
June-August
French Island
Catch-per-unit-effort
Mornington Peninsula Shire
Council
Independent
Cage trapping
2 X per year
1-2 weeks
Late-summer, late-winter
Various, Mornington Peninsula
Catch-per-unit-effort
Cat Control
Final
12
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve, Victoria
Management Agency
Control Program Collaborations
Control Method
Frequency
Duration
Timing
Locations
Monitoring
Bass Coast Landcare
Phillip Island Nature Parks
Cage trapping
Annual
?
?
Phillip Island
Catch-per-unit-effort
Phillip Island Nature Parks
Phillip Island
Shooting
opportunistic
-
-
Phillip Island
-
Melbourne Water
Independent
Poison baiting
Once (2009,
2014)
21 days
Autumn
Edithvale Wetland
Rabbit carcass collection
Parks Victoria
Independent
?
?
?
?
Bass River/Reef Island
Motion-sensing cameras
Bass Coast Landcare
Independent
Poison baiting,
Shooting
On request
1.5-2 weeks
Late-summer, early autumn
Phillip Island
Spotlight monitoring
Rabbit Control
Private land: various
French Island Landcare
Independent
Poison baiting
(support to
landholders)
On request
-
-
French Island
-
Department of Defence
Independent
Poison baiting
Annual
Variable
Variable
HMAS Cerberus, Crib Point
-
Final
13
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve, Victoria
Figure 2
Final
Pest control activities currently undertaken within the Western Port Biosphere Reserve
14
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
3.2
Effective Pest Control Programs
Effective pest control programs are broad-scale and strategic, particularly with regard to
determining priority areas for control, the timing and frequency of control and range of
techniques, so as to achieve the maximum benefit for the control effort.
The control of introduced pests, particularly foxes, is undertaken across Australia, for the
protection of both biodiversity and agriculture. However, pest reduction is often undertaken by
individual landowners or community groups, based on the biology of the species being
protected, rather than the pest species. As a result, pest control is typically localised and
sporadic, leaving large areas or periods of time where pests are not subject to control, allowing
them to recover quickly due to re-colonisation from adjacent uncontrolled areas (Reddiex et al.
2006, Saunders and McLeod 2007). The scale of control efforts should match the spatial extent
of the impact and movements of pest species. As most pest species are highly mobile and
capable of quickly replacing animals killed in control operations, achieving broad-scale, coordinated control is vital to a successful program.
The importance of collaborative control efforts, for achieving broad-scale pest control was
described by Saunders et al. (1995), who emphasised the need for promoting community
ownership of the issue. This is particularly important for regional, cross-tenure programs, as
has more recently been demonstrated by programs, such as the Benalla Carpet Python Fox
Control Program in Victoria and the ‘Outfox the Fox’ and North Sydney Regional Fox Control
Programs in New South Wales, which have invested heavily in community engagement and
capacity building.
An effective control program also requires an integrated approach which considers the ecology
and interactions between species, especially predator and prey. Traditionally, pest control
programs in Australia have focused on one pest species, even though multiple species typically
co-occur; this ignores potential interactions between pest species and their impacts, and
implications for biodiversity (Reddiex et al. 2006). The importance of integrated pest control
programs is outlined below.
3.2.1 Integrated Pest Control
Integrated pest control is an ecosystem-based approach to pest management, which recognises
the interactive relationships between plant and animal species, both introduced and exotic, as
well as the influence of environmental factors. Integrated pest management strategies are based
on knowledge about the lifecycles of pest species, and their interactions with other species, and
typically comprise a combination of techniques which provide effective and economical
control, with minimal risk to the environment, agriculture or people.
Integrated pest control is an important consideration, particularly in environments supporting
more than one pest species, and where overlap in the ecology of pest species may lead to an
interaction between their negative impacts. Overlooking these relationships can have serious
negative implications for native fauna, because the lethal control of one pest species can
influence the abundance or distribution of another. For example, the effective control of fox
populations can significantly reduce predation pressures on rabbits, which are known to
provide a substantial component of the fox diet (Catling 1988, Banks et al. 1998, Saunders and
Final
15
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
McLeod 2007). A resultant increase in the rabbit population may impact wildlife through
mesopredator release (see below), or through competition and habitat degradation. Conversely,
control of rabbit populations in the absence of fox control could lead to prey switching by
foxes, thereby increasing predation pressures on native fauna (Robley et al. 2004).
Mesopredator Release
Mesopredator release theory suggests that subordinate predators (i.e. mesopredators) can have
a substantial negative impact on prey populations, following their release from competition or
predation pressure from the dominant predator (Johnson et al. 2007, Sutherland et al. 2010).
The release of a mesopredator has typically been interpreted as an increase in abundance of the
mesopredator, but can also relate to an increase in distribution or density, or a change in
behaviour, such as an increased ranging behaviour (Molsher 1997, Prugh et al. 2009)
In Australia, this type of interaction mostly occurs between foxes and cats due to their overlap
in distribution and diet (Saunders and McLeod 2007). Rabbits are known to provide the dietary
staple of both species, with each preying on different age-classes of rabbits, and consuming
different supplementary prey (Catling 1988). The predator-prey relationship between foxes,
cats and rabbits is complex, and not yet fully understood, with factors, such as habitat type,
food availability, season and rainfall, and disease also influencing population responses
(Robley et al. 2004). As a result, the evidence for mesopredator release in Australia is
inconsistent (Robley et al. 2004). However, a number of studies have indicated that the
abundance of feral cats can increase significantly if foxes are effectively controlled, leading to
a decline in native mammal populations (Algar and Smith 1998, Short et al. 1999, Risbey et al.
2000, Catling and Reid 2003, Invasive Animals CRC 2009, Woodford 2012). Further research
is required to better understand these relationships.
3.3 Management Considerations and Approach
This strategy focuses primarily on the control of fox populations within the WPBR, and
secondly on rabbit populations. Although few studies have formally assessed the interactions
between introduced predators and rabbits (particularly in temperate environments), a number
have shown that predator control allows large and rapid increases in rabbits, to the extent
where they can escape regulation, even after predator populations recover (see Robley et al.
2004, Saunders et al. 2008). The implications of this for mesopredator release are uncertain.
However, this strategy promotes a risk-averse approach, with protocols provided for fox and
rabbit control, as well as for monitoring and control of cat populations, which may be
implemented as necessary.
The benefits of this control program to biodiversity values will depend on whether the level of
pest impacts can be reduced to a degree that will allow native wildlife populations to increase.
There is presently no known consistent relationship between pest density and the level of
impact, thus, the level of control which will be required is unknown. Determining the precise
nature of the relationship between pest density and damage is difficult because these
relationships are often density-dependent and there are numerous confounding factors. The
WPBR Foundation is currently implementing a camera monitoring program which aims to
elucidate the relationship between foxes and Southern Brown Bandicoots; this may provide
some guidance in future, but the results of this research are not yet available.
Final
16
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
In the absence of this information, this strategy is based on the assumption that a decline in
pest abundance is directly related to a decline in pest impact. This means that in order to
achieve a decline in the fox population, the rate of removal of individuals must be higher than
the intrinsic rate of increase (rm) of the population (Hone 1999, Hone 2007). These rates have
been calculated for foxes and rabbits in Australia (Hone 1999). However, there is no
information on the current abundances or densities of pest species within the WPBR.
This strategy applies the principles of strategic and integrated control to achieve a sustained
reduction in pest populations and consequently, their impacts:

Areas for future pest control works have been strategically identified to target areas
where control works may be most feasible and effective, to reduce the potential for
immigration and recolonisation of pest species, and to align with other conservation
works undertaken for the Growing Connections Project;

Control measures have been selected to achieve the most economical control on a
broad-scale, using a combination of techniques, as appropriate, across various land
uses; and

The control strategy should minimise the need to cull large numbers of animals on a
regular basis. This means that control needs to be sustained so that population
densities remain low.
This necessarily emphasises a control program which is based on the ecology of the pest
species. Management considerations for each pest species addressed in this strategy are
outlined below.
3.3.1
Foxes
Foxes are highly mobile, and have a high dispersal capability and high reproductive capacity.
Therefore, populations which have been subject to control are capable of quickly
compensating for population reductions through immigration, increased survival or fecundity
(Thomson et al. 2000, Hone 2007).
Areas where fox populations have been substantially reduced, act as sinks which continually
draw-in foxes from surrounding areas, as territories are vacated. This means that fox control
must be undertaken over large areas, to reduce immigration from uncontrolled areas as far as
possible, and at relatively high frequency, to avoid temporary, but damaging peaks in the
population.
Additionally, the level of fox control must take into account the potential compensatory
increases in survival and fecundity; following an initial decrease in the fox population, more
resources are available to remaining individuals, which can lead to the increased growth rate of
the population. Hone (1999) estimated that approximately 65% of the fox population needs to
be removed annually, to offset the higher growth rates that may be a compensatory response
for the population. Most successful fox control programs have calculated initial (knock-down)
reduction of between 75% and 99% of the population (based on calculated rates of bait-take).
This requires a control technique which can be economically and efficiently implemented on a
broad scale, and is capable of removing large numbers of animals from the population.
Final
17
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
The rate of removal can have a greater impact if control is targeted to the proportion of the
population which contributes most to the next generation (Hone 2007). In fox populations, the
youngest age-classes (birth – 2 years) have been found to make the greatest contribution to the
finite rate of increase, with the influence of survival being nearly as high, or in some cases,
higher (McLeod and Saunders 2001). Therefore, management strategies which target both
recruitment and survivorship are likely to be the most effective for reducing the rate of
increase in fox populations (Saunders and McLeod 2001, Hone 1999). An assessment of fox
control techniques is given in Appendix 1, and techniques recommended for the WPBR are
discussed in Section 4.1.
3.3.2
Rabbits
Rabbits have a high reproductive rate, are extremely fecund, have a high rate of dispersal, and
are capable of colonising a wide range of habitats (Williams et al. 1995). Thus, collaborative
and sustained control is equally as important for rabbits as it is for foxes, providing the most
efficient and economical means of rabbit control (Williams et al. 1995, DEWHA 2008c).
Effective rabbit control requires a combination of methods, using direct, broad-scale control to
achieve an initial reduction in the population, followed by supplementary methods that reduce
habitat suitability and breeding activity, to ensure the long-term control of rabbits and their
impacts. Without follow-up control, rabbits will readily recolonise control areas and/or
increase their population growth rate (Williams et al. 1995). An assessment of available rabbit
control techniques is provided in Appendix 1, and protocols for the most effective techniques
are given in Section 4.2.
Rabbit populations have a high intrinsic rate of increase; it has been estimated that preventing
population growth requires the removal of approximately 87% of the rabbit population,
annually (Hone 1999). To attain the largest population reductions, and gain the maximum
benefits of control, it is best to target rabbit populations when density is naturally lowest, based
on the seasonal cycles of rabbit biology. This can significantly improve the economy and
humanness of the control program, reducing the effort required for subsequent control
(Williams et al. 1995).
Little is known about rabbit populations within the Western Port region in terms of their
distribution, density or areas of greatest impacts. Typically, the distribution and density of
rabbits is thought to be influenced by soil type and land use; rabbits require warrens and
above-ground surface harbour not only for shelter, but also to breed. Warrens in particular,
significantly enhance the survival of young (Williams 1995, Bloomfield 1999a, b). For this
reason, rabbits are thought to prefer areas with deep, well-drained or sandy soils. Anecdotal
evidence suggests that rabbits within the WPBR may also rely heavily on above-ground
harbour. However, the sandy soils around the former Koo Wee Rup Swamp, particularly
around the waterways and drains, may be particularly suitable for burrowing, and support
higher rabbit densities. Potentially suitable areas could be identified with GIS, followed by onground survey to identify areas of high rabbit density or impact (see Section 6.1.2). These
areas could be targeted as a priority for rabbit management in the WPBR.
Final
18
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
3.3.3
Cats
The management of cats in urbanised and agricultural landscapes is problematic because of
their status as both a pest and domestic pet; cats may be classed as domestic, stray or feral, and
may move between these categories across their lifetime (Moodie 1995). Cat densities are also
generally elevated in these environments, because they are resource-rich and the domestic cat
population provides a continual source of supplementation to the feral cat population.
Densities of feral and stray cats in the region are not known, but research has shown that cat
densities in particular areas may change in response to the local distribution and availability of
food resources (Denny and Dickman 2010). The role of rabbit populations in influencing cat
distribution and density is not known.
The WPBR has a number of areas which may support a high density or source populations of
cats. They include industrial areas, rubbish tips, old quarries, dairy farms and tourist resorts in
coastal areas. These areas have often been found to support local, structured colonies of stray
and feral cats, from which cats disperse into surrounding areas, including conservation areas
(Denny 2005, Denny and Dickman 2010).
Monitoring of cat populations within the WPBR should be undertaken to identify areas of high
cat density and to evaluate population changes. Focusing on these areas, as a priority for
monitoring, and subsequent control if necessary, would help to target and improve the
efficiency of cat management in the WBPR. Where monitoring suggests that there are likely to
be adverse impacts to native wildlife, cat control could be undertaken, although, the level at
which cat populations are likely to cause significant negative impacts to native species is not
known.
The options available for cat control in Victoria are limited, due to the high risk of non-target
impacts to domestic cats and native wildlife. Therefore, cat control will necessarily rely on
localised control, using non-lethal methods, in high-density areas or those supporting likely
source populations of feral and stray cats. An assessment of the relative benefits and suitability
of available cat control techniques is given in Appendix 1. Those techniques recommended for
the WPBR are discussed in Section 4.3.
Final
19
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
4 Control Areas
The area of focus for this strategy is centred to the north of Western Port Bay, encompassing
areas of high conservation value within the WPBR, and areas where the majority of control
activities are currently being undertaken (see Figures 2 and 3). Within this area, a prioritisation
framework has been developed, using GIS and a multi-criteria decision analysis, to provide
strategic direction on areas to target for future control activities. The analysis takes into
consideration current areas of control and their spatial coverage, conservation values and
feasibility of control under various land uses, to identify areas where pest control works are
likely to be most feasible and most effective. The prioritisation of sites is provided only for fox
control, primarily as foxes are the main focus of this strategy and of current control activities,
but also because further information is required prior to implementing rabbit or cat control
works across the WPBR.
4.1
Current Areas of Control
Areas where fox control activities have been most recently undertaken have been used as the
basis for the prioritisation of target areas. Future control activities and the areas in which they
are undertaken should build on these control activities, to optimise the spatial coverage of fox
control.
Areas of land currently managed for foxes were mapped using GIS, based on the locations of
control activities provided by various organisations, as shown in Figure 2. This included
poison baiting as well as leg-hold trapping. Only those locations at which control activities are
likely to be ongoing, and where there is potential for co-ordination with the Growing
Connections Program, were used in the analysis; these included works undertaken as part of
the Ramsar Protection Program, and areas for which agencies such as Parks Victoria,
Melbourne Water and VicRoads have future funding. Once-off control activities, those
undertaken on an ad-hoc basis, or those for which future funding has not been secured, were
not included.
The data provided by some organisations comprises point locations (for traps or bait stations),
while other organisations have defined polygons within which control works are undertaken;
in some cases this has been defined by the site boundary, but in other cases appears to
arbitrarily defined. For each of these locations, the potential area of influence was mapped by
applying a 1-km buffer around point locations or the boundaries of polygons.
The potential area of influence is based on research undertaken as part of ‘Project Deliverance’
in east Gippsland, which estimated the area of effect for bait stations to be 1600m;
conservatively, 1 km (Murray et al. 2006). Although undertaken in a forested landscape, this
research is generally used as the basis for the widely used 1-km spacing between bait stations
in many regional control programs, in the absence of better information. Isolated control
locations (i.e. separated from another location by more than 1 km) were not used in the
analysis, because these are generally not considered to be effective.
Final
20
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
4.2
Target Control Areas
Management Units
The area around Western Port was divided into 1-km grid cells using GIS (see Figure 6), to
assist with future management and analysis. These landscape units have been used to guide the
first stage of the prioritisation process.
Under the prioritisation framework (see below), each grid cell has been assigned a priority
rating to refine the selection of future fox control areas. The second stage of the selection
process will involve the identification and selection of specific land properties or land parcels,
within which to undertake future control works, and will require agreement for participation
and collaboration with the land owner or land manager. The assigned priority ratings provide a
hierarchy of areas to target for further investigation, which may involve on-ground
assessments of potentially suitable areas and discussions with potential participants. The 1-km
grids cells can also assist with an assessment of baiting density, where mapping of bait stations
within the grids can be used to calculate the number of baits per square kilometre.
Site Prioritisation Framework
Ideally, fox control within the WPBR would be implemented so that there is an even
distribution of poison baits across the landscape, with little or no gaps between baited areas,
and over as large an area as possible. However, in reality, fox control efforts are restricted by
factors such as: funding and resources, which limit the number of baits that can be laid;
willingness for participation by the wider community; and the feasibility of poison baiting
within different land uses, particularly in the first years of a control program. Therefore, the
initial selection of areas for fox control should strategically target areas that build on current
control activities, protect natural values and where land tenure and uses are amenable to
control activities, such as baiting, including large public or private land holdings (e.g. quarries,
golf courses).
A multi-criteria decision analysis was used to prioritise areas across the WPBR, to target for
fox control. GIS was used to analyse the spatial coverage of current control works and to
prioritise areas for future control works. The process considered five criteria, which included:

Spatial coverage of current control areas;

Extent of remnant vegetation;

Land management;

Land use; and

Fauna species.
GIS was used to assess and score each 1-km grid cell in relation to each of these criteria. Each
grid cell was then assigned a final score, based on the addition of scores from each of the five
criteria, to give a final priority rating. This is shown in Figure 6.
An explanation of each of the criteria, the measures and limitations are given in Table 2.
Details of the methodology, including the scoring system and GIS layers used are given in
Appendix 3, with mapping in Figure 8.
Final
21
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve, Victoria
Table 2
Site prioritisation criteria for fox control in the Western Port Biosphere Reserve
Criteria
Rationale
Measure
Limitations
Spatial coverage
Spatial coverage of control areas is one of the most
important factors influencing the efficacy of a control
program. Undertaking fox control adjacent to areas
already subject to fox control efforts, will expand the
area of control, and will be more valuable than
undertaking control in an isolated area.
Each grid cell was assigned a score on the basis
of location in relation to current control areas:
Data on current control works was provided
as either a point location or polygon, around
which the potential area of influence was
estimated. These areas were not included in
the analysis. In some areas (e.g. polygons)
the current area under management may
have been overestimated.
Native vegetation is greatly depleted across the WPBR.
Thus, remnant vegetation in this landscape is of high
conservation value. It provides habitat for a range of
fauna species and contributes to ecosystem function.
Areas supporting large patches of remnant vegetation
are also likely to be more amenable for the
implementation of control activities, particularly baiting.
The area of remnant vegetation within each grid
cell, in hectares, was calculated using EVC
mapping.
Land management objectives influence the suitability of
a site for fox control. Areas managed with a
conservation objective will be more amenable to fox
control than other areas, where management priorities
may be incompatible with fox control. These primarily
includes areas of public land, both reserved and
unreserved, and should be targeted first.
Public land management layers were used to
identify sites managed by public land
management authorities, as an indicator of
suitability for fox control.
Extent of remnant
vegetation
Land Management
Cells adjacent to current control areas = 1
Cells not adjacent to current control areas = 0
The total area for each cell was then given a
standardised score, between 0 and 1.
The area of each cell covered by a public land
management authority was calculated in hectares
and assigned a score:
≥ 50% = 1
The mapping of remnant vegetation (EVCs)
is based on modelling undertaken by DEPI,
and may not always reflect on-ground native
vegetation cover.
The Public land management layer was used
to identify sites which may be managed for
conservation objectives. The layer identifies
land managed by agencies such as Parks
Victoria, DEPI and Council, and includes
parks and reserves. However, other areas of
public land, where baiting may not be
feasible, may have also been included, such
as public recreation reserves.
25-50% = 0.75
10-25% = 0.5
<10% and adjoining a cells with ≥10% public land
= 0.25
<10% and not adjoining a cell with ≥10% public
land = 0
Final
22
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve, Victoria
Criteria
Rationale
Measure
Limitations
Land Use
Land use, particularly the level of urban development
has an influence of the type of control works which can
be undertaken within an area. Urban development limits
the range of techniques which can be used. Baiting is
generally not possible in high density urban areas.
Therefore, baiting must necessarily be targeted to
public reserves and rural land uses.
Planning Schemes control the land use and level
of urban development within each zone. Planning
Scheme zones were used to reflect land use.
Each cell was assigned a score based on the
dominant land use zone for that grid.
Areas zoned for public use provide for a
variety of uses, including conservation
reserves, roads and railways, waterways,
and schools. Therefore, not all areas zoned
for public use may be suitable for fox control.
Public or Commonwealth Land zones = 1
Controls on land use within particular zones
may also vary between municipalities.
Private land - rural or semi-rural land use zones =
0.5
Private land – urban zones = 0
Fauna Species
Final
The WPBR supports a number of significant fauna
species, many of which are vulnerable to fox predation.
One of the main objectives of the predator control
program, under the Growing Connections project is to
enhance biodiversity values within the WPBR.
A score for each grid cell was calculated from the
number of fauna species that are considered
vulnerable to predation. The total number of fauna
species was then divided by the highest value to
give a standardised score between 0 and 1.
Fauna records are based on site survey data
which has been submitted to the DEPI. The
data set is not complete and some sites have
been surveyed more than others. A lack of
records may reflect a lack of survey effort,
and not necessarily the absence of
significant fauna species.
23
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
Growing Connections Biodiversity Significance Mapping
As part of the Western Port Biosphere Reserve Biodiversity Plan (WPBRF 2015), the WPBR
Foundation produced biodiversity significance mapping, to prioritise areas across the WPBR, from
‘very low’ to ‘very high’, for the Growing Connections Project. The significance mapping was
based on known biodiversity values, GIS land-use datasets and expert and local knowledge; a full
description of the methodology and the mapping is provided in WPBRF (2015).
The biodiversity significance mapping produced as part of the Biodiversity Plan displays a number
similarities, in the prioritisation of sites, to the mapping produced as part of this strategy. This is
partly due to the use of similar datasets with regard to significant biodiversity values within the
WPBR. However, the mapping produced as part of this project has a greater focus on areas where
greater benefit may be achieved for predator control, due to the spatial arrangement and feasibility
of predator control.
Areas of land prioritised as ‘Medium’, ‘High’ and ‘Very High’ in the Biodiversity Plan were
overlaid on the predator control site prioritisation mapping, to highlight any additional areas of
importance and to align with other works undertaken as part of the Growing Connections Program.
Predator Control Prioritisation Mapping
The predator control prioritisation mapping is shown in Figure 3, below. The Mapping shows
priority areas identified as part of this strategy (i.e. coloured grids ranging from cream to dark-blue,
with the highest priority being dark-blue) and priority areas identified by the WPBR Foundation, as
part of the Biodiversity Plan (i.e. orange, blue and green-hatched grids). The map shows that some
areas identified by the WPBR Foundation correspond to those areas identified as high priority by
this strategy, as well as additional areas. It should be noted that areas around the Western Port
Coastline which have been given the lowest priority rating by this strategy (i.e. cream grids), have
been assigned this rating only because predator control works are currently being undertaken in
these areas, and the aim of the mapping was to identify additional areas. Hence, if funding for these
programs is withdrawn in future, then re-instatement of works in these areas should be the first
priority, over the other areas identified here. These areas have also been identified as being of high
significance by the WPBR Foundation.
This mapping is intended to guide future control works by various agencies, across the WPBR, as
part of the Western Port Pest Animal Group, which is expected to have a life beyond the Growing
Connections Program. As part of the Growing Connections Program, this mapping also provides
further guidance to the WPBR Foundation, on target control areas, in order to achieve the 125 ha
target. The following geographic areas have been identified, in order of priority, for the WPBR
Foundation to focus on, and undertake further investigation, specifically as part of the Growing
Connections Project:
1. The area around Tooradin, between Blind Bight and The Inlets, to fill the spatial gap in
predator control works currently undertaken along the Western Port Coastline;
2. The area around Cardinia and Toomuc Creeks, north of the Inlets, which broadly connects this
area with the Coast, (i.e. The Inlets, through Tooradin to Hastings);
3.
Final
The area south of Crib Point, to complete the connection around the coast.
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve, Victoria
Figure 3
Final
Site prioritisation analysis for future control works, showing areas of varying priority within the Western Port Biosphere Reserve (combined with significance mapping from the WPBR Foundation)
25
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
5 Control Techniques
Determining the most appropriate techniques depends on the purpose and scale of control, and
must balance the efficacy of various techniques with associated costs, risks and feasibility of
implementation in particular areas. This section outlines the range of control techniques
recommended for the WPBR to reduce the impacts of foxes and rabbits, with management
options for cats, as part of an integrated control program. The selection of techniques is based
on an assessment of the benefits, limitations, costs and feasibility of each control technique, as
shown in Appendix 1. Protocols are provided for the on-ground delivery of each technique,
based on best-practice and state regulations, to facilitate integration across programs.
5.1
Foxes
5.1.1 Poison Baiting
Poison baiting is considered to be the single-most effective fox control technique and is widely
used throughout Australia with high rates of success (Saunders and McLeod 2007). In
Australia, poison baiting has been used in both broad-scale, cross-tenure fox control programs
co-ordinated by government agencies, as well as by individual landholders, as part of smaller
neighbourhood control programs. However, the success of this technique depends on the scale,
frequency, timing and method of bait deployment, as well as bait placement (see below). It is
most effective when employed as part of a co-ordinated, landscape-scale program;
implemented in this way, poison baiting is capable of economically achieving substantial
reductions in fox populations, over large areas.
In Victoria, poison baiting is generally undertaken using fresh or commercially produced meatbased baits, impregnated with 1080 (sodium monofluoroacetate), which are buried in the
ground (Figure 3). The 1080 toxin is currently the most widely used as it is economical,
readily biodegradable, and is highly toxic to canid and felid species, which are relatively more
susceptible than native species. With good baiting practices, the risks of 1080 to non-target
species are relatively low. In eastern Australia, burying baits is a standard practice employed to
safeguard non-target species by reducing their access to toxic baits (Dexter and Meek 1998,
Glen and Dickman 2003, Staples and McPhee 1995). Used properly, 1080 remains the most
suitable toxin currently available for broad-scale fox control. However, other toxicants and
delivery methods are currently being developed. These include para-aminopropiophenone
(PAPP) and M-44 ejectors.
PAPP
PAPP is currently being assessed for registration by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary
Medicines Authority (APVMA). While not yet commercially available, the use of PAPP when
available, has several advantages over 1080, including: the availability of an antidote, which is
effective if delivered within 20 minutes of poisoning; reduced non-target impacts for many
native species (Fleming et al. 2006); and improved welfare outcomes for foxes due to a more
rapid death and the appearance of fewer distress symptoms prior to death (Marks et al. 2004).
However, early trials have indicated that bandicoots may have an even higher sensitivity to
PAPP than foxes. Coupled with their low body weight, this means that PAPP may be highly
lethal to bandicoots which are a significant biodiversity value in the WPBR.
Final
26
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
Risks to bandicoots would depend on the accessibility of baits and their palatability. The
overall risks to bandicoots have not been properly assessed. Until then, PAPP is not
recommended unless other delivery mechanisms can also be used (i.e. M-44 ejectors).
M-44 Ejectors
M-44 ejectors are spring-loaded devices which are partially buried in the ground and loaded
with an attractant (Figure 4). When pulled, the mechanism propels the toxicant into the
animal’s mouth. These devices have the potential to increase the efficacy of a baiting program.
When triggered, the ejectors effectively and reliably deliver a lethal dose of 1080, which has
been protected from degradation due to water leaching, and insect and microbial activity,
allowing a lower dose of 1080 to be used. This reduces the risk of sub-lethal dosing and bait
caching. Multi-shot ejectors are being researched and developed which would also offer the
advantage of multiple fox kills per deployment. M-44 ejectors are also designed to
significantly increase the target-specificity of poison baiting; the device can only be triggered
by an upwards pulling motion and can be set to be activated only at a specific pull-force. This
means that commercial deployment of ejectors may allow for long-term, target specific fox
control with minimal on-going labour requirements.
Bait Selection and Deployment
A large number of different bait types and attractants have been trialled for fox control across
Australia, including commercially prepared baits (Saunders and Harris 2000). However, there
is no clear evidence on bait preferences, and it is generally considered that foxes will consume
most bait types. Meat-based baits are commonly used because of their high palatability and
target-specificity (Saunders and McLeod 2007).
Commercially manufactured dried meat 1080 baits (e.g. FoxOff®) are recommended for use
within the WPBR, because of their longevity (compared to fresh meat baits), unless the uptake
of baits is considered to be too low. In this case, fresh or dried meat baits could be trialled. The
use of Synthetic Fermented Egg products (SFEs), which are highly attractive to foxes, has
been found to significantly increase visitation of bait stations by foxes (Saunders and Harris
2000, Saunders and McLeod 2007). Therefore, SFE’s (e.g. FeralMone™) are also
recommended for use within the WPBR, to help maximise bait up-take.
All poison baits deployed within the WPBR, should be laid in accordance with Victorian
guidelines, which specify burial to a depth of 15 cm, within a soil mound, to reduce non-target
risks, as shown in Figure 3. As PAPP and M-44 ejectors become available, these should be
trialled within the WPBR, to assess the benefits and risks, and determine whether they are
suitable for use in the region. In particular, trials should assess the potential risks to Southern
Brown Bandicoots and domestic dogs.
Baiting Density
The density of baits required to achieve an effective reduction in the fox population is a
function of the density of foxes in a given area, and home-range size. Ideally, the baiting
density should provide each fox with the chance of encountering poison bait; baiting densities
that are too low will result in low encounter rates, and low mortality. However, the home
range-size and density of foxes, across different land types in the WPBR, is not known;
Final
27
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
research on the home range and movement patterns of foxes in urban areas of the Mornington
Peninsula is currently being undertaken, and may provide some direction in future. A number
of other factors, including land tenure, distance to human habitation, and non-target risks must
also be considered.
Based on density estimates from central Victoria (Coman et al. 1991), it is anticipated that the
predominantly agricultural landscape within the WPBR, supports approximately 4 foxes km-2,
although, higher densities may occur around townships or industrial areas. To achieve a 75%
reduction of the fox population, three in four foxes must be killed. On this basis, a baiting
density of 9-12 baits km-2 would be required (providing approximately 3 baits per fox); a
density of 12 baits km-2 has also been used in rural NSW to achieve an estimated 70%
reduction in the fox population, where fox density was estimated between 4 and 7 foxes km-2
(Thomson and Fleming 1994). A baiting density this high may not be achievable in the WPBR
for various reasons, such as levels of landholder participation, funding or resource availability,
or risks to domestic animals. However, based on results of other baiting programs around
Australia, a baiting density of at least 5 baits km-2 is generally required in order for baiting to
be effective in agricultural landscapes (see Saunders and McLeod 2007). Thus, baiting
densities in the WPBR should be as high as feasible, determined on a case-by-case basis.
Bait Distribution and Placement
The spatial distribution of baits is important for maximising the efficiency of the baiting
program. An even distribution is likely to provide more foxes with the chance of encountering
baits and therefore, reduce the re-colonisation rate. Leaving gaps in the landscape can entirely
miss some fox territories, which can act as a source of immigration into baited areas (Carter et
al. 2011). The spatial coverage of bait stations across the landscape will depend on the level of
landholder participation (among other factors); an effective landholder engagement program is
therefore, an essential part of this program (see Section 7.2). Strategic direction on areas to
target as part of a baiting program is outlined in Section 5.
Within baited areas, the targeted placement of baits can increase the likelihood of foxes
encountering baits, and affect the rate of bait uptake (Carter et al. 2011, Carter and Luck
2013). Where possible, baits should be deployed near roads and vegetated creek corridors. The
placement of baits near these landscape features has been shown to result in higher rates of bait
uptake than along fence-lines or in open paddocks (Carter et al. 2011, Carter and Luck 2013).
Placement of baits within a particular property should be determined on-ground and with the
aid of GIS and aerial photography, with bait stations mapped on GIS for future analysis (see
Section 7.3); distance restrictions must also be adhered to, as per DEPI (2014).
Timing, Frequency and Duration
The timing, frequency and duration of poison baiting can determine the success, or otherwise,
of a fox control program. Fox control undertaken for the protection of native wildlife, typically
requires a sustained an on-going effort to maintain fox populations at low densities year-round.
Short-term baiting programs have been shown to be ineffective in producing long-term
reductions in the fox population, as the temporary reductions achieved during baiting, are
quickly compensated for by immigration, breeding or increased survivorship in the remaining
population (Saunders and McLeod 2007).
Final
28
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
Broad-scale fox control programs which have been successful in recovering native wildlife
typically employ a continuous baiting regime, or a pulsed regime, where baits are deployed in
long pulses throughout the year. The efficacy of these regimes has been demonstrated with an
adaptive experimental fox program trialled at a number of sites across Victoria (Robley et al.
2008). A continuous baiting regime is likely to provide maximum benefits for biodiversity and
will enable patterns or annual cycles in predator and prey abundance across the landscape to be
elucidated. However, a pulsed regime may receive greater acceptance from the local
community, and encourage greater participation.
Wherever poison baiting is undertaken within the region, an action plan for reducing the risks
to domestic animals should be developed and implemented. Recommendations for this are
provided below.
Protocol:
Poison Baiting (1080)
Materials

Procedure
1080 Baits:
-
Manufactured FoxOff® baits, containing 3.5g 1080
-
Where bait palatability is low and potentially affecting bait uptake, the
use of novel baits, such as dried liver or chicken may be required
TM

Synthetic fermented egg attractants (e.g. FeralMone ).

GPS

Sand of local provenance

Shovel, rake

Data recording sheet (e.g. see Appendix 2)
Bait Density

2
The maximum allowable density of fox-baits is 12.5 / km ; given the likely
2
densities of foxes in the study area (c. 4-8 / km ), baiting densities in the study
2
area should be at least 5 and where possible up to 12 / km . Baiting density will
most likely depend on the level of participation.
Bait Placement

Placement of baits within the landscape is best determined from GIS and onground inspections to select sites which may maximise bait uptake;

Avoid placing bait stations in low-lying or frequently inundated areas; and

Where possible, consider placing baits near roadsides and creek lines.
Bait Deployment
Final

All 1080 baits are to be buried in bait stations.

Bait stations will consist of a hole dug to c. 15 cm deep into which the bait is
placed and covered with the loose soil (rocks and vegetation removed);
2
sand/fine soil is then placed in an area of c. 1 m of the bait to around 10 cm
deep (i.e. a ‘mound’), resulting in a depth to the bait of 15 cm or greater (see
Figure 3);

FeralMone should be used at all bait locations (i.e. a small amount placed
adjacent to, not on, the bait); and

Mark and record the location of each bait station with a GPS, to be mapped on
GIS.
TM
29
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
Free-feeding

An initial free-feeding period is recommended for monitoring purposes, to
assess the risks of non-target bait-take, at the commencement of the program;

Deploy non-toxic baits within constructed bait stations, as detailed above;

Monitor the bait-stations daily, and replace baits as necessary, to maintain the
same number of baits in the landscape each day;

Record frequency of bait-take; and

After the rate of bait-take has reached a plateau, replace all non-toxic baits with
toxic baits. Continue with poison baiting thereafter.
Bait Checking and Replacement
Data Collection
Regulations
Figure 4
Final

Baits should be checked fortnightly;

Replace baits if they have been taken or disturbed, or after significant rainfall
(>25 mm);

Replace baits if they have not been taken after one month, and there has been
no heavy rainfall; and

Record each bait-check and replacement consistently.

Date of commencement;

Site and Bait station Identifier;

Location (GPS coordinates);

Bait type (Free-feed or poison);

Date of bait laid, checked and replaced;

Fate of bait (e.g. taken, not taken, exposed, degraded);

Indicators of fox presence or presence of other species;

Time taken to complete operation; and

Number and names of personnel.

All relevant legislation and regulations must be followed when using 1080 baits,
including warning signage and notification of neighbours, and distance
restrictions (see DEPI 2014).
Bait station design for buried 1080 poison baits (redrawn from Murray et al.
2006)
30
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
Protocol:
Poison Baiting (M-44 Ejectors and PAPP)
Materials

Bait capsule containing 2.7mg PAPP;

M-44 Ejectors (see Figure 4) ;

GPS;

Shovel;

Personal protective clothing and First Aid kits; and

Data recording sheet.
Procedure
Bait Density

Densities of M-44 ejectors should be the same as 1080 baiting.
Bait Deployment

M-44 ejectors, with a PAPP toxicant, should be implemented once PAPP is
registered and commercially available, firstly as part of a trial; and

Mark and record the location of each bait station with GPS, to be later mapped
on GIS.
Bait Checking and Replacement

Ejectors deployed in the field should be checked/maintained every month at a
minimum; more frequent checking (e.g. weekly) will reduce the time that
ejectors are triggered (i.e. inactive) and will increase both the effectiveness and
accuracy of estimates of fox activity/kills;

Maintenance checks allow baits to be refreshed, and also provide an
opportunity to change the type of bait heads regularly (e.g. liver, kangaroo,
lamb, etc.); and

Synthetic fermented egg attractants (e.g. FeralMoneTM) should be used at all
bait locations (i.e. a small amount placed adjacent (not on) the bait).
Data Collection

As for poison baiting with 1080.
Regulations

All relevant legislation and regulations must be followed when using PAPP
baits, including warning signage, notification of neighbours and distance
restrictions; and

Relevant regulations and OH&S precautions must be followed when working
with toxicants. PAPP regulations are yet to be developed.
Final
31
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
Figure 5
Diagrammatic representation of an M-44 ejector (taken from Ecology
Australia 2013)
Action Plan: Reducing risks to domestic animals
 Provide free dog-muzzles to all landholders in fox control areas, who have dogs that may be at risk of
poisoning;
 Distribute First Aid kits for dogs, which includes a booklet, packet of salts and instructions on
administration;
 Notify local veterinarians about the nature and locations of baiting programs;
 Hold a workshop or information session for local veterinarians to address animal welfare concerns for
domestic animals, and pest animals. The session should explain the objectives of the program and
the legalities of 1080 baiting;
 Invest in raising community awareness through extension programs (additional to letters and signage);
and
 Undertake toxicology for any domestic animals suspected of 1080 poisoning.
Final
32
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
5.1.2 Den Fumigation
Fumigation of natal fox dens, using carbon monoxide gas (CO), provides one of the most
humane and target-specific forms of fox control currently available (Sharp and Saunders
2004). Den fumigation is undertaken during the fox breeding season, using combustible
cartridges, or a fumigator to pump CO into the den; it causes death to foxes by depriving the
brain of oxygen, rendering them unconscious before death. Den fumigation mostly causes
mortality in cubs; the vixen only remains in the den for the first few weeks following birth, and
the male rarely inhabits the birth den. Thus, den fumigation does not necessarily remove
resident foxes. However, it removes the next generation of foxes, which has been shown to
contribute most to the rate of population increase (McLeod and Saunders 2001).
Den fumigation is generally not considered suitable for broad-scale application due to the
difficulty of locating active natal dens, which are often widely dispersed. However, it can be
effective when used in conjunction with poison baiting, as part of an integrated strategy,
particularly if dens are not destroyed following fumigation.
Destroying dens by ripping with machinery after fumigation can reduce the availability of den
sites, which is known to influence the density of fox populations (Marks and Bloomfield
2006). However, this simply forces foxes to den within more marginal habitat, or selects for
foxes which excavate dens in areas that are more difficult to manage. Leaving dens intact
provides an opportunity to map, monitor and undertake systematic and repeated control of
foxes each year. The success of this technique is due to the high fidelity foxes show to natal
dens between years.
The large effort required to locate dens can be overcome by engaging the community in a
program to locate and record dens on their property, which can then be entered into a central
GIS-enabled database. Mapping of fox dens not only allows for systematic survey of the dens
during the breeding season, but also allows fox numbers to be monitored based on the number
of active natal dens. It can also help to target fox control efforts; for example, baiting during
August and November could be targeted to areas around natal dens, where baits are likely to be
taken back to dens by the male or vixen, targeting both adults and cubs.
Final
33
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
Protocol:
Den Fumigation
Materials

DEN-CO-FUME® cartridges or portable fumigator;

GPS;

Shovel;

Fibre cement sheets;

Protective clothing and First Aid kits; and

Data recording sheets.
Timing

During the breeding season, while cubs are still confined to the den: Ideally,
August to October to target dens with cubs greater than 4 weeks old.
Procedure

Prior to fumigation, the den should be checked for evidence of den use by
native fauna (e.g. bandicoots, wombats, snakes); fumigation should never be
undertaken unless their absence can be established;

Fumigation should be used in natal dens that have signs of current fox
activity, such as cub footprints, flattened vegetation or a distinctive fox odour;

Do not use sand-pads outside den entrances to confirm fox presence; this can
cause vixens to relocate the cubs (Carter 2011);

Once activity is confirmed, locate all den entrances, and cover and secure
2
each entrance with a 1m piece of fibre cement sheeting, and cover with soil
to prevent the gas escaping, leaving one entrance open;

Combustible cartridges can be used in most circumstances, but where access
to den sites is problematic, or where cartridges pose a fire risk, a fumigator
should be used;

At the last open entrance, insert the cartridge or pipe of the fumigator, and
then seal. More than one cartridge may be required for dens with multiple
entrances;

After combustion, wait 10 minutes before removing fumigator pipes, and reseal dens;

Leave dens sealed for 24hrs;

Do not destroy dens following fumigation. This does not remove foxes, but
encourages them to den elsewhere when suitable areas are destroyed; and

Record the location of each den with a GPS to be mapped on GIS for
monitoring purposes.

Date and time;

Names of personnel;

Den location and GPS co-ordinates;

Signs of fox activity;

Non-target species use; and

Number of den entrances.


Relevant regulations and OH&S precautions must be followed when working
with fumigants;
Avoid use during hot, dry and windy conditions;

Follow the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS); and

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 and Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Regulations 2008.
Data Collection
Regulations
Final
34
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
5.1.3 Trapping
Trapping of foxes is undertaken with soft-jaw (i.e. rubber) leg-hold or foot-hold traps; cage
traps are generally considered to be ineffective (Saunders and McLeod 2007). A variety of
humane soft-jaw trap models have been developed and tested world-wide. These include traps
with padding and offset jaws, foot snares, treadle snares, and pan-tension modifications, which
reduce the risk of injury to the captured animal and the number of non-target captures. Traps
are often deployed with scent lures and set along access tracks, animal tracks or in areas where
there are signs of fox activity.
Trapping is frequently used in areas where lethal methods are not permitted or considered a
high risk to non-target species, such as near areas of urban development. However, trapping is
labour-intensive and costly, and trapping success is generally low (Meek et al. 1995, Kay et al.
2000, van Polanen Petel 2004). As such, trapping is not suitable for broad-scale fox control.
Trapping within the WPBR should be used as a supplementary technique only, at locations
where poison baiting is not permitted by the landowner, or considered to be an unacceptable
risk to domestic animals. Trapping can be undertaken throughout the year, except for AugustSeptember, when vixens are likely to be lactating, for animal welfare reasons.
Protocol:
Soft-jaw Trapping
Materials

Victor Soft-Catch Soft-jaw Trap (#1
and 14 cm;

Meat bait (beef heart, lamb, chicken or rabbit);

Synthetic fermented egg attractants (e.g. FeralMoneTM);

GPS;

Data recording sheets; and

Small calibre firearm (for euthanasia).
Procedure
1/2
or #3), with a jaw spread of between 11
Trap location

Traps should be set in areas where the problem foxes or dogs are believed to
frequent, such as on tracks and trails, ideally in shade;

Avoid setting traps adjacent to objects that the captured animal may get
tangled in, such as fences and vegetation; and

Avoid areas known to be frequented by non-target animals.
Trap setting and checking
Final

Prepare a hole in the ground, secure the trap, then set and cover with a fine
layer of soil and leaf litter 10-15 cm in diameter over the trip plate;

Place the bait behind the trap, at a distance where the animal is likely to step
on the trap while investigating the bait;

Place a small amount of attractant, adjacent to, but not on the bait;

Record the location of all traps with GPS, to be later mapped on GIS;

Traps should be set at the end of the day and checked early each morning (48 h later), so as to minimise time an animal is held in the trap;

If traps are to be set during the day, they should be checked in the afternoon;

Captured animals should be approached quietly to reduce panic;
35
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria

Any non-target animals caught should be inspected for injuries and released
at the point of capture if considered unharmed, or suffering from minimal
injuries; and

Non-target animals suffering from severe injuries should receive appropriate
veterinary attention.
Fox/Dog disposal
Data Collection
Regulations
5.2
5.2.1

Captured dogs should be assessed to determine if they are domestic or wild.
Domestic dogs should be transferred to Council if safe to do so;

Captured foxes or wild dogs are to be euthanased while held in the trap with a
gunshot to the head, by a licensed and experienced operator; and

Death should be verified by corneal reflex before disposing of animals by
incineration or burial in a 1m disposal pit.

Trap number;

Trap location and co-ordinates;

Names of personnel;

Date of commencement, each trap check and completion;

Duration of operation;

Number of foxes trapped;

Sex and age-class of each fox trapped;

Overall body condition of foxes trapped; and

Non-target species trapped.

All relevant legislation and regulations must be followed when trapping foxes
and dogs, including legislation regarding animal welfare (e.g. Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act 1986, and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Regulations 2008); and

Notify the public prior to trapping to enable residents to take necessary
precautions for pets.
Rabbits
Poison Baiting
Poison baiting can quickly and effectively reduce rabbit populations; implemented correctly,
baiting can remove up to 90% of the rabbit population, and when undertaken in conjunction
with warren destruction, achieves long-lasting control (DEWHA 2008c). Baiting is most
effective during late-summer and early-autumn, when disease and natural causes are likely to
have reduced rabbit numbers to base levels. During this time, feed is typically limited, and
rabbits are also likely to increase foraging and range over greater distances. Baiting at this time
also reduces rabbit numbers before the peak breeding season (Bloomfield 1999c).
Two toxins are currently registered for rabbit control in Victoria: 1080 and Pindone
(Bloomfield 1999c). Pindone is often the preferred toxin (particularly near urban areas),
because of the availability of an antidote (Vitamin K1), and is the toxin used in commercially
produced rabbit baits. However, Pindone has been known to cause mortality in bandicoots in
Final
36
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
Western Australia (Twigg et al. 1999), and is therefore, not recommended for use in the
WPBR, which supports an important population of Southern Brown Bandicoots.
Rabbit baiting using 1080 involves laying trails of 1080-laced diced carrots, pellets or oats
near warrens or feeding areas. Rabbit baiting with 1080 has not been shown to have a negative
impact on populations of native species, although there have been some cases of individual
deaths, where large amounts have been consumed (Brunner 1983, McIlroy and Gifford 1991).
Risks to native wildlife depend on the palatability of the bait and the amount consumed. Oat
baits are not readily consumed by most species, and can be dyed green or blue to further
reduce their attractiveness. Other measures, such as using surface coated rather than
impregnated oats, will help reduce risks to granivorous birds, which typically discard the husks
(Sharp and Saunders 2004). To reduce the risk of secondary poisoning to domestic animals,
efforts should be made to remove rabbit carcasses after poisoning campaigns.
Protocol:
Poison Baiting (1080)
Materials

Timing
Procedure
1080 Baits:
-
Surface coated, blue or green-dyed oats to reduce exposure to nontarget species
-
Pindone must not be used due to potential impacts on Southern Brown
Bandicoots;

Personal protective clothing and First Aid kits;

GPS; and

Shovel.

Late-summer to early-autumn, when the ground surface is dry, and there is a
low chance of rain within the following days;

Before warren ripping or fumigation; and

The principle for rabbit baiting should be to conduct it as infrequently as
required, with a maximum kill-rate (to minimise bait-shy rabbits and maximise
benefit).
Bait Placement

Baits should be laid along areas of rabbit feeding activity and marked; and

Baits can be placed under a mesh canopy to reduce access to non-target
species if they are considered to be at risk, including livestock.
Bait Deployment
Final

Free-feed with non-toxic baits, 2-3 times, approximately 4 days apart;

Lay baits in a pre-cut furrow, where pasture is short or absent;

Laying baits in the evening can reduce exposure to diurnal native species,
including birds and some herbivores, and may increase consumption by
rabbits, which feed at night;

Baits should be replaced according to the average period until sub-lethal dose
is reached under prevailing conditions; usually 2-3 days; and

Uneaten baits should be buried or removed and destroyed at the conclusion
of the baiting period; carcasses are to be removed approx. 14 days following
baiting where possible.
37
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
Rabbit disposal
Data Collection
Regulations

Rabbit carcasses should be disposed of by incineration or burying in a pit, to a
minimum depth of 50 cm; and

Disposal pits should not be located near waterways.

Date of commencement;

Bait trail location;

Bait type;

Date of bait laid, checked and replaced;

Fate of bait (e.g. taken, not taken, exposed, degraded);

Time taken to complete operation; and

Number and names of personnel.

All relevant legislation and regulations must be followed when using 1080
baits, including warning signage, notification of neighbours and distance
restrictions.
5.2.2 Warren Destruction and Fumigation
Rabbit control programs which do not include the destruction and fumigation of rabbit warrens
are ineffective. This is because warrens (and above-ground harbours) are a critical resource for
the European Rabbit, which increase survival.
Warren destruction, either by hand, or with machinery or explosives, is an important follow-up
control technique to poison baiting, used to prevent the recolonisation of an area by rabbits.
The most efficient means of destroying rabbit warrens, on a larger scale, typically includes
machinery, such as bulldozers, excavators, backhoes or tractor-mounted tynes; the most
appropriate machinery to use will be determined by the terrain. Explosives may be useful in
particular circumstances, where ripping is not possible, or for those areas which are repeatedly
recolonised (Bloomfield 1999c).
At locations where poison baiting cannot be undertaken, or for areas that are inaccessible to
ripping machinery, warren fumigation may be more appropriate, although it is typically more
expensive and labour intensive. Fumigation of rabbit warrens is undertaken by depositing gasgenerating tablets within the warren (i.e. diffusion fumigation) or by pumping a toxic gas
mixture through the warren with a machine (i.e. pressure fumigation). Two fumigants are
currently registered for use in Victoria – aluminium phosphide and chloropicrin. Chloropicrin
is generally not considered to be as humane as aluminium phosphide as it can cause significant
irritation of the respiratory tract prior to death (Sharp and Saunders 2004), and is not permitted
for use within the DELWP.
Final
38
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
Protocol:
Warren Ripping
Materials

Bulldozer, excavator, backhoe or tractor mounted ripper;

Blade plough for sandy soils;

GPS;

Personal protective clothing and First Aid kits; and

Data recording sheets.
Timing

Best undertaken before the rabbit breeding season, after poison baiting, when
the density of rabbits is likely to be lowest.
Procedure

Warrens should be checked for native fauna prior to destruction. Where there
is evidence of warren use by native fauna (e.g. bandicoots, wombats or
snakes), ripping or fumigation must not be undertaken unless their absence
can be established;

Appropriate consideration of potential impacts to native vegetation must be
undertaken prior to ripping commencing; where impacts are likely to be
significant, alternate methods targeting warrens should be used (i.e.
fumigation or explosion);

Prior to ripping, fumigation and explosion, flush rabbits into warrens using
loud noises or dogs;

Record the location of each warren with a GPS to later be mapped on GIS;

Locate burrow entrances;

Seal all burrows and rip the warren to at least 0.5 m, and preferably to 0.9 m
(may need to be deeper in sandy soils);

Ripping should extend at least 2-3 m beyond the visible extent of the warren
(see Figure 5);

Rip along contour lines (not against); cross-ripping may be required in some
areas (e.g. Figure 5);

Avoid ripping during or immediately following high rainfall; lighter soils should
be ripped when dry, while heavier or clay soils should be ripped when damp;

When ripping on slopes, ensure final rip lines run cross-slope to reduce
erosion;

Check the ripped areas 1 week later for signs of re-use and rip again or
fumigate if required;

In conservation areas, re-seed ripped areas with fast-growing indigenous
species; and

Removal of surface harbour may be required either in areas to be ripped, or in
areas where ripping is not feasible; and potential impacts to native fauna must
be considered.

Date and Time;

Names of personnel;

Warren location and GPS co-ordinates;

Signs of use by non-target species;

Number of burrow entrances;

Diagram of warren; and

Date of warren check (1 week later) for re-invasion.

Experienced operators with appropriate licences are required for warren-
Data Collection
Regulations
Final
39
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria

Figure 6
ripping, fumigation and explosion; and
Follow the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS).
Diagrammatic representation of rabbit warren ripping (taken from Ecology
Australia 2013)
Protocol:
Warren Fumigation
Materials

Tablets or pressure fumigator;

GPS;

Shovel;

Personal protective clothing and First Aid kits; and

Data recording sheets.
Timing

Best undertaken before the rabbit breeding season, after poison baiting, when
the density of rabbits is likely to be lowest.
Procedure

Warrens should be checked for native fauna prior to fumigation. Where there is
evidence of warren use by native fauna (e.g. bandicoots, wombats or snakes),
fumigation must not be undertaken unless their absence can be established;

Prior to fumigation, flush rabbits into warrens using loud noises or dogs;

Record the location of each warren with a GPS to later be mapped on GIS;

Locate burrow entrance;

Use a gas tablet or pressure fumigator depending on availability;
Final
40
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
Data Collection
Regulations

Place tablet(s) well into remaining burrows and seal all burrow exits;

If a pressure fumigator is used, cover all burrows except the entrance and the
downwind burrow;

Seal remaining burrows following fumigation; and

Check the burrow 2-5 days later.

Date and Time;

Names of personnel;

Warren location and GPS co-ordinates;

Signs of use by non-target species;

Number of burrow entrances;

Diagram of warren; and

Date of warren check (1 week later) for re-invasion.

Experienced operators with appropriate licences are required for warren-ripping,
fumigation and explosion; and
Follow the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS).

5.3 Cats
5.3.1
Trapping
As with fox trapping, trapping for cats is a time-consuming, expensive and labour-intensive
control method, which is generally only suitable for localised control. However, in the absence
of alternative, effective techniques, trapping can be used in targeted areas, including around
tips and quarries that may support source-populations of cats which disperse into surrounding
areas. Trapping can also be safely used around urban areas. Cage traps are the only traps which
can be legally used to capture cats in Victoria.
Protocol:
Cage Trapping
Materials

Treadle-style rectangular cage trap (740 x 310 x 310 mm), made of 2.5mm
welded wire mesh (12.5 x 25 mm);

Bait – oily fish baits or KFC chicken pieces;

GPS;

Data recording sheets; and

Small calibre firearm (for euthanasia) and First Aid kits.

Cats are thought to be more likely to be attracted to bait when prey species
are less abundant, and as such trapping programs should be timed when this
is likely to be the case; and

Avoid trapping between September and March, when cats may be lactating,
to minimise the risk of starving kittens.
Timing
Procedure
Final
Trap location

Traps should be set in a sheltered position, to reduce exposure to the
elements;

Avoid setting in areas where interference may occur, or near areas of dense
vegetation; and
41
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria

Avoid areas frequented by non-target animals.
Trap setting and checking

Implement a feeding program over two to three nights prior to trapping, to
ensure cats are willing to take food;

The cage trap should be free-fed with the trap door locked open for a further
two or three nights to accustom the cat to entering the trap;

To trap the cat, the bait should be placed in the rear of the trap so that the cat
has to step on the treadle to access the bait;

Secure the trap to the ground, and set it in the late afternoon;

Record the location of all traps with a GPS, to be later mapped on GIS;

The trap should be checked as regularly as possible (i.e. early the following
morning) and not left unchecked for longer than 24 hours;

Captured animals should be approached quietly to reduce panic;

Any non-target animals caught should be inspected for injuries and released
at the point of capture if considered unharmed, or suffering from minimal
injuries; and

Non-target animals suffering from severe injuries should receive appropriate
veterinary attention.
Cat disposal
Data Collection
Regulations
Final

Captured cats should be assessed to determine if they are domestic or wild.
Domestic cats should be transferred to Council if safe to do so;

If the cat is to be transported away from the trapping site for euthanasia, the
trap should be covered to provide shelter from the elements, and to minimise
the impact of visual stress;

Feral cats are only to be euthanased by an authorised officer by a gunshot to
2
the head, overdose on barbiturate, or inhalation of anaesthetic gasses or CO .
Death must be confirmed with corneal reflexes; and

Destroyed animals should be disposed of by incineration or burial in a 1m
deep pit, with carcasses covered by at least 0.5 m of soil.

Trap number;

Trap location and co-ordinates;

Names of personnel;

Date of commencement, each trap check and completion;

Duration of operation;

Number of cats trapped;

Domestic/stray/feral;

Sex and age-class of each cat trapped;

Overall body condition of cats trapped; and

Non-target species trapped.

All relevant legislation and regulations must be followed when trapping foxes
and dogs, including legislation regarding animal welfare (e.g. Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act 1986, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations
2008); and

Notify the public prior to trapping to enable residents to take necessary
precautions for pets.
42
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
6 Monitoring
6.1
6.1.1
Pest Monitoring
Foxes
Bait-take
Measuring bait take is an essential, routine task to be performed as a part of a baiting program.
Its primary purpose is to assess the operational efficacy of a baiting program, but it is also
often used to estimate reductions in the fox population, by measuring the decline in bait-take
over time. It is particularly useful for assessing the initial reduction in the fox population, after
the free-feeding period, when lethal baiting commences. This method assumes that bait-take is
proportional to the reduction in the population. It also assumes that all foxes are equally likely
to take baits, although this is rarely the case. Foxes sometimes cache baits, meaning that one
fox may remove multiple baits. Sub-lethal dosing, where the bait degrades but does not kill an
individual, may also result in an underestimate of fox density. In some cases, rates of bait-take
may be high, but fox activity indices may also remain high. For these reasons, bait-take alone
is not a suitable method for estimating changes in the fox population or impact.
Information recorded during the laying and replacement of baits will provide the data
necessary to calculate bait-take. To analyse the data:
1. Divide the number of baits taken by the number of days between checks, to calculate
the daily bait-take rate; then
2. Divide the daily rate of bait-take by the number of baits laid for each baiting period, to
determine the percentage bait take.
Catch-per-Unit Effort (CPUE)
Catch-per-Unit Effort is used to monitor the effort and success of trapping or culling programs.
Where trapping is undertaken in-lieu of baiting, calculating the CPUE will be necessary.
However, as with bait-take, it is not a suitable technique for monitoring reductions in the fox
population, particularly as in this case, it will not be implemented on a broad-scale.
CPUE should be calculated on a seasonal basis. Data recorded during the operation of traps
will provide the information necessary for analysis. To calculate CPUE, sum the number of
foxes trapped and the total duration of the trapping period.
CPUE = Number of animals trapped / Total number of trap nights
Natal Den Counts
Natal dens can be used to estimate fox populations based on the number of active natal dens;
this method assumes that the number of active natal dens is a function of the number of adult
foxes in an area. It is assumed that for each active den, there are two adult foxes (i.e. male and
female monogamous pair), and an average surviving litter of three to four cubs, based on
Australian studies (Saunders and McLeod 2007). However, there may be local differences in
Final
43
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
litter sizes and cub mortality rates, as well as variation in fox social groups (i.e. nonmonogamous pairings, dispersing or itinerant individuals) or reproductive failure.
Dens are generally only occupied during the breeding season (late-winter to early-spring).
Evidence that a den is active includes fresh scats, diggings, footprints, and odour or food items.
Enlisting the help of the local community to locate and map dens will greatly improve the
efficacy of this monitoring technique (as well as the efficacy of den fumigation).
Natal Dens
Foxes
Materials

GPS; and

Data recording sheets.
Timing and
Frequency

During the breeding season between August and October; and

Prior to den fumigation.
Procedure

Survey a number of randomly or systematically selected grids (e.g. 1 X 1 km)
to search for fox dens. Known dens are recorded and mapped, to be surveyed
during the den monitoring program (prior to fumigation); then

Survey all recorded dens to detect whether they are active or inactive (dens
with more than three cubs recorded are considered to be independent from
nearby active dens).

Date;

Name of personnel;

Location and co-ordinates of den;

Signs of activity; and

Use by native species.

Calculate the number of active natal dens for a particular area;

Estimate the number of adult foxes;

The density estimate of foxes for a defined area following den counts can be
calculated from the following formula:
Data Collection
Data Analysis
D=O*F/A
Where D is the density estimate, O is the observed number of active dens, F
is the estimated number of adults per den (generally assumed to be two), and
A is the area in square kilometres (Mitchell and Balogh 2007).
6.1.2 Rabbits
Spotlighting
Spotlight counts, undertaken from a slow-moving vehicle, have traditionally been used to
monitor rabbit populations. The technique is efficient over large areas and provides a simple
index of abundance. It is also an effective monitoring technique in landscapes where rabbits
make heavy use of above-ground harbour. Similar limitations that apply to spotlight
monitoring for foxes, also apply to rabbits. Thus, it is vital that surveys are standardised as far
as possible, spatially and temporally.
Final
44
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
Spotlighting
Rabbits
Materials

Vehicle (4WD sedan or utility);

Spotlight (12V, 100 watt);

Binoculars;

GPS; and

Data recording sheets.
Timing and
Frequency

Four times per year – seasonally; and

Undertake at least two consecutive surveys for each monitoring season (one
pre- and one post-control where applicable).
Procedure

Spotlighting surveys should be undertaken along fixed transects (10-20 km
long), stratified to sample all habitat types evenly;

Transects should be located in the same areas as warren monitoring (see
below);

Divide the spotlight route into 0.5 km sections (marked with reflective tape), to
facilitate the mapping of pest distributions;

Surveys should begin approximately half an hour following sunset;

Drive at a slow, constant speed, and rotate the spotlight in arcs of 180°;

Count all individuals within a fixed distance from the transect (e.g. 100 m);

Only count animals which can be positively identified; and

Surveys should be standardised as far as possible; start each survey at the
same time and location, travel in the same direction at the same speed, use
the same vehicles, equipment and observers. Undertake surveys in similar
weather conditions for each season.

Names of personnel;

Transect identifier, start and end co-ordinates and location;

Number of sections within each transect;

Date and survey number;

Vehicle type and speed;

Start and finish time;

Weather conditions (wind speed, temperature, rainfall, cloud cover); and

Number of rabbits counted per section of transect.

Calculate the number of animals per kilometre of transect, and take the
average of the two surveys for each monitoring season.
Data Collection
Data Analysis
Final
45
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
Active Warrens
Warren monitoring is a simple monitoring technique which is most effective in areas where
warrens are used extensively (as opposed to above-ground harbours). Monitoring of rabbit
warrens is necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of warren ripping, where it has been used as
a control method (to detect the re-invasion of control areas), and is also useful for identifying
particular land types and areas prone to rabbit infestation. However, it can also be a useful
means of evaluating population trends, providing a measure of long-term changes in the rabbit
population. Warren monitoring provides an index of the total population, based on the number
of active and inactive entrances and indicates the reproductive potential of the population.
Warrens
Rabbits
Materials

Vehicle (4WD sedan or utility);

GPS; and

Data recording sheets.
Timing and
Frequency

Four times per year – seasonally.
Procedure

Establish a number of large plots (1-5 ha), stratified according to habitat type
and approximately 1 km apart to ensure independence;

Mark the grids on a map and generate a random starting point. Locate all
subsequent plots at regular intervals within each stratum;

Permanently mark each plot on the ground and record the position with a
GPS;

Identify and mark the location of each warren with a GPS;

Measure the warren in all four cardinal directions (north, east, south, west);
and

Identify active and inactive entrances.

Plot number, location and co-ordinates;

Date and survey number;

Names of personnel;

Start and finish times;

Warren area and perimeter; and

Number of active and inactive entrances.

Calculate the number of warrens for plots in each area (stratum);

Calculate the density of warrens:
Data Collection
Data Analysis
D = No. warrens in all plots / Total area of plots;
Final

Calculate the average area of warrens, averaged across all plots per stratum;

Calculate the number of active and inactive entrances per plot, and per
hectare in each plot;

Calculate the density of active entrances across the monitoring area (i.e.
active entrances per hectare); and

Only compare counts which are undertaken at the same time of the breeding
cycle in each year.
46
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
6.1.3
Cats
There are few methods currently available for accurately monitoring cat abundance (Denny
and Dickman 2010). The three most commonly used methods include spotlighting, track
counts, and bait-take where poison baiting is used for control (Forsyth et al. 2005), while less
frequently used methods include estimating tree scratches, cat kills, scat counts and camera
surveys (Denny and Dickman 2010). Many of these methods are unsuitable for the WPBR,
because they are best suited to open, dry habitats, with low vegetation cover (Denny and
Dickman 2010). Within the WPBR, where cat monitoring will primarily be used to measure
long-term population trends, and the possibility of mesopredator release, only spotlighting and
camera surveys are recommended.
Spotlighting
Spotlighting of cats can be undertaken simultaneously, while spotlighting for foxes. Thus, no
additional effort will be expended on spotlight monitoring of cat populations. However,
obtaining a reliable population estimate of cats from spotlight counts can be difficult, as the
technique tends to underestimate cat densities in certain habitats, particularly in dense or
forested environments, or overestimate densities around townships and farms (Mahon et al.
1998, Denny 2005). Therefore, it is most useful for providing a coarse and simple abundance
index. Used within the WPBR, this technique may be useful for identifying areas of relatively
higher cat density and/or source populations, and could be used to target further monitoring or
future control efforts.
Motion-sensing Camera Surveys and Occupancy Modelling
Digital, motion-sensing cameras are considered to provide the most robust detection data for
cats (Robley et al. 2010). They are particularly useful in temperate and less open landscapes
where the detection probability of cats is likely to be low, such as within the WPBR. When
designed appropriately, camera surveys are more accurate and less prone to bias than other
methods of monitoring (Robley et al. 2010). Design involves careful consideration of the
number, spacing and placement of cameras, corresponding to the movement patterns and
behaviour of the target species, as well as the type of camera and bait (Denny and Dickman
2010, Robley et al. 2010).
Combined with an occupancy modelling approach (MacKenzie et al. 2006), which estimates
the rates of occupancy under imperfect detection, motion-sensing cameras have been shown to
be effective in not only robustly detecting changes in feral cat populations, but also identifying
individual animals, which may be used to determine the abundance of cats (Robley et al.
2010). Occupancy modelling as a means of monitoring both predator and prey populations is
discussed further below.
Final
47
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
6.2
Biodiversity Monitoring
The ultimate objective of pest control within the WPBR is the enhancement of biodiversity
values by protecting and increasing the abundance and distribution of wildlife species.
Therefore, monitoring changes in the populations of native species is essential. However,
monitoring the response of prey populations to predator control can be problematic because of
confounding environmental factors, natural fluctuations in prey populations, low detection
rates, and complex interactions between species (McLeod et al. 2008). Occupancy modelling is
a rigorous method for measuring population change, which takes these factors into account, by
measuring changes in the proportion of survey sites at which the target species is detected
(Robley et al. 2011). The use of occupancy modelling as a monitoring technique is discussed
further below.
The WPBRF has begun to monitor populations of Southern Brown Bandicoots, using remotesensing cameras, and is currently designing a monitoring program which will use occupancy
modelling to measure changes in the species distribution and abundance, in response to
predator control (see below).
6.2.1
Occupancy Modelling
Occupancy modelling is a transparent and robust means of measuring changes in population
size that takes into account imperfect detectability and confounding environmental factors
(Robley et al. 2011). The probability of detection (which is generally less than 1), is used to
estimate the probability that the species actually occurs at sites where it was not detected
(MacKenzie et al. 2002). Thus, with repeated surveys of the population over time, an estimate
of the occupancy rate and changes in occupancy can be made. Most species exhibit a clear
relationship between abundance and the area of occupancy (Gaston and Blackburn 2000),
making occupancy modelling an efficient and sound alternative to measuring abundance.
Motion-sensing cameras are a cost-effective and accurate means of detecting a large number of
species, including both predator and prey (Robley et al. 2010, 2011). The use of motionsensing cameras to survey populations will therefore, allow monitoring to measure the
responses of native species, as well as long-term changes in pest species. Motion-sensing
cameras and occupancy modelling have been successfully used to measure biodiversity
responses to pest control for the Glenelg Ark (Robely et al. 2011) and recent trials have shown
that it can effectively measure changes in populations of foxes and cats (Robley et al. 2010,
Woodford et al. 2012), as well as Rabbits (Latham et al. 2012). This makes it a highly efficient
monitoring technique. However, the design of the monitoring program would need to be
tailored for each of these species, particularly at the spatial scale, to take into account the
differing scales of movement for each species, and differing detection rates. This will require
further work.
Preliminary design of a monitoring program to detect changes in populations of Southern
Brown Bandicoots within the WPBR has been developed by the WPBRF and Ecology
Australia, and is now being refined. It considers the following factors for occupancy
modelling:

Final
The stratification and randomisation of survey sites based on 500 ha landscape units.
This includes stratification based on:
48
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
-
Status of Southern Brown Bandicoots (i.e. known or uncertain status) to
enable estimation of detection rates within the WPBR and estimation of future
rates of site colonisation;
-
Land Tenure;
-
Control activities, to estimate occupancy in areas where predator control is not
undertaken, with some sites selected far from current predator control
activities as is feasible;

Site independence (i.e. separation of sites by at least one home-range distance);

Timing to ensure that dispersal and immigration within the survey period does not
confound results;

Number of cameras; and

Camera model and bait.
The development of further monitoring programs for native prey and pest species should be
integrated with the overarching Biodiversity Monitoring Program to be developed as part of
the Growing Connections Project.
6.2.2
Ground-nesting Birds
In addition to using motion-sensing cameras to monitor native and introduced mammals, it is
suggested that monitoring of ground-nesting shorebirds, which are also vulnerable to predation
(Maguire 2008, Garnett et al. 2011), is undertaken along the Western Port Bay coastline, as
part of integration with the Growing Connections Biodiversity Monitoring Program.
Western Port Bay supports a number of threatened ground-nesting bird species which are
vulnerable to predation, including the threatened Hooded Plover. However, it is recommended
that monitoring focuses on species which are commonly encountered, to ensure that any
effects are detectable. Suitable species include the Masked Lapwing (Vanellus miles), which
uses a broad range of habitat types, including shoreline habitats (Maguire 2008), as well as the
Pied Oystercatcher (Haematopus longirostris).
Monitoring for shorebirds should be undertaken annually, using transect counts during the
breeding season for target species. Considerations for monitoring of ground-nesting shorebirds
includes: the adequacy of the monitoring program for accurately detecting changes in the
target species; collection of sufficient data to allow meaningful analysis; and potential impacts
of mesopredator release. A protocol for monitoring of Masked Lapwings is provided below.
Final
49
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
Shorebirds
Transect Counts
Materials

Vehicle – 4WD sedan or utility;

Binoculars;

Rangefinder;

GPS; and

Data recording sheet.

During the breeding season, ideally between September and December
(NB. Masked Lapwing may have more than one nesting period);

Select a date before young birds become independent (e.g. First week in
October; and

Undertake survey once a year, during the breeding period.

Establish transects through a variety of habitat types, as determined by
access;

Give each transect a unique identifier, and record the start and end points
with a GPS;

Transects should ideally be 10 km long, and 500 m apart, to avoid double
counting;

Ideally, a total of 10 transects should be surveyed;

Surveys should be undertaken in the morning, and transects should be
either driven or walked;

All Masked Lapwings observed along transects should be counted and their
activity recorded (i.e. Standing / Grazing / Swimming/ Flying off/ Flying /
Nesting/Swooping). Include flocks of juveniles in the count;

The age-class of Masked Lapwings should be recorded as Fledgling,
Juvenile or Adult;

A GPS location should be taken for each bird recorded;

Record the perpendicular distance of each bird, from the observer, using a
rangefinder. If two or more birds are recorded together, measure the
distance from the centre of the group;

All transects for a designated site should be completed within 7-14 days of
the commencement of surveys; and

Surveys should be standardised as far as possible, undertaken during
similar weather conditions, at the same speed and direction for each survey.

Names of personnel;

Date;

Weather conditions;

Start time;

Transect Identifier and survey number;

Perpendicular distance to each bird observed;

GPS location for each bird observed;

Age-class of each bird observed (fledgling/ juvenile/ adult);

Activity of each bird observed; and

Finish time.
Timing and
Frequency
Procedure
Data Collection
Final
50
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
Data Analysis
Final

Calculate the number of birds counted per 10 km transect; and

Record the highest numbers of birds per site for each transect.
51
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
7 Implementation
7.1
Program Co-ordination
The Western Port Pest Animal Group will be formed by various agencies working within the
WPBR to control pest animals. On-ground control works will be facilitated and implemented
by each of these agencies, working across various land tenures, under different projects and
sources of funding. Therefore, it is important that co-ordination of the group is undertaken by a
lead agency, to provide support and direction to participating agencies.
The Western Port Pest Animal Group will meet regularly, and be facilitated by the WPBR
Foundation. The primary purpose of this Group will be to help with the co-ordination of
control works undertaken by various agencies, particularly in terms of control methods and
protocols, timing, monitoring, data collection and analysis, to ensure they are undertaken in a
standardised manner. The Pest Animal Group will also have a role in driving innovation and
improvement in best practice predator control within the region. The Group will also provide a
platform for:

developing clear objectives and direction for pest control works for various agencies;

discussing the results and efficacy of pest control, including problems with on-ground
implementation;

sharing and analysing information;

providing information and direction to prospective participants;

engaging landholders; and

linking with scientific research agencies and institutions.
The aims and purpose of the Western Port Pest Animal Group, and the WPBR Foundation’s
role in facilitating this group are outlined below and illustrated in the organisation chart, shown
in Figure 7.
Western Port Pest Animal Group
Aim:
To co-ordinate vertebrate pest management projects (VPMP)
Objectives: To ensure:
1. Strategic implementation of VPMP across the landscape
2. Best practice is used in VPMPs co-ordinated by the Group
Final
52
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve, Victoria
Facilitating
Planning
Western Port Pest Animal
Group
Western Port
Pest Animal
Coordinator
Members from relevant
agencies involved in
planning and
implementing pest
control works. Could
include:
Employed by the
Western Port
Biosphere Reserve
Responsible for:
-
Calling Meetings
Agenda
Minutes
Follow up
GIS support
Collate reports
Figure 7
Final
Doing
-
WPBR
DELWP
PV
RBGC
PINP
VicRoads
VicTrack
PPWCMA
SBBRRG
Councils
Four main outputs:
-
Best practice defined
Continued improvement of
practices
Coordination between
programs
Reports of results (reports
to the Group from those
implementing works, and
from the Group to those
implementing works.
Implementation of works
On ground works will be
implemented by member
organisations of the Pest
Animal Group,
community groups, and
individuals.
Works will be done in
accordance with the
advice and specifications
as decided by the Pest
Organisational Structure for the Western Port Pest Animal Group
53
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
7.2
Public Engagement and Capacity Building
A good public engagement and extension program will be vital to gaining the acceptance and
support of the wider community. The program should aim to educate the community on the
benefits of pest control, for biodiversity and agricultural production, as well as foster
involvement in pest control or monitoring activities. Maximising participation in the program
is particularly important if the program is to achieve broad-scale and sustained control of pest
populations. Where local participation rates are low, only localised and temporary control can
be achieved, because of the rapid re-invasion of pests from uncontrolled areas into control
areas.
An effective landowner engagement program should also build capacity within the community
to maximise participation rates. Community-based baiting programs in Victoria, such as the
Grampians Ark extension program in Halls Gap and the Carpet Python Fox Control Program
in Benalla, as well as the North Sydney Regional Fox Control Program in New South Wales,
have shown that effective promotion and investment in extension programs can significantly
increase landowner participation in group baiting programs.
Past experience and research from around Australia has shown that, while many landowners
recognise the importance of group baiting (or other pest control works) they lacked the
knowledge, time or motivation to participate (Saunders and McLeod 2007). Similar barriers
have been identified by agencies currently undertaking pest control works within the WPBR.
In particular, there appears to be concern around laying poison and risks to domestic animals,
as well as a lack of motivation, particularly without the provision of funding or other support.
This is compounded by the increasing number of life-style landowners in the region, seeking a
semi-rural experience. The WPBR does not support a traditional agricultural community, and
there are many absentee landowners, who may have no real incentive to undertake pest control
works on their property. These problems may be overcome or ameliorated with a good
education program and either the provision of support services or contractors to undertake
control works on the landowners’ behalf.
Distinctive branding for pest control programs, in the style of similar regional control
programs (e.g. the Ark programs, Out-fox the Fox, Operation Bounceback, etc.), have also
been shown to greatly assist with public education and awareness, engendering community
support, engaging private landowners and other participants, and providing leverage for further
funding.
A model for best-practice in public engagement and extension is provided below. As the
program expands in future, the actions outlined below should be considered for
implementation, as resources allow.
Final
54
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
Public Education and Extension
 Develop distinctive branding and a communications strategy, which should involve the creation of a name
and logo, development of information packages, signage and website
 Distribute pest information packages to various sectors of the community, targeted to particular groups,
including community groups and associations, such as the Vegetable Growers Association. The information
should clearly outline the impacts of introduced pests and the benefits to biodiversity and agriculture, and
provide confidence that pest control can be effective
 Provide landowners with information on ways in which they can participate, and the added benefits of
participation, including enhanced community engagement and connection, building relationships and
transfer of knowledge between landowners and public land managers
 Provide technical information around the control of introduced pests and measures to reduce or remove the
potential risks to domestic animals on their land
 Display large, interpretive signage in prominent places, including roadsides and warning signs on entry into
predator control areas which briefly outline control activities, benefits of control and risks to domestic
animals
 Set-up a pest control hotline for the community to obtain information on control activities, and participation
and to report information, such as pest hot-spots, active fox dens etc.
 Provide regular information updates on the progress of the program via local media, newsletters, and the
website
 Regularly review communication information to ensure that it is relevant and up-to-date
 Develop extension programs to build local capacity through initiatives, such as training days and excursions,
and by establishing partnerships with local education institutions
 Regularly survey community perceptions of pest control to gauge community attitudes
 Hold an annual community meeting to report on the success or otherwise of control activities and to canvass
community concerns
Public Engagement
 Survey local landowners to gauge attitudes towards baiting programs, identify barriers to participation and
opportunities for improvement
 Develop targets for landowner participation to evaluate success
 Do a leaflet drop of all landowners announcing the program and the process of fox management, and hold a
community meeting to provide an opportunity for feedback
 Engage local extension officers with local knowledge and established relationships within the community to
contact landowners who have expressed interest in participation
 Approach other landowners within strategic control areas to gain support and/or participation in the pest
control programs
 Provide training and hold information sessions for landowners where they can collect signage and other
materials necessary for pest control or monitoring activities
 Inform local landowners of ways in which they can participate beyond the core measure of allowing pest
control on their properties, such as taking part in monitoring efforts (e.g. of fox dens), and reducing the
availability of potential food sources
 Engage qualified and experienced contractors to undertake baiting or other control works for private
landowners who do not have the capacity or motivation to undertake control works
 Co-ordinate neighbour notification through project managers so that the onus is not on individual landowners
to notify neighbours of control works
Final
55
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
7.3
Geographic Information Systems
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) provide an increased capacity to plan for, monitor and
evaluate the success of control programs (Towerton et al. 2013), and are essential for effective
landscape-scale pest control programs, particularly where control works are undertaken by
multiple agencies. GIS systems offer a centralised, digital platform to record and analyse
spatial data, allowing land managers to make optimal use of this information.
GIS systems are particularly useful for the planning of a control program, involving tasks, such
as optimising the spatial placement of bait stations and identifying gaps in coverage. GIS is
also a valuable tool for capturing pest control data, including the locations of natal fox dens
and rabbit warrens, as well as for assessing areas of high pest density and modelling predator
and prey populations. Accurate distributional mapping of vertebrate pests within the WPBR
will significantly improve the efficacy of targeting of future control programs and help to
identify potential patterns in species interactions.
One of the main objectives of the Growing Connections Project is to develop an integrated GIS
environment, and this should include provisions for recording and monitoring pest control
works. All future activities undertaken as part of this program should be implemented with the
capacity for GIS to record information, such as pest control locations, activities, and
monitoring results. This information should be recorded in the field by both contractors and
public land management staff, using Global Positioning Systems (GPS). All data collected
should be integrated into a centralised GIS system, managed by a central administrator.
7.4
Data Management
Standardisation of data collection and data recording protocols across the WPBR is critical to
enabling more efficient and robust analyses, to evaluate the operational efficiency and
ecological outcomes of pest control works in the WPBR. This will allow monitoring to inform
the future development of the program, allowing improvement and refinement of pest control
works. Inconsistencies in data collection and information recording can seriously compromise
the value of a pest control program.
Standard data sheets should be developed for all pest control activities undertaken in the
WPBR, either by landowners or contractors, and all contractors and field staff should be
trained in control and monitoring protocols, methods of data collection and reporting.
Standardised datasheets (templates) for pest control works have been developed by the
PPWCMA (see Appendix 2), and may be used as the basis for the datasheets to be used as part
of this program.
All data collected across the WPBR should be stored electronically and submitted to a
centralised database. This includes all GIS data, data on control operations, as well as
monitoring data.
Final
56
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
8 References
Algar D, Smith R (1998) Approaching Eden. Landscope 13(3), 28-34.
Banks PB, Dickman CR, Newsome AE (1998) Ecological cots of feral predator control: foxes
and rabbits. Journal of Wildlife Management 62, 766-772.
Carter A, Luck GW (2013) Fox-baiting in agricultural landscapes: preliminary findings on the
importance of bait-site selection. Wildlife Research 40(3), 184-195.
Carter A, Luck GW, McDonald SP (2011) Fox-baiting in agricultural landscapes in southeastern Australia: a case-study appraisal and suggestions for improvement. Ecological
Management and Restoration 12(3), 214-223.
Catling PC (1988) Similarities and contrasts in the diets of foxes, Vulpes vulpes, and cats, Felis
catus, relative to fluctuating prey populations and drought. Australian Wildlife Research
15, 307-317.
Catling PC, Reid AM (2003) Predator and Critical Weight Range Species Monitoring in the
South East Forests. 5. Results of Spring and Autumn 2003. (Consultancy Report for the
New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service).
Coman BJ, Robinson J, Beaumont C (1991) Home range, dispersal and density of red foxes
(Vulpes vulpes L.) in central Victoria. Wildlife Research 18, 215-223.
DEPI (2014) 1080: Direction for the Use of 1080 Pest Animal Bait Products in Victoria
(Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Wendouree).
DEWHA (2008a) Background Document for the Threat Abatement Plan for predation by the
European Red Fox. Commonwealth of Australia (Department of Environment, Water,
Heritage and the Arts, Canberra).
DEWHA (2008b) Background Document for the Threat Abatement Plan for predation by feral
cats. Commonwealth of Australia (Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the
Arts, Canberra).
DEWHA (2008c) Background Document for the Threat Abatement Plan for competition and
land degradation by rabbits. Commonwealth of Australia (Department of Environment,
Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra).
Dexter N, Meek P (1998) An analysis of bait take and non-target impacts during a fox control
exercise. Wildlife Research 25(2), 147-156.
Dickman CR (1996) Impact of exotic generalist predators on the native fauna of Australia.
Wildlife Biology 2, 185-195.
Ecology Australia (2013) Integrated Predator Control Strategy for the Southern Brown
Bandicoot in the South-east Sub-region. Report prepared for the Department of
Environment and Primary Industries by B Schmidt, D Nicholls, T Bloomfield, T Coates,
J Urlus and D Quin (Ecology Australia Pty Ltd, Fairfield and Western Port Biosphere
Foundation, Hastings).
Final
57
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
Fleming PJS, Allen LR, Lapidge SJ, Robley A, Saunders G, Thompson PC (2006) A strategic
approach to mitigating the impacts of wild canids: proposed activities of the Invasive
Animals Cooperative Research Centre. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture
46, 753-762.
Forsyth D, Robley AJ, Reddiex B (2005) Review of methods used to estimate the abundance
of feral cats. Department of Sustainability and Environment (Arthur Rylah Institute for
Environmental Research, Heidelberg).
Garnett GT, Szabo JK, Dutson G (2011) ‘The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2010’ (CSIRO
Publishing, Collingwood).
Gaston KJ, Blackburn TM (2000) ‘Pattern and Process in Macroecology. ’ (Blackwell Science,
Oxford, UK).
Glen AS, Dickman CR (2003) Effects of bait-station design on the uptake of baits by nontarget animals during control programs for foxes and wild dogs. Wildlife Research 30,
147-149.
Hone J (1999) On rate of increase I: patterns of variation in Australian mammals and the
implications for wildlife management. Journal of Applied Ecology 36, 709-718.
Hone J (2007) ‘Wildlife Damage Control’ (CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood).
Hone J, Duncan RP, Forsyth DM (2010) Estimates of maximum annual population growth
rates (rm) of mammals and their application in wildlife management. Journal of Applied
Ecology 47, 507-514.
Invasive Animals CRC (2009) Uptake Update. WA demonstration site. Vol 2(4).
Johnson CN, Isaac JL, Fisher DO (2007) Rarity of a top order predator triggers continent-wide
collapse of mammal prey: dingoes and marsupials in Australia. Proceedings of the Royal
Society B 274, 341-346.
Kay B, Gifford E, Perry R, van de Ven R (2000) Trapping efficiency of foxes (Vulpes vulpes)
in central NSW: age and sex biases and the effects of reduced fox abundance. Wildlife
Research 27(5), 547-552.
KBR (2010) Western Port Ramsar Wetland Ecological Character Description. Report prepared
for the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.
Latham ADM, Nugent G, Warburton B (2012) Evaluation of camera traps for monitoring
European rabbits before and after control operations in Otago, New Zealand. Wildlife
Research 39(7), 621-628.
MacKenzie DI, Nichols JK, Lachman GB, Droege S, Royle JA, Langtimm CA (2002)
Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology
83(3); 2248-2255.
MacKenzie DI, Nichols JK, Royle JA, Pollock KH, Bailey LL, Hines JE (2006) ‘Occupancy
estimation and modelling: inferring patterns and dynamics of species occurrence.’
(Elsevier, San Diego, USA).
Final
58
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
McLeod L (2004) Counting the Cost: Impact of Invasive Animals in Australia, 2004
(Cooperative Research Centre for Pest Animal Control, Canberra).
McLeod L, Saunders GR (2001) Improving management strategies for the red fox by using
projection matrix analysis. Wildlife Research 28, 333-340.
McLeod L, Saunders GR, Kabat TJ (2008) Do control interventions effectively reduce the
impact of European Red Foxes on conservation values and agricultural production in
Australia. CEE review 06-003. (Collaboration for Environmental Evidence).
McPhee S, Bloomfied TE (2012) Strategy for the eradication of foxes from Phillip Island: Part
1. Summary of the eradication strategy. Prepared for the Phillip Island Nature Park
(Agricultural Technical Services Pty Ltd, Werribee).
Maguire GS (2008) A practical guide for managing beach-nesting birds in Australia. (Birds
Australia, Melbourne).
Mahon PS, Banks PB, Dickman CR (1998) Population indices for wild carnivores: a critical
study in sand dune habitat, south-western Queensland. Wildlife Research 25, 11-22.
Marks CA, Gigliotti F, Busana F, Johnston M, Lindeman M (2004) Fox control using paraaminopropriophenone formulation with the M-44 ejector. Animal Welfare 13(4), 401407.
Meek PD, Jenkins DJ, Morris B, Ardler AJ, Hawksby RJ (1995) Use of two humane leg-hold
traps for catching pest species. Wildlife Research 22(6), 733-739.
Molsher R (1997) ‘Compensatory increases in predation and feral cat numbers following
experimental removal of foxes’ Feral Project No. 69 (Australian Nature Conservation
Agency, Canberra).
Parks Victoria (2004) Parks Victoria Threat Monitoring Protocol – Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes).
(Parks Victoria, Melbourne).
Parks Victoria (2005) Parks Victoria Threat Monitoring Protocol – European Rabbit
(Oryctolagus cuniculus). (Parks Victoria, Melbourne).
Prugh LR, Stoner CJ, Epps CW, Bean WT, Ripple WJ, Laliberte AS, Brashares JS (2009) The
Rise of the Mesopredator. BioScience 59(9), 779-789.
Reddiex B, Forsyth DM, McDonald-Madden E, Einoder LD, Griffoen PA, Chick RR, Robley
AJ (2006) Control of pest mammals for biodiversity protection in Australia. I. Patterns
of control and monitoring. Wildlife Research 33(8), 691-710.
Risbey DA, Calver MC, Short J, Bradley JS, Wright IW (2000) The impact of cat and foxes on
the small vertebrate fauna of Heirrison Prong, Western Australia. II. A field experiment.
Wildlife Research 27, 223-235.
Robley A, Choquenot D (2002) Assessing the Alignment of Parks Victoria’s Fox Control
Program with Priorities for Reducing Risks to Native Species. Report prepared for Parks
Victoria (Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Heidelberg).
Robley A, Gormley A, Woodford L, Lindeman M, Whitehead B, Albert R, Bowd M, Smith A
(2010) Evaluation of camera trap sampling designs used to determine change in
Final
59
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
occupancy rate and abundance of feral cats. Technical Report Series No. 201 Arthur
Rylah Institute for Environmental Research (Department of Sustainability and
Environment, Heidelberg).
Robley A, Gormely A, Albert R, Bowd M, Hatfield C, McDonald R, Thorp A, Scroggie M,
Smith A, Warton F (2011) Glenelg Ark 2005-2010: evidence of sustained control of
foxes and benefits for native mammals. Technical Report Series No. 226, Arthur Rylah
Institute for Environmental Research (Department of Sustainability and Environment,
Heidelberg).
Robley A, Reddiex B, Arthur T, Petch R, Forsyth D (2004) Interactions between feral cats,
foxes, native carnivores, and rabbits in Australia. Arthur Rylah Institute for
Environmental Research (Department of Sustainability and Environment, Heidelberg).
Saunders G, Coman B, Kinnear J, Braysher M (1995a) ‘Managing Vertebrate Pests: Foxes’
(Bureau of Rural Sciences: Canberra).
Saunders GR, Gentle MN, Dickman CR (2010) The impacts and management of foxes Vulpes
vulpes in Australia. Mammal Review 40(3), 181-211.
Saunders GR, Harris S (2000) Evaluation of attractants and bait preferences of captive red
foxes (Vulpes vulpes). Wildlife Research 27(3), 237-340.
Saunders GR, McLeod L (2007) Improving Fox Management Strategies in Australia. (Bureau
of Rural Sciences, Canberra).
Saunders GR, McLeod LJ, Kabat TJ (2008) Do control interventions effectively reduce the
impact of European red foxes on conservation values and agricultural production in
Australia? Systematic Review - CEE Review 06-003 (NSW Department of Primary
Industries, Vertebrate Pest Research Unit, Orange NSW).
Short J, Bradshaw SD, Giles J, Prince RIT, Wilson GR (1992) Re-introduction of Macropods
(Marsupialia: Macropodoidea) in Australia – a review. Biological Conservation 62, 189204.
Short J, Kinnear J, Robley A (2002) Surplus killing by introduced predators in Australia –
evidence for ineffective anti-predator adaptations in native prey species? Biological
Conservation 103, 283-301.
Smith AP, Quin DG (1996) Patterns and causes of extinction and decline in Australian
Conilurine rodents. Biological Conservation 77, 243-267.
Staples LD, McPhee SR (1995) Foxoff Fox Baits: target efficacy and risk to non-targets in
different habitats. In ‘10th Australian Vertebrate Pest Conference.’ Hobart, Tasmania, pp.
53-61. (Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Tasmania).
Sutherland DR, Glen AS, Tores PJ (2010) Could controlling mammalian carnivores lead to
mesopredator release of carnivorous reptiles? Proceedings of the Royal Society B 278,
641-648.
Thompson JA, Fleming PJS (1994) Evaluation of the efficacy of 1080 poisoning of red foxes
using visitation to non-toxic baits as an index of fox abundance. Wildlife Research 21,
27-40.
Final
60
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
Twigg LE, Low TJ, Martin GR, Gray GS (1999) A Review of the anti-coagulant pesticide
Pindone (Vertebrate Pest Research Services: Agriculture Western Australia).
van Polanen Petel AM, Kirkwood R, Gigliotti F, Marks C (2004) Adaptation and assessment
of M-44 ejectors in a fox control program on Phillip Island. Wildlife Research 31, 143147.
Williams K, Parer I, Coman P, Burley J, Braysher M (1995) ‘Managing Vertebrate Pests:
Rabbits.’ Bureau of Resource Sciences and CSIRO Division of Wildlife and Ecology
(Australian Government Publishing Services, Canberra).
Woodford L, Robley A, Gormley A (2012) Can you use automated survey cameras as a tool to
measure the success of a fox control program? Post presentation. Camera Trapping
Colloquium, Taronga Zoo, 2012.
WPBRF (2015) Draft Western Port Biosphere Reserve Biodiversity Plan. Report prepared by
C Chambers, S Jacka for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve Growing Connections
Project (Western Port Biosphere Reserve Foundation Ltd, Hastings).
Final
61
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
9 Glossary
1080
The compound sodium monofluoroacetate, an acute metabolic poison which does not have an
antidote. Particularly toxic to canids.
Bait aversion
The learnt behaviour of a pest species to avoid poison baits, after having ingested a sub-lethal dose
and becoming ill
Bait caching
The removal of bait from its deployment site, and concealment at another site by an animal, for
later consumption
Biodegradable
A substance or object which can be broken down by biological agents (e.g. bacteria)
Biodiversity
The variety of all life-forms, the different plants, animals and micro-organisms, the genes they
contain, and the ecosystems of which they form a part.
Bioregion
Defined regions of Australia with coherent climatic and geophysical characteristics, which contain a
set of distinct ecosystem species
Canid
Animal belonging to the family Canidae, which includes foxes and dogs
Den
A place used as an animal’s shelter or retreat, usually a hole or burrow
Densitydependent
A process regulated by population density or a process which occurs when population growth rates
are regulated by density
Dispersal
Movement away from an existing population or area of habitat to another
Exotic Vegetation
Any vegetation that is not native to Australia or its individual States and Territories. This can
include non-indigenous vegetation.
Finite rate of
increase
The ration of population abundance at successive times (e.g. year 1 to year 2)
GIS
Geographic Information System. A digital platform for creating, analysing and viewing maps and
other spatially referenced data.
Intrinsic rate of
increase
The rate at which a population can increase naturally, under ideal environmental conditions
Indigenous
Vegetation
Includes vegetation that is native to Australia as well as being native to a specific geographic
region.
Mesopredator
A middle-ranking predator within a food-web, which is subordinate to the apex predator
Natal
Referring to birth
Native Vegetation
Vegetation that grows naturally in Australia, part of the pre-European flora
PAPP
Para-aminopropriophenone: a toxic compound trialled as an alternative to 1080, with an antidote
Ramsar Site
A wetland of international significance, listed under the Convention of Wetlands, ratified in Ramsar
Iran, 1971
Recruitment
The survival and addition of juveniles into the population
Survivorship
The probability of surviving to a particular age, or the proportion of individuals within a particular
age group
Final
62
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve, Victoria
Appendix 1
Assessment of control techniques for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve (adapted from Ecology Australia 2013)
Control Technique
Strengths
Weaknesses
Target
Specificity
Welfare Outcomes
Efficacy
Costeffectiveness
Assessment
-
Highly effective over large areas
Rapidly biodegradable
Relatively low risk to bandicoots or other non-target species
Currently available for use
Low cost
-
Potential risks to domestic animals
No available antidote
Not suitable for use in urban areas
Moderate
Slow acting toxicant
Highly
effective
Cost-effective
Most efficient, humane, target specific
and cost effective
Widely used and proven method for
large-scale reduction in fox
populations.
Poison baiting with 1080
via M44 Ejector
-
-
Potential risks to some domestic animals remains
Additional cost of ejectors
High
Slow acting toxicant, but
reliable lethal dose
Highly
effective
Unknown
1080 deployed in conjunction with M44 ejectors substantially reduces nontarget risks
Poison baiting with PAPP
-
Reduced risk to non-target native species
Low risk of bait degradation allows lower doses of 1080
Reliable lethal dose and no bait caching – bait-take
equivalent to kills
Selective toxicant with fewer non-target risks for some
species
Available antidote for domestic animals
Fast acting toxicant
-
High susceptibility of Southern Brown Bandicoots
No sensitivity assessment published for Australian
native mammals
Antidote only effective within 20 min of poisoning
Not yet commercially available
Potential risk for some domestic animals remains
Additional cost of ejectors
Low Moderate
Fast-acting
Improved welfare
outcomes
Effective
Cost-effective
Not suitable for use in the WPBR using
standard delivery mechanisms due to
risks to Southern Brown Bandicoots
High
Fast-acting toxicant
Effective
Unknown
PAPP in conjunction with M-44 ejectors
reduces non-target risks.
Not-target impacts not fully known
Decompose rapidly in the presence of moisture
High toxicity and volatility lead to safety issues
Hazardous nature of compound increases handling
times
Hazardous to all animals - no safety mechanisms for
non-target species
Labour intensive
Not suitable for areas near dense cover
Removes young, naïve foxes
Possible demographic compensation, does not lead to
long-term reductions
High costs of operation
Low capture rate
May capture non-target species
Low
Fast-acting – very
humane
Unknown
Unknown
Unsuitable for use except for under
strictly controlled situations. Not to be
used in the WPBR
High
Humane, but depends on
skill of shooter, firearm
gauge, shot size and
distance
Ineffective
Expensive –
high labour
costs
Suitable only for small-scale control
Low
Ineffective
Expensive
Useful only in urban areas, for localised
control, to remove problem animals
High, with
den check
prior to
fumigation
Low
May cause injury, but low
risk if operated correctly,
with frequent inspection
and trap clearance
Humane
Low
Expensive
Useful for localised or supplementary
control and in urban areas, as well as
for monitoring
Non-lethal
Highly
effective if
wellmaintained
Expensive –
materials and
maintenance
Suitable for in-situ conservation in
urban areas. Not suitable for widescale control
Low
Non-lethal
Unknown
Unknown
Useful in limited circumstances for
localised control
Most efficient and cost-effective means
of achieving a large knock-down in the
population. Most effective when used
prior to warren fumigation and ripping
Not recommended for use within the
WPBR due to non-target risks to
Southern Brown Bandicoots
Foxes
Poison baiting with 1080
Poison baiting with PAPP
via M44 Ejector
Cyanide
-
-
Much reduced risk of non-target impacts to native species,
including the Southern Brown Bandicoot
High target specificity
Rapid action allows retrieval of fox carcasses, close to bait
stations for: non-target or target verification, monitoring of
re-invasion rates, indices of abundance and age structure
Low manufacturing costs
-
Shooting
-
Large numbers of foxes may be shot over large areas
Low non-target risks
Popular with agricultural communities and shooting clubs
-
Trapping
-
Non-target animals can be released
Suitable for urban areas where baiting is unacceptable, or for
small, enclosed areas
-
Den fumigation and
destruction
-
Kills cubs and removes next generation
Good for monitoring purposes if dens are not destroyed
following fumigation
-
Difficult to locate dens
Adult females rarely inhabit den after first few weeks,
adult males never in dens
Exclusion fencing
-
Non-lethal, and no risk to domestic animals
Good for small, high value areas, particularly in urban
environments
-
High costs of fence construction
Requires regular inspection and maintenance
Effects of fencing on native fauna movements
unknown
Possible increased risk to native species during
bushfire, by blocking escape
Prevalent use of surface harbour, not limiting in the
WPBR
Use of surface harbours, such as woody weeds, by
native species for shelter
Harbour removal
Rabbits
Poison baiting with 1080
Poison baiting with
Pindone
Final
-
-
Good for urban areas
Destruction of rabbit warrens may help reduce rabbit
numbers
-
Effective over large areas
Rapidly biodegradable
Very effective where rabbits are mainly surface dwelling
Relatively low cost
Effective over large areas
Less toxic to livestock
Antidote available (more suitable for urban areas)
-
Potential risks to livestock
Not suitable for use in urbanised areas
Moderate
Slow-acting toxicant
Highly
effective
Cost-effective
-
Potential risks to Southern Brown Bandicoots
Relatively expensive
Less soluble in water than 1080
Moderate
Slow-acting toxicant requires several
consecutive doses
Highly
effective
Cost-effective
-
63
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve, Victoria
Control Technique
Strengths
-
Warren ripping
Warren fumigation
Surface harbour removal
-
Very effective in areas where rabbits are mainly surface
dwelling
Does not require pre-baiting
Removes the principal shelter used by rabbits
Reduces the rate of recolonisation
Achieves longer lasting control
Cost-effective on a large scale
Effective as a follow-up control technique
Effective in rocky or hard to access areas
Smoke can indicate location of unseen entrances
Suitable in urbanised areas
-
Increased efficiency of other control efforts
Reduces the suitability of habitats
Reduces the rate of recolonisation
Weaknesses
Target
Specificity
Welfare Outcomes
Efficacy
Costeffectiveness
Assessment
-
May cause some erosion, if not ripped correctly
Less effective in areas where rabbits are mainly
surface-dwelling
Unsuitable on steep slopes or in rocky areas
Labour-intensive
Not suitable as a primary control technique
Warrens fumigated but not destroyed are readily reopened
Not suitable for large areas
Native vegetation may be used as surface harbour
Removes critical habitat components such as hollow
logs, rocks, shrubs etc.
Use of surface harbours by native species for shelter
High
Considered humane,
depending on the depth
of ripping
Highly
effective
Cost-effective
Highly effective when used postpoisoning
High
Humane
Effective
Expensive
Suitable as part of an integrated
program, used in conjunction with
poison baiting and warren ripping, as
necessary
Low
Non-lethal
Low
Expensive
Useful in limited circumstances for
localised control
Not suitable for use in Victoria, due to
potential non-target risks and the
requirement for burying baits
Not suitable for use in Victoria, due to
potential non-target risks and the
requirement for burying baits
Suitable only for localised control, in
isolated areas
-
Cats
Poison baiting with 1080
-
Efficient and cost-effective over large areas
Relatively low non-target risks (with buried baits)
-
Baits must be buried – cats are only likely to take
surface-laid baits
Moderate
Slow-acting toxicant
Effective
Cost-effective
Poison baiting with PAPP
-
Efficient and cost-effective over large areas
Relatively low non-target risks (with buried baits)
-
Baits must be buried – cats are only likely to take
surface-laid baits
Moderate
Fast-acting toxicant
Effective
Cost-effective
Shooting
-
Suitable for localised control/eradication from certain areas
Suitable for isolated areas (e.g. islands)
High target-specificity
-
Labour intensive
Not suitable for areas near dense cover
Cats not often seen in spotlights
High
Low
Expensive
Trapping
-
Low non-target risks
Suitable for use in urban areas
Successful in highly modified habitats (e.g. rubbish tips)
Low non-target risk
Non-lethal technique often advocated for reducing the
breeding population in urban and per-urban areas
-
Labour intensive
Not suitable for broad-scale control
Moderate
Humane, but depends on
skill of shooter, firearm
gauge, shot size and
distance
Humane/non-lethal
LowModerate
-
No reduction in predation pressures
Ineffective for widely-dispersed, open populations
Uncertain welfare outcomes for re-released cats
High
Non-lethal, but re-release
of abandoned cats may
be considered inhumane
Ineffective
Expensive –
high labour
costs
Expensive –
labour and
treatment
Trap-neuter-release
Final
Suitable only for localised control,
mostly in modified environments (e.g.
rubbish tips)
Ineffective and not recommended.
64
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve, Victoria
Appendix 2
Sample of data recording template for fox baiting developed by the Port Phillip and Western Port Catchment Management Authority
Reserve:
Service provider:
Mt Fernie
Dates:
Free feed
John Citizen
Reserve:
Service Provider:
Signage Displayed #
8/04/2012
Poison start
1/05/2012 Finish 30/05/2012
Program outline (include start date, finish date, operators/personnel, signage, mail outs, free feeding, layout, weather and
other details affecting program):
Site
No.
Site 1
Final
GPS
Easting
Northing
145.85599899
38.71741601
Date Set
8/04/2012
Bait type
Free Feed
Site description
8/04/2012
65
Dates:
Poison
start
Free feed
Notes:
Finish
Bait codes
FF: Fee feed
F: Fox
PO: Poison
B: Bird
RB: Replacement bait
C: Cat
NT: Not taken
D: Dog
H:
Human
Species Codes
SM: Small
mammal
L: Livestock
O: Other
U: Unknown
Inspection 1: Date
Taken by Disturbed
by
11/04/2012
Site No.
New Bait
Inspection 2: Date
Taken
Disturbed
by
by
14/04/2012
New Bait
Inspection 3: Date
Taken by Disturbed by
16/04/2012
New Bait
Site 1
N
FF
N
FF
NF
FF
Rats
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
Appendix 3
Multi-criteria Decision Analysis scoring system for site prioritisation
within the Western Port Biosphere Reserve
Details of the multi-criteria decision analysis, undertaken as part of the site prioritisation
process are provided below, including the GIS layers used, the selection and categorisation of
values and the scoring system under each of the criteria.
Spatial coverage
Areas currently controlled for foxes were used as the basis of this analysis, according to the
following procedure:
1. Areas currently managed for foxes were mapped (using either baiting or leg hold
trapping) from point locations or polygons, with a 1-km buffer was applied around
point locations or polygons, as the potential area of influence;
2. Grid cells considered to be within an area currently managed for foxes (i.e. with a
mapped control point and buffer) were not included the analysis;
3. All remaining grids were assessed for their proximity to current control areas and
given a scored as follows:

Cells adjacent to current control areas = 1

Cells not adjacent to current control areas = 0
Extent of remnant vegetation
The extent of remnant vegetation was assessed using the Department of Environment and
Primary Industries 2005 Ecological Vegetation Class (EVC) modelling (NV2005-EVCBCS).
1. The area of all EVCs was calculated for each grid cell;
2. Each grid cell was assigned a score based on the area of remnant vegetation,
standardised according to the following categories:
Final

90-100 ha = 1

80-90 ha = 0.9

70-80 ha= 0.8

60-70 ha = 0.7

50-60 ha = 0.6

40-50 ha = 0.5

30-40 ha = 0.4

20-30 ha = 0.3

10-20 ha = 0.2

0-10 ha = 0.1
66
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
Land Management
A land management layer was created using the ‘Public Land Management’ GIS layer and
‘Melbourne Water-owned land’ GIS layer to identify public land which may be managed for
conservation. The layer identifies land that is managed by DEPI, Parks Victoria, Councils, and
water authorities.
1. The area covered by the land management layer was calculated for each grid cell;
2. Each cell was assigned a score based on the calculated area, and its connectivity to
other cells containing public land, according to the scoring system below:

≥ 50% = 1

25-50% = 0.75

10-25% = 0.5

<10% and adjoining a cells with ≥10% public land management= 0.25

<10% and not adjoining a cell with ≥10% public land management = 0
Land Use
The Land Use analysis was based on zoning under the Victorian Planning Provisions, to
provide a measure of the degree of urban development, and hence, feasibility of fox control.
1. Each grid cell was assigned a land use category based on the dominant land use zoning
for the cell (i.e. zones covering >50% of the cell);
2. Each cell was given a score based on the assigned zone, as follows:

Public or Commonwealth Land zones (CA, PCRZ, PPRZ, PUZ) = 1

Private land - rural or semi-rural land use (FZ, GWZ, RCZ, RLZ, SUZ) = 0.5

All other zones = 0
Fauna Species
Records of fauna species considered to be vulnerable to fox predation were used to score each
cell. Robley and Choquenot (2002) ranked Victorian fauna species according to their
vulnerability to fox predation, based on biological and behavioural traits. The analysis used
those species identified as vulnerable, which occur in the WPBR. Fauna records were extracted
from the Department of Environment and Primary Industries Victorian Biodiversity Atlas
(Fauna25vba).
1. A list of species was generated based on vulnerability to fox predation (Table 3 ).
These included:

Species rated as Moderate or High vulnerability to fox predation in (Robley
and Choquenot 2002)

Migratory bird species listed under international treaties (excluding pelagic
birds)
2. A search of the Victorian Biodiversity Atlas was undertaken for the selected species;
Final
67
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
3. The total number of fauna records was calculated for each cell and divided by the
highest value, to give a standardised score between 0 and 1.
Table 3
Fauna species selected for the prioritisation of control areas
Species
Conservation Status
FFG
DSE
EPBC
International Treaties
Bar-tailed Godwit
Limosa lapponica
Black-tailed Godwit
Limosa limosa
Broad-billed Sandpiper
Limicola falcinellus
Caspian Tern
Hydroprogne caspia
Cattle Egret
Ardea ibis
Common Greenshank
Tringa nebularia
vu
BONNA2H,CAMBA,JAMBA,ROKAMBA
Common Sandpiper
Actitis hypoleucos
vu
BONNA2H,CAMBA,JAMBA,ROKAMBA
Curlew Sandpiper
Calidris ferruginea
en
BONNA2H,CAMBA,JAMBA,ROKAMBA
Double-banded Plover
Charadrius bicinctus
Eastern Curlew
Numenius madagascariensis
Eastern Great Egret
Ardea modesta
Glossy Ibis
Plegadis falcinellus
Great Knot
Calidris tenuirostris
Greater Sand Plover
Grey Plover
Grey-tailed Tattler
Tringa brevipes
Hooded Plover
Thinornis rubricollis rubricollis
Latham's Snipe
Gallinago hardwickii
nt
BONNA2H,CAMBA,JAMBA,ROKAMBA
Lesser Sand Plover
Charadrius mongolus
cr
BONNA2H,CAMBA,JAMBA,ROKAMBA
Little Curlew
Numenius minutus
Long-nosed Bandicoot
Perameles nasuta
Long-toed Stint
Calidris subminuta
nt
BONNA2H,CAMBA,JAMBA,ROKAMBA
Marsh Sandpiper
Tringa stagnatilis
vu
BONNA2H,CAMBA,JAMBA,ROKAMBA
Pacific Golden Plover
Pluvialis fulva
vu
BONNA2H,CAMBA,JAMBA,ROKAMBA
Pectoral Sandpiper
Calidris melanotos
nt
BONNA2H,JAMBA,ROKAMBA
Red Knot
Calidris canutus
en
BONNA2H,CAMBA,JAMBA,ROKAMBA
Red-necked Stint
Calidris ruficollis
Ruddy Turnstone
Arenaria interpres
Ruff
Philomachus pugnax
Sanderling
Calidris alba
Sharp-tailed Sandpiper
Calidris acuminata
BONNA2H,CAMBA,JAMBA,ROKAMBA
Short-tailed Shearwater
Southern Brown
Bandicoot
Puffinus tenuirostris
JAMBA,ROKAMBA
Isoodon obesulus obesulus
L
nt
Terek Sandpiper
Xenus cinereus
L
en
BONNA2H,CAMBA,JAMBA,ROKAMBA
Whimbrel
Numenius phaeopus
vu
BONNA2H,CAMBA,JAMBA,ROKAMBA
White-footed Dunnart
Sminthopsis leucopus
Wood Sandpiper
Tringa glareola
Final
BONNA2H,CAMBA,JAMBA,ROKAMBA
vu
BONNA2H,CAMBA,JAMBA,ROKAMBA
BONNA2H,CAMBA,JAMBA,ROKAMBA
L
nt
CAMBA,JAMBA
CAMBA,JAMBA
BONNA2H
vu
BONNA1,CAMBA,JAMBA,ROKAMBA
vu
CAMBA,JAMBA
nt
BONNA2S,CAMBA
en
BONNA2H,CAMBA,JAMBA,ROKAMBA
Charadrius leschenaultii
cr
BONNA2H,CAMBA,JAMBA,ROKAMBA
Pluvialis squatarola
en
BONNA2H,CAMBA,JAMBA,ROKAMBA
L
cr
BONNA2H,CAMBA,JAMBA,ROKAMBA
L
vu
L
L
BONNA2H,CAMBA,JAMBA,ROKAMBA
BONNA2H,CAMBA,JAMBA,ROKAMBA
vu
BONNA2H,CAMBA,JAMBA,ROKAMBA
BONNA2H,CAMBA,JAMBA,ROKAMBA
nt
L
BONNA2H,CAMBA,JAMBA,ROKAMBA
EN
nt
vu
BONNA2H,CAMBA,JAMBA,ROKAMBA
68
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve, Victoria
Figure 8
Final
Site prioritisation analysis for future control works, showing areas of current control and their potential area of influence within the Western Port Biosphere Reserve
69
Predator Control Strategy for the Western Port Biosphere Reserve,
Victoria
Final
70